A Representative Democratic View of the Court Issue

NDN | Photo Gallery | Documents | Classroom | Search

Arthur Lamneck
Congressman, Ohio
Radio speech in the House of Representatives, March 4, 1937

Publishing Information

Mr. Lamneck. Mr. Chairman. The Supreme Court controversy is the most important issue that as confronted the country since the Civil War. Efforts are being made to becloud the issue by injecting politics. I want it clearly understood that I am a Democrat; that I loyally supported Mr. Roosevelt in both of his campaigns for the Presidency that I will continue to support him when I think he is right; but that I will oppose any effort to rob the people of the liberties and rights that have been so dearly gained. The question is not whether we shall or shall not support the President, but whether we shall do it within the framework of the Constitution. Since the almost total surrender by Congress of its power to the Executive, the Supreme Court remains the last bulwark of the people's rights.
Let us look back in history and note the struggles of the people to gain these rights. In ancient Rome the common people once left the city and refused to come back unless they were given written laws to protect their liberties. The freemen of England defeated the forces of King John and forced him to sign the Magna Carta—the bill of rights upon which Anglo-Saxon law is based. The Puritans, sailed the then unknown Atlantic to find a place where they could enjoy the right to worship God as they saw fit. The history of the Colonies is a history of the struggle of people for the right to govern themselves. Franklin, Jefferson, and the other signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in support of the Declaration, but it took seven long years of bloodshed and suffering to make independence a fact.
The people who have emigrated to America have come here seeking the free exercise of rights denied them in their own countries. The French Huguenots came here seeking the right to worship as they pleased—and found that right. The Irish fled their homeland because they could enjoy here the right of self-government. The subject people of Austria and Russia found in America that freedom denied them in their own lands. Many people came to this country from Germany shortly after the failure of the revolution of 1848, in which the German people rose against the ruling class and demanded their rights. After putting down the revolution, the rulers of Germany became increasingly oppressive and hundreds of thousands of the common people emigrated to other lands, the greater number to America.
Up to the present time the American people have continuously fought for, and succeeded in adding to, their rights Will it be said that in 1937 the tide turned and they commenced to lose them? Will the tide of freedom-seeking emigrants turn the other way? Will Americans have to leave their own country to seek their rights? I trust not.
To find the reason why the framers of our Constitution deliberately divided the powers of the Government into three branches we must first know the conditions as they existed prior to its adoption. The colonists had suffered from unchecked power in the hands of one man, George III. This British King controlled the Parliament and appointed and controlled the judges. The wise fathers of our country decided that they would not allow such a thing to happen in America. They gave the power of making laws to Congress, the power of interpreting the laws to the Courts, and the power of executing the laws to the President. They did this deliberately, so that no one man or group could centralize the power.
Let us see what former Presidents have said on this aggrandizement of power in the hands of one man. Washington, in his Farewell Address, said:
"The spirit of encroachments tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism."
Washington said further:
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution of constitutional power be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment, but let there be no change by usurpation."
Our fourth President, James Madison, wrote:
"The accumulation of all powers—legislative executive, and judicial—in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
Supporters of the President's proposal speak of a "mandate" given the President because of his overwhelming majority. Throughout his entire campaign the President spoke not a word about this proposed change. The Democratic national platform states:
"If problems cannot be effectively solved by legislation within the Constitution, we shall seek such clarifying amendments as will assure...power to enact these laws which...we...shall find necessary. Thus we propose to maintain the letter and spirit of the Constitution."
Every Congressman, every President, must take a solemn path to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution undermining the Supreme Court in order to shove unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the people is as much a violation of this oath as it would be to tear the to shreds.
We have recently had a case of an executive undermining the judiciary in Michigan. Some automobile workers went on a strike and seized the factory of their employers. They comprised a very small minority of the total number of workers, but because of their key position they threw ten times their number out of work. The factory owner sought and received an injunction—the court ordering the men out of the factory. The men refused to go; and when the sheriff reported to the Governor that he did not have sufficient men to evict the strikers, but that the non-striking workers were about to evict them, the Governor had the National Guard surround the factory to protect the strikers in their illegal act.
This Governor, who is said to have White House ambitions, also took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution and faithfully execute the laws of the State of Michigan.
The right to enjoy one's property is a part of the Bill of Rights; and if the workers seize other people's property, how long can they be sure that their own property will be safe from seizure? I believe it was Lincoln who said, in effect, "Do not destroy your neighbor's house, lest your own house be destroyed."
Do not mistake me—I am a friend of labor. I believe the worker has the right to bargain collectively or individually as he chooses, to work if he chooses, quit when he chooses, and go on strike when he chooses.
Would-be dictators always incite the worker, recount the sufferings of the people, and then explain that in order to correct these conditions they must give up rights and powers. Once in possession of this power the dictator is no longer a would-be, but a reality. The people find that the silken threads have turned to chains, and that the long struggle to regain their lost rights has again begun.
Take Italy for example: Mussolini has placed Italy back on its feet, but at the cost of the people's rights. You are either in favor of the Fascist Government, or you are in jail. Germany is another example; Hitler has improved things. in a material way, but at the cost of free speech and free press. In Russia, anyone who has a different opinion from the ruling clique is soon liable to find him before a firing squad.
Let us see what happens to groups in dictator-controlled nations. In Russia, there is no such thing as freedom of religion. In Germany, the Nazis are in constant warfare with both the Catholic Church and the Protestants. In Mexico, a young girl suffers death for attending a religious ceremony in defiance of the law. In Italy the Masonic order is suppressed. In Germany the Jews are oppressed and have suffered the loss of their rights. Labor has suffered the loss of its rights in both Italy and Germany.
The people of these countries once had the rights we now enjoy, but were careless of them. They do not have them now. They cannot worship God as they please, or speak according to their conscience, or participate in the affairs of their government. These people can give Americans the answer to the question of what can happen to a nation that grows indifferent toward liberty. They lose it. And once lost, the reclaiming of liberty may be vastly more difficult, more bloody, and more tragic than the original winning of it.
These rights have been regarded by our ancestors as so precious that they have suffered untold hardships, and have even given up their lives to gain and preserve them. Are we to sit supinely by and see them taken away? Shall the sufferings, sacrifices, and struggles of our patriots have been in vain? Just as the fathers of our country dedicated their lives and fortunes to making America free, it is for us, the living, to dedicate our lives to keeping it free. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
In a world given over to one-man governments, the President has stood out as the defender of democracy—has made numerous speeches advocating that we Americans should prove to the world that "democracy will work." Can this be the same man who, controlling the legislative branch of the government, now seeks to gain control of the judiciary? Do we want a one-man government; no matter how benevolent?
I do not believe that Franklin Roosevelt has dictatorial ambitions; but we must remember that the term of Presidents is limited and that some other man in the White House might use the combined executive, legislative and judicial power to the detriment of the people and not to their advantage. I do not believe that the President now has any intention of taking away the liberties of our people; but I would like to make it clear to you that the Supreme Court is the last guardian of your rights. If you allow the Court to be packed today, you are liable to find that your liberties have vanished tomorrow.
An appeal is being made to the farmers to support the President in his demand. They are being told that the only way to give them the legislative aid they desire is this judiciary change. They are not told that this is the beginning of the probable loss of their rights—the right to plant what they want, when they please, and to sell their produce where they please—the right actually to hold property, the right of free speech. Are the farmers willing to risk losing their rights and independence for a small yearly soil-erosion or crop-curtailment check? Are they willing to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage?
The graveyard of the Democratic Party is strewn with the remains of Congressmen who, following the dictates of their conscience and the interests of their constituents, dared to vote against some of the administration's proposals. The Democratic Party will probably find itself in the graveyard as if it allows itself to be known as the party that surrendered are the hard-won rights of the American people.
The United States has done well under our present form of constitutional government. We have grown from thirteen sparsely settled States with a population of 3,000,000 to a great Nation, spanning the continent, with a population of 130,000,000 and a standard of living the highest the world en has ever known. The authors of the Declaration of Independence said:
"Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."
If we feel the need of a change in our form of government, we should remember that the Constitution provides for such a change by amendment. Opponents of the proposal to submit the issue to the people claim that it would take too long. This argument lacks force by reason of the fact that the prohibition repeal amendment was adopted a few short months after the people had been given the opportunity to vote on it. You can trust the American people. They have uncommonly good common sense. If we are to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then we must let the people have final say on important of changes in the structure of the Government.
In conclusion, my fellow citizens, I again warn you that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; and I appeal to you to make your wishes on this most important issue known to your servants in Congress. Let us keep our liberties intact, place patriotism above politics, and fritter not away for a momentary good the hard-won values of centuries of endeavor.