xt7wwp9t2q46_49 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. 52 "The Principles of Constitutional Democracy and the New Deal" Speech of Raoul E. Desvernine, July 11, 1935 text No. 52 "The Principles of Constitutional Democracy and the New Deal" Speech of Raoul E. Desvernine, July 11, 1935 2013 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61/59m61_52/Am_Lib_Leag_52_001/Am_Lib_Leag_52_001.pdf section false xt7wwp9t2q46_49 xt7wwp9t2q46 Pamphlets§Available * *
* Th P · · 1 r
Copies of the following pamphlets and B P 0
other League literature may be obtained • ·
upon application to the League’s national DQ-
headquarters: A
Statement of Principles and Purposes
Americap Libeptyhhiggueglts Plgat§ormM _
A Ana ysis o t e resi ent’s u get essage
Agalysis of the $4,880,000,000 Emergency Relief
Appropriation Act
Eplonomic Security
T Bonus
Inflation * '* *
The Thirty Hour Week
The Pending Banking Bill
The Holding Company Bill
Where Are We Going`?—-Speech by James W. SP€€<>h of
Wadsworth
Price Controld d T RAOUL E. DESVERNINE
i:{§Zt°£ZlEY.} T1i’..1Z’{££. B§i“°"°" Member National Aavieeey Council and
` HOW IIIHBIIOII AHBCIS [IIC AV€l.`&g8 Family- Chairrnau of the Natj0na]]_,awy€1·S
Speech by Dr. Ray Bert Westerfield C . f h A .
Political Banking——Speech by Dr. Walter E. I vmmlttec ° t 6 mcrlcan
Spahr Liberty League
The Bituminous Coal Bill
Regimenting the F armers—Speech by Dr. G. W. · in
Dyer
Extension of the NRA Round Table Discussion of
Human Rights and the Constituti0n—Speech A
by R. E- Desvemine "Tl1e Constitution and the New Deal"
The Farmers’ Home Bill
The TVA Amendments A Institute of Public Affairs
The New Deal, Its Unsound Theories and U . .t fv. . .
gfeconcilable Policies——Speech by Ralph M. nlvcrsl y 0 lrgmla
aw
Is the Constitution for Sale?—Speech by Capt. _ July 11’ 1935
William H. Stayton
How to Meet the Issue—Speech by William E.
Borah
The Supreme Court and the New Deal
The Duty of the Church to the Social Order- ` gklc
Speech by S. Wells Utley .,3* 4.1,
An Open Letter to the President—By Dr. Neil
Carothers r· li i*\ us
¥l1:e lipvised AAA) Amendmengs ·?=iq;\ En-cf
éshougcurn o emocracy peec y ouett APY _\-gy.
I I -— h b I ,
The President’s Tax Program
The American Bar—The Trustee of American
Institutions-—Speech by Albert C. Ritchie .
Fabian Socialism in the New Deal—Speech by
Demarest Lloyd
T}§epa1;;ople’s Money——Speech by Dr. Walter E. AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAQUE
* National Headquarters
NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING
AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE _ WASHINGTON,D. c.
NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING ·
WASHINGTON, D. C. I * *
4 Document No. 52 .
{ The Principles of Constitutional
Democracy and the New Deal
{ *
{ No PLACE is more fitting and no moment
more necessary to refresh our confused memory
{ as to the principles of constitutional democracy
_ ‘ { upon which our government was founded, has
lived and has its being.
I This shrine of Jefferson miist summon his
{ disciples—and all Americans are and must be
his discip1es——to renew their allegiance to his
{ political faith. The shadows of Monticello cast
» a somber and reviving shade over the blinding
{ and destroying light of gilded promises and de-
{ ceiving panaceas. This is, in truth, the “grass
` _ roots" of democratic principlesf
The challenge of our constitutional system
{ and our American traditions, whenever made,
» has always been successfully met, but we must
{ be ever vigilant to meet the issue when and as
{ it has now been again raised, and do not doubt
{ that its fnmdamental and characteristic precepts
{ are being now seriously threatened. The Presi-
{ dent’s press conference respecting the Schechter
{ decision challenges the adequacy of our Consti-
{ tution to meet modern social and economic con-
{ ditions by relegating it to the “horse and buggy
{ age.” Under-Secretary Tugwell, held in such
{ confidence by the Administration, said in his
c University of New Mexico address that the
{ Schechter decision gave rise to a constitutional
crisis “quite as great as one of war” and that
{ the industrial revolution moved too fast "for
{ the accommodation of judicial theory.” The
words “revolution” and more especially “judi-
{ cial theory,” as applied to an unanimous deci-
{ sion of the United States Supreme Court cannot
be idly dismissed without serious apprehension.
{ Constitutional amendments have already been
introduced, not only to make the Federal gov-
ernment omnipotent in all social and economic
V fields of action, but also to curb the Supreme
A 3
Court in its power to declare laws unconstitu- One method is adaPtatiOn; the other is nulli-
tional. Some advocate, as a possible political fication. One is reform; the other revolution.
expedient, the passing of laws of doubtful con- The Ccnstituticn is indeed a living organism.
stitutionality to stir up an irresistible public de- hut eVe1’Y liVi11g Organism has certain definite
mand for the amendment of the Constitution_ physical characteristics and natural attributes,
This Suggestion assumes, of egurgeg that the Con. and these 3.tlZI°ib`I1lZCS CBIIDOI be 81t€].`Cd.. The only
Stitution must be amended to earry Out new CSCELPC fI‘OII1 lLl1€II1 is to Sl1l)Sl1llQl1lZC 311 €1'1l1l1`Cly IICW
· “theories,” which the public will not support and different organism. Perhaps, the new social
unless further agitated. Congress seems to be t and ecOnOmiO order requires a new political
either pursuing this plan deliberately or is suf- 1 order- That might be a dehatahie question. but
fering from constitutional “sleeping sickness.” it such is required let us face that issue fear-
Secretary Ickes and “Brain-truster” Berle have i lessly and openly. and weigh the advantages to
rallied to publicly advocate similar views. 3 be gained by any such new order against the
t sacrifices to be made in departing from the old
IF ALL of this be but a “trial balloon,” it is order.
certainly one infiated with a strange, and from
the point of view of American tradition, a for- LET us, therefore, briefly recall the basic pre-
eign and alien "gas," (and I use the word "gas" cepts of our present constitutional system, which
in its slang, as well as in its scientifig oonnota. distinguishes it from other forms of democratic
tion). Unless punctured by an aroused public government. and which eonstitute what we
opinion, it wil] transport us into an unlgngwn cherish as our American political philosophy
political stratosphere. and tradition.
The Constitution is not “strait·jacketed” to Many forms of democracies have arisen and
the cihgrge and huggy age], To egntend that it fallen. Many forms of democracies presently
is, is to ignore all constitutional history which exist- The eXPerin1ent in democracy has been
is replete with multitudinous decisions conclu- long carried O11 in all times and under all condi-
sively demonstrating its flexibility and adapt- tions and a comprehensive and expensive ex-
ability. Furthermore, no one challenges the Petience had by Patient and long suffering man-
right of amendment, through the orderly pro- kind ia its struggle to find a Pciiticai sYstem
cesses stipulated by the Constitution, whenever mvst eXP1'essiVe of its ideals and needs. Our
the need for such amendment is demonstrated. { Fcunding Fathers were not toying with a new
Proposed amendments must be carefully scruti- l fvibie in creating Our Particular kind of demo-
nized fer there een be amendments, are cratic g0VC1'IlII1CI1lZ. Tlfléy D13(.l6 3 1‘3l1l.OI13l 86100-
dedicated not enly te adapt nur form of gev. HOD. l)3S8d HPO!] lliSt01'iCE\l p1‘CC€dCI1‘lZ 311d tllBi1'
ernment to new and unforeseen situations, but i Own actual experienee. They had certain pri-
also to completely destroy or change our funda- ma1‘Y objectives and basic concepts which they
mental and traditional political philosophy, and net OniY sti’OVe to express. hut, more imPO1`tant,
result in the establishment of an entirely new to guarantee as a heritage to all Americans. sO
3nd different governmental gygtem_ The dis. that an American citizen would forever be the
tinetion between the two is fundamentah We proud possessor of certain rights and liberties
must weigh each proposal to see in which class nct elsewhere enjoyed-
it falls andinever lose sight of the distinguish- Ours is 110t a pure democracy in which the .
ing characteristics of our present constitutional people rule themselves. either directly or
and Jeffersonian system of government, ` U through representatives, and in which the will ~
4 ` 5
of the majority alone governs. That system the different power is oneoessary. Such asser-
Fmmding Fathers wisely rejected. t1OIlS.Of extra-constitutional authority were
Ours is a constitutional democracy in which anuclpated and precluded by the exfihcu
terms of the Tenth Amendment- The
the majority is restricted by definite constitu- _ powers not dclegatcd to the United States
tional limitations and the States and individuals by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
are guaranteed certain rights expressly reserved the Statesw are 1`€S€I`V€d Qfhg Staws I`€SP€c'
to them as beyond the power of the majority llVCly’ Ol to the people'
making up the Federal government. The question is only one of degree; that is to
In thus analyzing our form of democracy we say, the extent to which it is deemed necessary
End the two distinguishing characteristics and A or advisable to implement the Federal govern-
basic principles of our system, popularly re- l ment with full and general power to promote
ferred to as A the common welfare, at the expense of encroach-
(1) A Federal government of limited, not I, ing upon and curtailing the States’ right of local
general jurisdiction; and _ self-government. In·a country so vast and w1th
(2) A government of laws, not men. suc; a l3?rl`la°lt Of illmalei Elm; clglliljllgglgj xd
suc a 1vers1 o socia , 1n us r1 o-
The Constitution clearly establishes and dif- nomic problem; the necessity of consulting dif-
ferentiates between the two separate and dis- ferent and peculiar local needs and rcqui1,€_
tinct jurisdictions of the Federal and State gov- ments must not be diS·l_cga1_dcd· ctAbS€m€6
crllmcllll We camlclt exaggerate the imvar Landlordism” in political action was bitterly
tance of this segregat·10n•of jurisdiction. The understood. We are having a renewed cXpC1,i_
debates in the Const1tut10nal Convention, the ence with Some of the implications of this Prim
Federalist Papers and other contemporary writ- ciplc today.
lllgS’ and above all Yhc reluctance cvtm wltll Geographical boundaries are often arbitrary
which soma SWS *·¤·¤¤·=d tha C¤¤S*%¤{¤¤¤» fas- coo do ooo necessarily constitute economic oc
uu'? ibm as a f“Pdam‘°’“t"‘1 °ha""‘°t"“S“°· C_°“"t social units. Tho several States were originally
dBClSlOll?’ pollllcal Platforms and calllplllgllm more or less self-contained and had a greater
(Well clvll Wal} have l`Cv°lVcd amullll lllls lSSu€’ economic self-sufficiency and therefore in more
It IS deeply lmbcddcd lll our lllSl°l·?r' Even respects a clearer political individuality than
those who advocated a strong centralized Fed- today. Undoubtedly the expansion Of the mum v
eral government llcvljl Sausht the complete l try and the development of intercommunication
dclllal Ol Stale S0Vcl`€’lgllly' have lessened this separateness and tended to
economically integrate the States. Our foreign
COULD anything more clearly and definitely l trade and our international interests have in-
state this principle and its objective than the creased our need for greater unified national
following language of the United States Supreme action. All of this is admitted, and obviously
Court in the Schechter case'? the mere form of government must yield to the
o wlihc Constitution established a national substance of its objectives. We cannot deny
government with powers deemed to he ade- that our courts have clearly recognized this and
quate, as they have proved to be in war and have greatly expanded the Federal powers to
4 Pcacev but theste Powers of the nati?nal gm" meet the exigencies of new conditions, but al-
ernment are l1m1ted by the const1tut1onal . . .
grants. Those who act under these grants Ways Wltllm dtllllllte confine? and always call`
A are not at liberty to transcend the imposed UOUSIY Pmservmg the SOVBYBIQMY Of the States
limits because they believe that more or and the constitutional division of power. o
6 ` 7
RECENT criticisms of the Schechter decision Pt`oPet` aPnet`e vf action and to look 011lY at one e
have brought out the feeling of some that our is to overlook the oat`etuttY Planned eYete¥n of l
government has now been put far behind the out Sevetninent as e Whole-
governments of European countries in dealing The eeurt bteeked 6 1'eCe11t eitort to erect
T with problems of social welfare. These criti- uPon a Single enumerated P0We1‘ 311 i11Ve1‘ted
cisms overlook entirely the true nature of our PYt`annd of Such PI`0P0I‘ti0¤S 35 to be all-illclw
government. They confuse the Federal govern, sive and to threaten to expand the limited Fed-
ment with what our government really is-a etal government inte e general and complete
composite of Federal, State and local govern- SoVet`etgntY· The Supreme C0\11`t said:
ments—all of which must be taken together in A "In dgtgrmining new fer the Federal gov_
order to understand what actually constitutes ernment may go in controlling intrastate
onr government. vrransaecrions upon the ground that they
A restriction against Federal action in no way or S:;i;;eta:1I§e1;;ene€§s;i1£‘i;`;§¤ t£‘;`ien?t;;o‘ie;"
shows that our government is impotent to take tween dneot on d indirect €HcctS· The p1_e_
action. It merely shows that the Federal g0V- cise line can be drawn only as individual
ernment is not the proper branch of the govern- cases arise, but the distinction is clear in
ment—unless, of course, it is also shown that the Pt`tnotP1e· * * *_ But where the eitect of in-
State or local government is equally unable to tmetete tmneeeuene. upon Interstate c,°m'
_ _ merce 1S merely 1nd1rect, such transactions
take the act1on. There 1S no reason to assume remain Within the domain of State Power.
that, because some powers are given to State lf the commerce clause were construed to
and local governments rather than to the central S reach all enterprises and transactions which
or Federal government, our government as a ecnld ne Send to neve en indirect enect upon
whole is less powerful than the more centralized mteaglete commerce the Federal entnerny
_ wou embrace pract1cally all the act1v1t1es
governments of European countries. To show of the neonle end the authority of the State
surprise that all governmental powers are not _ over its domestic concerns would exist only
vested in the Federal government fails com- by Suiterancc of the Federal g0Ve1‘111I1e11t·
pletely to recognize the true nature of our gov- flngeiedé f¤*nj;1¤*§t;t;*;<=¤;g*n1$;*;;¤c;E¥d¤ giindggg
ernment, and not only the powers but also the e would be Snbjeot to Federal oontrol a * im
duties of the several States to provide for local e
matters. The Supreme Court in the Schechter e IF THE possible consequences were not SO
decision clearly recognized that the government tm ic it would be imcnecman t t , ,
of our people consisted of more than just the to ibgo . Y cn me anime
_ rve the extension of such metaphysical
Federal government and the duties of the State A oonoentions as to the aefrect or imrastate Ob-
mt l¤<=¤1P·¤¤¤<=h<=S Shqulq ba ¤=¤¤a¤i¤¤d· At structions on the S0.e.11a1 sow 01- mmm of
no Plnee did the Court tndteate that It PI`oPoSed interstate commerce,” as a subterfuge to create
¤nY llmitatwu vn governmental action aa Such; a Federal control over practically all local mat-
but it did indicate a dividing line between the ters. Reeenr legislation oneno with e prelude
P0We1’S and the duties et the twe branches et self-declaratory of its own constitutionality, but
Qu? governmental eYStem• the Supreme Court has stuck to time honored
When considering the powers of our govern- definitions and limitations and has not been
ment, the sovereign powers of the several States carried away by these social metaphysicians,
are of as much importance as the centralized The case of the Board of Trade v, Olsen ig not
powers of the Federal government. Each has its a J uggernaut to mercilessly ride over and crush
8 9
all State and individual rights. The Supreme , , , , .
. . 1S 1mportant to cite them as methods wh1ch 1n
Court has now clearly defined 1tS restricted , , ,
. . their practice and consequences certainly en-
appl1cat1on. , .
. . . . . large, 1f not change, our heretofore concept1ons
Another striking illustration of th1s method .
. of the functions of our Federal government, and
of expanding the Federal powers by broaden- .
. . . . . they must be carefully watched as they conta1n
1ng the application of a simple power by 1nter- , ,
. . . . germs for destroying our concepts of const1tu-
pretation 1S the use being made of the taxing . . .
. . . . t1onal government. We w1ll soon be hearing
power. Taxat1on has been and 18 increaslngly .
. . from the Un1ted States Supreme Court on these
being used as not only a means to raise revenue
, , , matters.
for purposes and objects w1th1n the scope of the A
enumerated functions of the Federal govern-
ment. but also as a punitive weapon. and as an SOME legislation, such as the recent appropria-
instttnnent of seeial control- lt is neW Pie' __ tion of $4,880,000,000 of general Treasury funds
Pesed to utilize "taXation" against the eeneen' I to various purposes selected by uncontrolled
t1’3tlOI1 of wealth, th€ COIICCI1t1°3tl.OI1 of BCOI1OH1l.C and undenned Executive discretion, even ern.
power, the “b1gneSS°° 0f bl1S1neSS. EXp31ld1I1g ployed for uses never contemplated to be within
the Federal government from a political mstru- the Scope of the Federal government, Seeing
tnentaiitY inte an ageneY te? soeial set`Viee ter immune to judicial review. Unless the Supreme
(3301] individual Cl.lZlZCI'1, is CCI°t3lI1].y 3 fa.]? dC• Court in Several Pending eases finds a way to re.
parture from the early llmlted e0nCept10I1 of Our view these appropriations, the people will have
Federal g0VeFnn1ent» hut When that seeiai sei`V· no means of protection against an all-embracing
ice embarks it on undertakings never contem- end unehellen lll E ° k'
gea e xecutive power, ma mg
plated by and in violation of eonstltntronal pre- possible the negation of individual rights and
scriptions, then we must pause and reflect. The liberties.
P0Wet` to tax is not °n1Y the power to desti`0Y» Recent proposals far transcend present needs
hut aPPat’entiY the P°Wet' to amend- and frankly purport to transfer sovereign
Government tnnds are being aPPi'ePi'iated to powers residing in the States to the Federal gov-
8 II].lIllZl.t`l].dC of PUPPOSCS not I€SlZ].°]lCtCd to objects erninent, even in rnatters are per Se
g6I‘IIl31'1C to ZllCS 0tl1€1’ dClCg3`tZCd POWCIS, 011 tl1C purely local and cannot any reason.
Pt’ineiPie that the Federal government has un' able stretch of economic or social theory, to say
inn1ted• PeWet` to ‘aPPt`ePt'1ate ineneY ter the '* nothing of political principle, be translated into
promotlon of the general welfare, and espe- a "national" as distinguished from a “local”
eiaHY that etnet'geneY eonditions justify many subject. When we go to the extreme recently
3lC)I1OI’I]13]. CXpCIIdltu1°CS, CVCD fOI` p]'.`l.V3tC €I]tCI`• é Proposed, it ig nothing niore or legs than a Pro.
p1°lSCS, State and local dCVC1OPIHBIIlZS 8IId I°€].lCf, pogal to change our Sygtern of constitutional
which are not per se national in character. Gov- government, not to adapt our present system to
€1`11111ei1t is eompeting with P1‘iVate ht1Bi¤es9· existing conditions. Our courts have so wisely
Agricultural production and distribution is be- and adequately niet eaeh Situation when it hee
ing regulated by processing taxes. Private enter- arisen that it would eeern wjedem end experi.
Pfises are heing penalized to their destfuetiena ence to continue to entrust them with the work-
if they do not submit to government regimenta- ing out of this problem, rather than to impul-
tion ami 11ati011aliZat10H· sively set up a new form of government under
This is not an appropriate occasion to debate such highly emotionalized and volatile condi-
the wisdom or propriety of any of these, but it tions as at present.
10 11
.A.I].Otl'.\CI° expression of Ch.3I`3Cl]€I°lStiC pI°l.]]* Stressed and is hardly Opgn to Serious ques.
T ciple of our constitutional democracy is the divi- tion. So much is implied in the very fact of
sion and segregation of the Federal government the sePet`otion of the Bowers of theee de'
into three distinct co-equal departments—the 1t?;f;m;§§;hbyrgg1:gzgstlilligggngsgglgizlt tg;
legislative, executive, and judicial branches. equality The Sogmd application of a Prim
Tl1lS segregation Hlld 3ll0C&tl0I1 of POWCI WEIS ciplg that makes Ong master in his own
not designed purely as a matter of mechanical house precludes him from imposing his con-
and procedural convenience, but as a further trol il}, the house af another who is master
check and restraining influence on the possibil- there
ity of abusive or excessive exercise of delegated T Furthermore, and still more significant, is the
power. This is another evidence of the distrust J doctrine that the United States Supreme Court
of the Founding Fathers of the concentration 1 was given the power, not expressly by the Con-
of power in a highly centralized government; r, _ stitution, but as an absolutely indispensable
and showed an effort to dilute that power by prerogative by implication, to challenge acts of
splitting it up into separate, independent and both the Executive and Legislative, as the only
equalizing units. It is also an attempt to guard means by which the system established by the
against coercive practices or the dominating in- Constitution could be possibly maintained. This
iluence of a too strong executive or an over- is an unique characteristic of our governmental
zealous or “politics ridden" legislature. system, significantly distinguishing it from all
others, and conclusively demonstrates the ex-
THE sanctity of the separateness of these three tcm to whtclt our eysmm e0CS_ to keep the gov-
govcrnmcmal functions has bccn again upheld ernment within str1ct•const1tut1onal confinesrand
and thc attempt of one department to abdicatc to protect State and 1nd1v1dual rights. Judicial
. .... . review of legislation, a doctrine not clearly en-
its Jurisdiction to another has been again _ _ _
checked in the following ringing words of the vlsagcd by the author? of the Constltlttlore may
United States Supreme Court in the Schechter Kglsgzzzi ;F;OI;1;E;I;;1§t0Hant commbutwn to
case. ttrrhc Congress is not permitted to abdi_ But recent experience has demonstrated an
tate or to transfer to others the essential ¢ff¤rt w amd ¤V¢¤ this Safeguard by prevent-
legislative functions with which it is thus ing and postponing the adjudication of consti-
vested.” * ”` tutional issues. The consequent crystallization
“ * * _. _ it of economic, industrial and financial situations,
t Congress cannot delegate deglelauve I pending such delayed determination, has been
power to the President to exercise an un- ·>
fcttcmd discretion to make Whatever laws costly and has not encouraged respect for law.
he thinks may be needed or advisable for The Worst indictment Whisk ooo bs mode
the rehabilitation and expansion of trade or against the present Administration is these in-
i¤dustt`Y·” ` direct and subtle attempts to change the funda-
Again, in the Humphrey ease, the Uruted mental principles of our constitutional system
States Supreme Court Said, in such a mlinner aq to cgnqpal their true pur-
_ _ _ pose from t e peop e an t ereby deprive the
inQ';rlggihhggdslxeilliggcngzisgigti $1;;;::;:;;: people of their sovereign right to determine the
· form and substance of their overnment. Even
of government entirely free from the con- _ g _
trol or coercive influence, direct or indirect, it this be not tho mottvoe tho Vot`Y suspicion of
of either of the others, has often been it has dangerous implications.
12 13
WE NOW come to the Second characieristic dowed by h1s Creator w1th reason and free wall,
. . he 18 possessed of a natural r1ght to personal
and the cornerstone of our const1tut1onal sys- _ _ _ _ _ _
. liberty, wh1ch 1S simply the exerc1se of free will.
tem——the R1ghts of Man as guaranteed by a _ _ _ _
. . V As man 1S endowed Wlth the duty and 1nst1nct
Government of Laws, not Men. Th1s 1S the Jef- _ , _
f . . . , . . to worsh1p, he must be free to perform th1S duty
erson1an PIIDCIPIC-JCHBISOH s priceless gift to _ _ _ _ . _
. - . . and to CXCICISB th1s 1nst1nct according to the
our const1tut1onal philosophy. ____ _ _
I h . . . . d1ctates of h1s own conscience, which gives r1se
y ave briefly shown how the l1m1tat1ons on _ _ _
F . . to the natural r1ght of freedom of rel1g1ous wor-
ederal power, the spl1tt1ng up of conferred _ _
F . sh1p. As man has been endowed with the
ederal power 1nto three co-equal governmental _ _ _
. capac1ty and duty to propagate h1s species and
umts each a check and balance on the other, · _ _ _ _
. . . as h1S children are pl1yS1C&lly 1ncapable of self-
and the sanct1ty of State sovere1gnty 1n local _ _
. sustenance during 1nfancy, then clearly nature
matters, were all clearly and del1berately de- _ _ _ _
. . . has ordained that he may fulfill h1s obl1gat1on
S1gI1€d as a p1·otect1on against autocracy, tyran- 2 _ _ _
. . . . . . by the most suitable means, to Wlt, the family.
n1cal ma]or1t1es or a d1ctator1al bureaucracy. _ _ _
. . . As nature obliges man to sustain h1mself, he
But all of these safeguards are vain 1f American _ _
. . . must have the natural r1ght to produce, acqu1re
c1t1zens are not guaranteed the full enjoyment _ _
. . . . and possess those phys1cal th1ngs—property—-
of the1r God-g1ven and natural 1nal1enable _
. necessary to his sustenance. As man has the
human r1ghts. _ _ _
. . . th1rst for knowled e and the ca ac1t to 1m art
Th E P Y P
ese const1tut1onal forms were conceived as _ _
. . 1nstruct1on to others, he must have the natural
mechanical and procedural dCV1CCS to make en- _ _ _
. . . right to educat1on.
croachment upon or den1al of certa1n bas1c
· “sl;” mm difficult- F¤fhm¤*¤¤<=·=» 1* thc Fai- As ··M.m t. older than the stae,=» these natural
r €¥ah govcgnmcflt €ncri)a(i C; lgpim in usurllis rights of his likewise are pre-existent to the
gs ts Qt ]m°t‘°“’ exc “S“'° Y1 6 °Pgmg “{ t "’ State, and therefore earmet be said to have orig-
taicsj uf IP Some rc§P8ctS’ on Y muses an Issue inated with the State or to be grants orfran-
of _]ur1sd1ct1on. But 1f the Federal government, chiscs of the State
0* as a matier of f“°t’ _a“Y_Stal" s°""f“m°‘“’ Other rights are not intrinsically e part of
attempts to interfere Wlth 1nal1enable human mauis Physical nature and therefore not of
Hghts? reserved SP€°‘H°auY to the people and divine endowment, but have been won by man
nf)? deljggatcd t° thc _G°VBrnm°m’ th°u_ Béch · through the centuries in his struggle for free-
c1t1zen 1S threatened Yiflth the loss or •spol1at1on dom against his political maStB1.S_ Human CX_
p of h1s const1tut1onal l1berty and trad1t1onal free- pcriencc has demonstrated that certain rights
C d°m¤ aild the vary Substancc and °°rn°1`St°uc Of ` are indispensable to the individual if he be not
p our po itical system is challenged. a political S]aVc_
Thess rights cmanais iwm (1) divine <=¤