xt7wwp9t2q46_128 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61.dao.xml American Liberty League 37 linear feet archival material English University of Kentucky This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed.  Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically.  Physical rights are retained by the owning repository.  Copyright is retained in accordance with U. S. copyright laws.  For information about permissions to reproduce or publish, contact the Special Collections Research Center. Jouett Shouse Collection (American Liberty League Pamphlets), No. 131 "A Reply To Secretary Wallace's Question 'Whose Constitution?' The Dominant Issue Of The Campaign," By Raoul E. Desvernine, Chairman, National Lawyers Committee and Member of the Executive Committee of the American Liberty League, August 9, 1936 text No. 131 "A Reply To Secretary Wallace's Question 'Whose Constitution?' The Dominant Issue Of The Campaign," By Raoul E. Desvernine, Chairman, National Lawyers Committee and Member of the Executive Committee of the American Liberty League, August 9, 1936 2013 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61/59m61_131/Am_Lib_Leag_131_001/Am_Lib_Leag_131_001.pdf section false xt7wwp9t2q46_128 xt7wwp9t2q46 J 0 I N  
THE ARIERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE   . * *
*   A REPLY T0
The American Liberty League is organized to defend   “7 9
and uphold the Constitution of the United States and to       S
gather and disseminate information that (1) will teach    
the necessity of respect for the rIghts of persons and E
property as fundamental to every successful form of gov-       !
ernment and (2) will teach the duty of govemment to  
encourage and protect individual and group initiative          
and enterprise, to foster the right to work, earn, save,  
and acquire property, and to preserve the ownership and        
lawful use of property when acquired.  
The League believes in the doctrine expressed by  
George Washington in his Farewell Address that while  
the people may amend the Constitution to meet condi-   * * *
tions arising in a changing world, there must "be no   A
change by usurpation; for this * * * is the customary  
weapon by which free governments are destroyed."  
Since the League is wholly dependent upon the con-  
tributions of its members for financial support it hopes   B
that you will become a contributing member. However,   y
if you cannot contribute it will welcome your support as   BAOUL E- DESVERNINE
° n°n'°°mributiug m°mb°r’   Chairman, National Lawyers Committee
....................... A   and Member of the Executive Committee
  of the American Liberty League
Enrollment Blank p  
AMERICAN LIBERTY Lmcus  
NATIONAL Pmzss BUILDING  
WASHINGTON, D. C.  
Date ...............   2Rlc
I desire to be enrolled as a member of the   · I;   tu
American Liberty League.    
E ’?]·Y Lev
Signature ..........................................   I
Name ............. . .............................  
E Street ...................................... . .....  
Q) Z
W   AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE _
E T ~
nl. Own •»•••••••••••••·•••••••••••••••••.•••••.•••• 5 Nationalyeadquarters
u   NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING
C0unty.............. .... ........S¢a¢e....... .... E WASHINGTON, D. C.
Enclosed find my contribution of $ ..........   * *
to help support the activities of the League.  
  Document No. 131 I
(131)   August, 1936

   A Reply to
§ Secretary Wallace’s Question
  Whose Constitution!
1
  The Dominant Issue ofthe Campaign
{ * ~
W SECRETARY HENRY A. WALLACE has
; presented the dominant issue of the campaign
  by appropriately raising the question as to who
  owns the Constitution} This question is most
_   timely, as the activities of his associated New
  Dealers, during the past three years, have caused
  serious doubt in the public mind as to who the
New Dealers think really owns the Constitu-
_ t tion. Can it be that this book was written in
  one of those lucid moments when Henry Wal-
j lace himself succumbed to the unfortunately too
I general impression that the President, and not
* the people, owns the Constitution, an idea to
  HEN you hiwe finished with this L which certain of Mr. Roosevelt’s recent utter- `
Met lease ass it on to Some p ances and many of his actions give color`? It is
pump P P s   tragically amusing to observe Secretary Wallace
friend or acquaintance wnc might be   seeking solace for his unconstitutional immo-
interestcd, calling his attention to the   rality in the constitutional mythology of Mr.
membership blank on page 24. A L Irving Brant°s “Storm Over the Const1tut1on.j’
g He embraces Mr. Brant’s arguments so enthus1-
C § astically—even oiiicially sponsoring his book by
  writing an introduction to it—that one wonders
  if Mr. Wallace has not long felt the need of
Q some sedative for his conscience, troubled or at
  least confused, as it must be, by his futile efforts
W to thus far reach his “New Frontiers” by alien
H and forbidden means. We are, nevertheless,
` grateful to him for letting the New Deal skele-
°   ton out of the closet and confirming our accusa-
  tions as to the real, but concealed, objectives of
the New Deal.2
` MR. WALLACE’S QUESTION is categorically
.   answered by the Declaration of Independence
  ’“Whose Constitution——An Inquiry into the Gen-
j eral; YVelfare" by Henry A. Wallace. (Reynal & Hitch-
· c0§"l)emocratic Despotism” by Raoul E. Desvemine.
(Dodd Mead & Co.)
A 3

  
t
and bY the Censtitutieni and te these whe must be adjudicated by some agency with a rec-
accept such answers, no further answer is neces- ognized iineiitvr ii order, uniformitv and rtree,
s‘h`Y• tical justice is to prevail. Such essential power
The Declaration of Independence states that nee been veeted in the Sunreme Court end with-
“g°Verhmehts derive their juss Pewers from » out the Supreme Court thus functioning, the
the <=<>¤¤<=¤* ¤f the s¤v·=¤=¤¤d·" The d¤<=¤i¤¤   Constitution would be stripped of ou ito ntoiity
establishes two basic principles: First, that the t end rnede e mere eeren of nener_
people are the original source and ultimate t If von obieot to this nower in the iudioiervt
repository of sovereign power; and Second, that, T who do von nronoee as the arbitrator of eon_
therefore, Government must derive its power   etitutionei eontrovereiee?
from the Peeple ehd’ eehsequehtlw can have   To now attack the right of the Supreme Court —
ehly sueh Pewers as are expressly gmhsed te is to declare legislative and executive acts invalid
by the pe°Ple° This principle is the eerhel" h is provoked only by resentment against consti- v
ssehe upeh whieh all demeereeies are f°uhded• I tutional restraints judicially imposed upon those
lh eekhewledgmeht end hhhhmeht ef these E seeking freedom therefrom. This must be so as
principles, the preamble of the Constitution the neonie een et env time emend the Conetitu_ E
emphatically proclaimed the Constitution to be tion in env Wav they nieeee, even to remove
the act ef the sovereign people' Thus the C°h' this restraint of the judiciary if they so wish.
stitution emanated from the people and was not How eeevr therefore, to be reeneetfui of the t
the declaration of the thirteen individual States, nonuier Wifi, if eueh be vour desire!
made jointly and severally, in their sovereign “
ca acity. _ _ _ _
{Tos, Mn Wallace, nttnnoto sovereignty resides T9 DEBATE tha wsu ef _E¤¤ Pam IS to
in th e peeple end in the P e epie eienet end th e { indirectly challenge its validity after the Su-
Constitution and any amendment thereof must v Preme Ceurt has held It a Proper and esscmlal _
have the sanction of, and a mandate from, the prcmgauvg and after the Ijauen has accepted  
people to have any just validity. It is obvious and acted sven that E€t?rm1¤=·¤¤¤_*°r S0 many  
that once the people have formally expressed yeere It ls elmhly Casting about m the grave 1
their sovereign will in a written Constitution, yerd ¤f¤¤¤¤*E¤t1¤¤aT¥h¢9W fer Some corhseto T
that we must look to that Constitution to ascer- glve a Sereblmicc P? Jusuiicaufm for ecuvlucs
tain what the people intended. All of their and amblmms Judmlally mpudmtcjl _
previeuelv divergent pvepeeele end deb er e d r The Supreme Court must determine. the inten-
opinions must be taken to have been compro- 4 uml of {hc authors ef dec Comutuufm as ex-
mie e d end m er e e d iu, end t e h e v e b e ee euthem F· pressed in. the Constitution and their finding
tically expressed by, that written document. i muet bs bmdjug lf lee? and Order am to sX‘st‘
The document must speak for itself. i IS It not a ?v{Sc’ and m face e ncccseary rele
’· that the judiciary shall determine the intention
of parties as expressed in a written document'?
THE CONSTITUTION can het be meihteihed j All the debates in the Constitutional Conven-
as the supreme law ef the land uhless its   tion, the writings of the Founding Fathers, and
Supremacy can he asserted and pr°teeted' The ' all the surrounding facts and circumstances at-
individual ehe States, rights guamhseed by thc tending the formulation of the Constitution, are,
Constitution can not be maintained, and the of eeureer invaluable end competent evidence
integrity of the governmental system established to reeeh en internretetion oi what wee or what
by thc Cehsthutieh can het he Preservefh with' was not intended by its authors. Any historical
out some instrumentality of adjudication. Its iight oeet on this is Obviously of greet impor-
disputed meanings and contested applications , tenee; but Once e determination is mede that
4 E s

 determination is final and conclusive until the r your policies are for the genera] we]{m.e_ why
Pe0P1e heVe otherwise Ordained by amendment- not submit them to popular opinion in the man-
This is the primal concept of our constitutional t nel. nreeetibed by the neeple themselves?
_ PmleeePhY· Why all this discussion of what the Constitu-
Suppose You and MY- Brant can demonstrate tion Was illtiilldéd to O1` lIltC1'1dCd I10t to IIICGII?
historically that the Supreme Court has altered We are teld what it dees mean and if Yen de
or misinterpreted the original intent of the v§ net like the intetntetatien eiven it, yen een
Founding Fathers? Then what? At least if you tainly knew new te enanee it_ Deee net nent,
intend that our traditional constitutional democ- i eneeeetien that the Centt has ehaneed ite mind
racy shall survive, you must not undertake to —’ and may with a dntetent jndieial nereennel
circumvent the judicially adjudicated applica- V again enanee ite mind, eneeeat that yen adVe_
tion of the Constitution by accommodating its eate aamendinew the Cenetitntien by peeking
rrrrgrplfererren re Your ewn pereener eprnrerre the Court with men whose views will be
an t eories. V · ·p
When any orthodox constitutionalist professes _ Sy;·1;);§?e?;Te;;7;r;;·a1l this fnret, ae te th e in_
deverren re the deerrirle er the Fermdrrrg adequacy of the Constitution and its being out-
Fathers, they accept the interpretations and meded by the lnareh ef time? If the Fenndine
adjudications of the courts as to what that doc- Fathers eteated a Gevetntnenta er even if the
rrine Wee and is and de Her renew their ewn Supreme Court has judicially made the Govern-
wishful opinions as to what that doctrine should ment, inadequate et, imntaetieable er ef a
be' Yeu and your ruererleer preeePrer° Mr' character no longer desired by the people, does
Breme h°WeVer’ advocate new rerurnmg re the not the Constitution itself make adequate provi-
Founding Fathers by jumping over all of the eien tel, ite eemedernizatienyp If yen een eue_
decisions of the courts thereby denying the tain nent tneeia why net enbmit it te th e
value and efficacy of precedent and tradition, a neenle? Ate yen and yenr e eu e ee u ee net
revolutionary attitude to any one trained 1n the really e e ekin e ter P eliti e al I e e ee H e te eeeem_
Cernreeu _r‘eW; er’ as ree else Suggeee bY ep` plish by indirection that which you know will
pointing jndges who will look to the pleasure be denied by a nepuler referendum? What
of the President as the fountain-head of all law. e en eeale d feare de yen barber?
If the Constitution was conceived and has
Now, MR. WALLACE, you and others may been developed so as to give special preference
not be satisfied with all tl1e interpretations of to the °°property interests” against the “general
the Constitution made by the Supreme Court.   welfare” why not correct it and make it truly
But why labor under the delusion, or for some if expressive of the “general welfare"? Cer-
concealed reason give the false impression, tainly, you, above all others who are so solicit-
that because the Supreme Court has made a ·¥ ous for and believe so firmly in the people can
particular decision, that the popular will has not believe that the people can not be made to
been thereby thwarted and permanently see where their interests lie, or that the people
blocked? Are you not confusing your wishes, are not able to adequately express, promote,
S no matter how sincere you may be in believing and protect, their own interests?
that they are in the public interest, with the i
will oyr the people as determined in the manner ANOTHER FUND AMENT AL ERROR in yeur
in which they have prescribed that their will understanding ef ent, inetitntiene!
Shell be eeeerremed? Hew_ elSe’ Mr' Werreee’ An elected President and an elected Congress
do Yeu err_1Ve_er yew, epmren as re what the have received a mandate from the people to
Popular wlrr re? rr Yeu ere eenvmeed that perform the duties and exercise the functions t
6 7

 delegated respectively to the executive and First, that your interpretation instead of the
legislative branches of the government; but Supreme C0urt’s interpretation of what the
they have not received. a mandate from the authors of the Constitution intended should
people to interpret the Constitution. The Su- control; and Second, that the Constitution can
preme Court alone has that mandate from the and should be made expressive of what you
people. This is just as true as that the Presi- presume to be the popular will of the general
dent cannot exercise legislative functions or “ welfare by means other than those specifically 1
the Congress executive functions. An election prescribed by the people.
only gives the person elected a mandate to You seem to be laboring under the impres-
exercise the specific functions assigned by the   sion that you can democratically serve the "gen-
people in the Constitution to the office to which eral welfare” by imposing your policies upon
he was elected. the people without their authentic consent,
We have seen President Roosevelt condemned simply because your policies are in your opin-
for usurping legislative functions. We now ion for the “general welfare.” If you believe
find you proposing that he should usurp judi- that, you do not believe in the basic principle
cial functions. Your proposal means exactly of democracy but rather in a paternal totali-
that. If the Supreme Court should be com- tarianism or a beneficent dictatorship. At any
posed of judges whose opinions will yield to the rate, your argument discloses that you have
Pregideufs notions, that would violate the little faith lll, O1` do 110t understand the {unda- .
mandate of the people. That mandate, as ex- mentals of, a constitutional democracy main-
pressed in the Constitution, established the Su- tained by an independent judiciary.
preme Court as an independent and coordinate
branch of the government and there is abso- You DISCI-AIM tl16 1166d of ¤¤1611di11g t}16
lutely no evidence of the people having thus Constitution and propose in your introduction
far changed that mandate. Your proposal to Irving Brant’s book another method of ac-
makes the Supreme Court, without popular complishing your objectives in the "general
sanction or mandate, a mere administrative and welfare.” You say:
cbedient agency cf the Executive- It is not “The important thing . . . is to elect Presidents
necessary expressly to abolish the legislature who will nominate the right men to the Supreme
and the judiciary to remove them as independ- c°m`*-”
ent branches of the government, in order to ln other words, you propose to substitute the
vest complete power in the P1‘eSi(le11t.. The ‘°presumed will of the people as conveyed to a
same practical results can be accomplished by F yes-man Supreme Court by a popularity-hunt-
suffering them to continue in form but strip- ing President” for “an authority arrived at by
ping them of their independent integrity and the balanced interplay of legislative and execu-
making them subservient to the Executive will. 4* tive and judicial functions, all acting according
You and your colleagues are surely writing an to their best wisdom under the rules of the
understandable record of your intentions as to game and all subject to correction or inspiration
what kind of government you purpose to give us. by the similarly sportsmanlike voice of the
people.” To put it still another way, you con-
MUCH OF THIS may Seem Platitudinous but tend that the Constitution is the property of
it goes to the very heart of the argument of the Presidcnh afld mn of the P°°P1°¤ t° the V
your book You 1086 yourself in your Own extent that President Roosevelt, supported by V.
iebyeieeh because you start from ees eeebbeeeiy he D€m¤·=r¤*}<= C¤¤sr¤¤i1¤¤¤1 M¤J¤¤¢y» has i
Pursue wrong fundamenmk You construct been- vested with unrestrained power to act ac-
your entire argument on the two false premises: mrdmg t° hm mm cfmcclvcd u°u°uS of thc
8 9 l

 general welfare by imposing his interpretations “We in the United States should eventually be _
of the Federal Government’s powers through PrePf“'e‘i it eeeesssrv te werk eiit in the sPii`it ei
subservient ss seeesssmsssssshe judicial sp. Mmmm tt mmmmmm mmm mutt tmtmtit ttm
_ sp1r1t of the age as successfully as the Constitution
_ Polnteee In Shore You propose a Government of 1787 mirrored the philosophy of the eighteenth
of a Man or a Group of Men for a Government c,s,mm·y_··
of Laws. “
You have here with courageous frankness ’· Yeut heek has attempted te Pteve that] the
defined the dominant issue of the oampaigm spirit of the age” demands the obliteration of
You have hom clearly exposed the mothod by the.States and- the vesting of unlimited cen-
which the Administration intends to carry our t. trtthzed P0Wtt1‘ H? the Federal Government go do ·
sss policies sha sss pissssssss without esssssssss. m¤>*tt·ms Wttggm tt tmmmt mxmttmmt m_ttm sttt
tional amendments. You have I18lVBly pleaded tml tmittm tit Wtttmttt ttm Ptmmttmtt _mtm-
guilty to she indictment presented sgsshss she tmm ot ttm _tm¤t3m»_t{¤t tttttmtgtt tt httmvttktd
New Doa]. and subservient _]ud1c1ary. To character1ze that
as “the spirit of Madison” is historical blas-
phemy.
IN Yettr Previetis heek “NeW Frehtiersii Yeti You then make this perfectly astounding
claim to have “tried to condense into broad ma- Statement,
terial objectives the philosophy of the New “ _
Deal" and now you enlighten us as to the means bl hg'; miay h°p° that Slice swim can bc iakm as
_ oo ess y as the Constitution was enacted and that
by which you intend to consummate 1t. You have the handiwork will bo oo ondin.ing_»·
removed the perplexity which we have all been _
under as to how the Roosevelt Administration The hettirei eereiierv tee and the stihtie imPii‘
intended to carry out its program in the face of eetieh etv this exliressieh of hvpe of yours is
the recent decisions of the Supreme Court with- that Yeti thitik reveititieh eveh Pessihies and
out proposing a constitutional amendment. Perhelis ltistitieti te eehieve Yetir ehjeetivess it
Your oiiioioi Position in tho Administration constitutional processes move too slowly. Cer-
ontiiios you to Spook oioditnbiy {oi. its Philos- tainly, this statement of yours demands clarifica-
ophy and for "the instruments of public power” tieh· As it stshtis» it iegieeiiv she PrePeriY
which the Administration proposes using. The Permits this amazing ihterehee to be drawn .
legislative and administrative activities of the which We eehtiiiehtiv trust Wes het ihtem`ie‘i·
Roosevelt Administration, the platform adopted We erev thereterev tereeii te eeheitttie ttvm
at the Philadelphia Convention, and the the ergumeht ih Yettr heeit thst Yeti heiieve
speeches of the President himself, all confirm it that the Cehstittitieh Should heiehg te the
tho Viowo which yon express. Ao n motion oi President and not to the people, so that the
fact, your Proposal as to o Moooondv way to President may be the better able to bless the
esaniondw tho Constitution has a Vito] oigniii_ s people with his personal benefactions and, fear-
cance, particularly as the President himself, in the that the Peepie mtiY ih their ighertihee er
his Little Rgek speech, all but declared it $l0tl1fl1l11€SS DOI SCC tl1B atlvisahility of authen-
tically granting the necessary power to the
President, that this power should be conferred
IT IS SIGNIFICANT that there should be such on the President by imposition upon the people
common understanding of the ideas and pro- and without their expressed mandate given in
posal of your book amongst so many eminent their prescribed form. ‘i
book reviewers, political commentators and If, Secretary Wallace, that is not your ‘
journalists. We can’t all he wrong! answer to your own question, then your book
In concluding your book you say: is absolutely meaningless and political twaddle.
10 ii

 IN sssmwc ro Paovs historically that the éxvosad m~=*h¤di wd by thc Self-¤¤¤¤mm¤4s*·
a "broad material objectives of the philosophy of mg bmad “l°gahSmS”_°f the Naw Dcal which
~ the New Dcalw can be cffcctuatcd within the have been so conclus1vely condemned by the
Constitution as originally intended by the Supreme C°m`t‘ Thf·=P<=<>P1¤ hav? Pmscribad iu U
Founding Fathers, in addition to your major exact form the “un1ted effort directed toward
Premise which wc have just dealt with, you justice and the common welfare” that they want,
make supporting arguments which am equally andthe only way you can move forward “1n th1s
e fallacious and historically untrue. We select a j Spun *   * t°_m°°t °°mm°n Pmblems by °°m'
few as Pat illustrations. mon act1on” 1S to proceed in faithful accord
Your Statement that 64Thc new government with the letter and spirit of what they have
was to be a national union of people, and not pr°S°Hb€d’
» a union of sovereign and independent states” is
just not true. lf there is one thing about which IN 1787 THE FOUNDING FATHERS clearly t
the Supreme Court has been consistently and saw the necessity for some “common action”
unanimously certain, it is that our Constitution but they were equally mindful of the need for
established a limited Federal Government of local self-government and were significantly ap-
only expressly delegated and necessarily im- prehensive of the concentration of unlimited
plied powers; a Federal Union of autonomous power in the Federal Government. The Articles
States. of Federation had, in fact, proved “a rope of
The preamble to the Constitution only states sand,” but the Founding Fathers were most
the sanction upon which it is predicated and cautious to skillfully segregate and scatter gov-
the general objectives sought to be obtained; ernmental prerogatives, not only between the
but it does not contain any grant of power. several departments of the Federal Government,
The form of government and the powers with but also between the clearly differentiated juris-
which that government was to be implemented dictions of the Federal Government and the
are set forth in the body of the Constitution. States; and also to expressly limit the powers
Doesn’t it strike you as significant that the body of the Federal Government. lf they had in-
of the Constitution is so explicit in the enumer- tended any such form of government as you
ation of the powers delegated to the Federal impute to them, they need not to have been so
Government, and that in fact it contains more meticulous in this distribution of power and in
prohibitions, against the exercise of power than the enumeration of the powers granted to the
grants of power? ‘ Federal Government. At any rate, the Supreme
V “Now the spirit of the preamble to the Con-   Court of the United States throughout its his-
stitution, with its faith in united effort directed . tory has not sustained your reading of what the
toward justice and the common welfare, was .f Founding Fathers intended; and will you not
needed as badly as it had ever been needed in TQ accept the Supreme Court as the final judge?
1787 or 1858. Moving in this spirit, the people In the period of the great controversy imme-
of the United States might meet their common diately preceding and during the Civil War,
problems by common actions. Otherwise, they there was no effort to make an all-compre-
would be defeated by warring pressure groups hensive and inclusive central government such
and narrow legalisms.” This is, indeed, a pious as you now advocate and seek to attribute to
platitude which everyone can accept without the Founding Fathers. Even the great con- W
compromising any opinion which they might troversy over the right of secession was not be- ’
have. But the common welfare can be just as cause of any alleged right of the Federal Gov-
completely defeated by the "warring pressure ernment to control the internal affairs of the
groups" of the New Deal through their recently several States. It was simply that a State once
12 13

 a part of the Union must continue as a part of the A.A.A., the two keystones to the arch of the
the Union. The Union then, as in the days of New Deal, you say: "There may have been
the Founding Fathers, was not understood to much in these acts and in their administration
mean the surrender of all local rights of self- which was unwise. But the grounds taken by
government to a central government. It was the Supreme Court in invalidating them raise
still a “Union” not a single Government. a most fundamental question as to the ability
of our form of government at crucial times to
_ _ meet nat` ll th bl th t h b
·   E CHALLENGE the h1st0r1cal accuracy of . rimm Y ,,6   ,CmS a are ccomc
_ “Th h r r h C nationa 1n scope. 1S 1S pure soph1stry. The
your assertion at t e ramers o t e on- . . .
_ _ _ _ _ _ · only quest1on raised and dec1ded was whether
st1tut1on were successful 1n writing 1nto the or not the S ccrnc rc isratrvc act before the
enduring law of the land ‘Wc’ The People of Court was wlithin theg sco e of the Federal
` the United States’ concerning the nation as a power Your Statcmcm assumes that the
union of people instead of states, and establish- “c1_uCiar trmaS,, could not be met in an wa
ing the Federal Government as the instrument . . . . Y Y
” whatsoever wzthm the Const1tut1on; and that
of general welfare they never had any Such the "problems” had “become national in sco e ”
nationalism: concept The integrity Of the and therefore could onl be met nationallp fn
sovereignty of the States was maintained and . Y . Y
_ the specific form and through the particular
the Federal Government was only estabhshed . . . .
“ _ ,9 _ constitutional process ut1l1zed by the New Deal.
as the mstrument of general welfare 1n spe- .
_ We challenge that assumption.
cincally enumerated matters. Purely to serve e
your own purposes, you are here attempting to M
construe the preamble as a granting clause. OREOVEIL after tne rnvandatron ot tn6a6
The phrase, eceeneral welrarev only appears laws, the “cruc1al t1mes” did not become
in one other place in the Constitution (Section more_ eeute hutv ee a matter or raete nuan
8, Article I) and even there it has not been ness rmProveu· Has It ever occurred to You
given any sneh hroatl application as you eon_ that these laws were even had economics and
tend_ l.laVen»t you heen taught this hy the had retarded recovery? Perhaps, as recent
Hoosac Mills decision? Or, is it that you just events have Shownv tt IS fortunate tnat Your
refuse to accept every interpretation by the solut1ons were tprevented from becoming “ug.
• · I O   I O
Supreme Court wh1ch does not sustain your uonel In SeoPe· Even tne eeononno Predr166‘
views? t1ons,” wh1ch you impute to the Court, have not
If, on the other hand, you would like to trans_ been demonstratetl to be unsound. On the other
form our governmental system 1nto that form heheh have Your eeohomre Preuueetrona or a
because of the alleged nationalization of matters Pmhheu eoonomY through governmental reg?
previously considered only local, you have all mentation been Proveu eounu and what tne
the means available; and how easy this should ' People went? Bear m mmuv Your ProPoaa1a
be for you, who believes that “56% of the ‘hu_ not amount to onlY tmprovrng and rnou‘
people aeree that the Federal Government erniring tour ex1st1ng econom1c system and cor-
should have the right of say over state gov- reetmg as eonoeueu ahuaea TneY ProPoa6u
ernrnentsyv It seerns to ns that it yon really an entirely) diiferent system. You have not been
believe what you say, you are wasting a lot of euaptmg our eeonomto maonrnerY to new eon‘
_ time shadow_hoXlng and logle_ehopprng_ d1t1ons. You have attempted to scrap the entire
machine and give us in its place a new machine ‘
_ which you can’t prove the people have ever said
IN SPEAKING of the Supreme Court’s 1nvali- they Wantetl_
datron ot Your Pet tegtetattom the N·R·A· and Your confession that “much in these acts
14 15

 or in their administration” was unwise, when doctrine of the Liberty League. It only con-
now read with your °°greatest legalized steal in t611dS that P1‘0P€1‘tY is ONG of thc i11&1i611&bl6
history” comment on the A.A.A. decision is human rights granted by the Constitution. As
truly whimsical. to what constitutes property within the mean-
Your zealous ambition to reach the mystical ing of the Constitution the Supreme Court has
"New Frontiers” of your “New Order” has per- many times told us. You impeach the integrity
haps made you so impatient with the institu- of the Supreme Court on the grounds of per-
tions and processes of the established order sonal interest and "economic predilections” in
that even you are intellectually confused; or, defining property. You resent any one but
perhaps, you are so anxious to give the people ' yourselves defining and applying the Constitu-
"an abundant life” that you want to jump over tion or having any different economic or polit-
150 years of constitutional history to give the ical “predilections” to yours. The American
people your conception of their just reward , Liberty League, however, has implicit con-
without making them "suifer” the delay of con- fidence in the judiciary as a fair, impartial and
sultation. essential interpreter of the Constitution and the
Come out of Blunderland, Mr. Wallace, and law and as the final arbitrator of constitutional
we will wage battle with you in the arena of y and civil controversies.
public opinion! We will proudly wear "the
livery of great national constitutional ideals” T THE LIBERTY LEAGUE is absolutely SatiS_
and we will not fail to recognize your uniform n ged to accept the Constitution as applied and
of a rcgimcmcd totalitarian State' construed by the Supreme Court and similarly
_ _ 1 to acce t any amendment to the Constitution
The Amcrlcan Llbcrty League adoptedpby the people in the manner prescribed
YOU HAVE CHARACTERISTICALLY been by the people. It accords them full sovereignty
guilty of even greater wishful thinking in in the form and fashion which they have
respect of what the American Liberty League ordained. It, however, emphatically challenges
teaches than you have in respect of what the the right of any man or group of men at any
Founding Fathers intended or what the people V time enjoying political power to substitute their
want. You impute ideas to it which you can- T interpretations of the Constitution for the
not prove from any record or utterance that 1 people’s chosen interpreter——the Supreme
it has made. You make the League what you Court——by packing the Court or by any other
want it to be to serve your own purposes, and extra-constitutional method; and of changing
then gallantly start fighting "windmills." You our political, economic, and social institutions,
indulge yourself in an orgy of class tail-twisting to fit their new-fangled theories without man-
and constitutional mythologizing. date of the people given in the manner pre-
Let’s look at and consider a few typical   scribed by the people. That, Mr. Wallace, is
examples of your “contest” with what y