A CONSTITUTIONAL TEST

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 91, 11 January 1935, Page 8

A CONSTITUTIONAL TEST

The reports of the proceedings initiated in the United States Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of certain acts of the Roosevelt Administration in connection with its national recovery legislation-—the “New Deal”—are of great interest. In America they are regarded as a test of the strength and elasticity of the Constitution itself, and of the extent of the Supreme Court’s powers and discretion in adapting its point of view to rapidly changing circumstances and momentous events. It has been pointed out that both the National Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act contain provisions that probably would not have been sustained by the Court a generation ago. If the Court at this juncture should decide that these are unconstitutional, the President will be faced by a stonewall, and a serious constitutional crisis may develop. The United States Supreme Court is regarded as the guardian of the people’s rights against acts of the Legislature. It can apply the brake if it thinks the Legislature has gone too far, or release it if it considers that the Legislature, while seeming to strain or exceed the limits of the Constitution, is acting upon a principle of justice which is in consonance with' the ideals set forth in that historic document. Fundamentally, however, it is the Court’s business to see that the only changes that are made in constitutional practice are those which are sanctioned by the votes of the people in referenda on specific questions. President Roosevelt’s opponents and critics in politics and business declare that the acts of his Administration insofar as they interfere with individual freedom of initiative are in direct conflict with the principles which the Constitution was designed to preserve and fortify. On the other hand it is argued that since a change of circumstances involving the nation in a crisis of unprecedented gravity necessitates a change of method what may have been unconstitutional five years ago must in the national interest be regarded as constitutional now. ‘ All agree that the position of the Supreme Court at present is one of great and embarrassing difficulty, resembling in some respects the position of the British House of Lords when its power of veto was curtailed by the Asquith Government in the celebrated Parliament Act. The Court has already decided against the Administration’s petroleum control programme, and is now considering what is described as the most vital phase of the New Deal, namely, the action of Congress in voiding the so-called gold clause in public and private securities. These and other constitutional matters, of course, are not considered by the Court on its own initiative. It is sitting as a judicial body to hear the representations of individuals or interests who are claiming protection from alleged unconstitutional acts of Government. The fact that these claims have been preferred by opponents of the Government, and hence in a large sense are a political move, makes the Court’s position at once difficult and delicate, and the outcome of the present proceedings a matter of immense importance to the American people.