Our Changing Constitution

stablished was especially committed to the Supreme Court. This novel office, the most important of all its great functions, makes the Court

ntained, are the questions to be considered in this book. Before taking them up, however, it will b

their appointment, like that of ambassadors, must be confirmed by the Senate. The makers of the Constitution took the utmost care to insure the independence of the Court. Its members hold office during good behavior, that is to say for life. They cannot be removed except by impeachment for miscon

e Samuel Chase of M

ges appointed for life, has consistently shown itself more progressive and more responsive to modern ideas than h

public service. The present Chief Justice (Taft) is an ex-President of the United States. Among the other members of the Court are a former Secretary of State of the United States (Justice Day); two former Attorneys General of the United States (Justices McKenna

unctions of government were distributed by the Constitution. The power of the purse is vested in Congress: it alone can levy taxes and make appropriations. The Executive is Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy and wields the appointing

e Court in a case involving the status of the Cherokee Indians, the other departments of the Federal Government gave no aid and President Andrew Jackson is reported to have remarked: "John Marshall has made the decision, now let him execute it." In 1868, Congress, in order to forestall decision in a case pending b

Cardle, 6 Wall. (Supreme Cou

imits established by the people in the Constitution. This power has been frequently exercised. It is stated that the congress

e Child Labor Tax cases. It is to be borne in mind that the

nstitutional has been bitterly assailed, and is still denounced in

ourt came into existence.[1] The framers of the Constitution clearly intended that such a power should be exercised by the Supreme Court.[2] Moreover, a somewhat

"The American Commonwe

e.g., "Federali

ion of Lord Coke in B

18, decide

rmulated more than a century ago by Chief Justice Marshall has never b

me, be passed by those intended to be restrained?... The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter

bury v. Madison,

he veto power of the Court by no means covers the entire field of legislative activity. In the Convention which framed the Constitution, attempts were made to give to the judiciary, in conjunction with the executive, complete power o

Farrand: "Records of

8 et seq.; Vol

stion, whether the adoption by a state of the initiative and referendum violated the provision of the Federal Constitution guaranteeing to every state a republican form of government, was political and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.[2] In 1867 a sovereign state sought to enjoin the President of the United States from enforcing an act of Congre

uther v. Borde

Telephone Co. v. Or

Mississippi v. Andrew

Scott v. Sandfor

ts of the government. A striking illustration is found in the so-called Muskrat case.[1] Congress having legislated concerning the distribution of property of the Cherokee Indians, and doubts having arisen as to the constitutional validity of the legislation, Congress passed another act empowering on

at v. United State

ferred upon it by the Constitution, for example the power to lay taxes or the power to regulate interstate commerce, the Supreme Court cannot interfere though the incidental eff

on. Hence the tendency of groups to demand, and of legislators to enact, any kind of a law

ntatives of the people. It impairs what someone has called the constitutional conscience, and weakens the vigilance of the people in preserving their liberties. Men and women need to be remind