[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

in the future. I propose that hereafter, when a judge reaches the age of seventy, a new
and younger judge shall be added to the court automatically. In this way I propose to
enforce a sound public policy by law instead of leaving the composition of our federal
courts, including the highest, to be determined by chance or the personal indecision of
individuals.
If such a law as I propose is regarded as establishing a new precedent, is it not a most
desirable precedent?
Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the
welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must
think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an
institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional
destiny to the personal judgment of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would
deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.
This plan of mine is no attack on the Court; it seeks to restore the Court to its rightful
and historic place in our constitutional government and to have it resume its high task of
building anew on the Constitution "a system of living law." The Court itself can best
undo what the Court has done.
I have thus explained to you the reasons that lie behind our efforts to secure results by
legislation within the Constitution. I hope that thereby the difficult process of
constitutional amendment may be rendered unnecessary. But let us examine the process.
There are many types of amendment proposed. Each one is radically different from the
other. There is no substantial groups within the Congress or outside it who are agreed on
any single amendment.
It would take months or years to get substantial agreement upon the type and language
of the amendment. It would take months and years thereafter to get a two-thirds majority
in favor of that amendment in both Houses of the Congress.
Then would come the long course of ratification by three-fourths of all the states. No
amendment which any powerful economic interests or the leaders of any powerful
political party have had reason to oppose has ever been ratified within anything like a
reasonable time. And thirteen states which contain only five percent of the voting
population can block ratification even though the thirty- five states with ninety-five
percent of the population are in favor of it.
A very large percentage of newspaper publishers, Chambers of Commerce, Bar
Association, Manufacturers' Associations, who are trying to give the impression that
they really do want a constitutional amendment would be the first to exclaim as soon as
an amendment was proposed, "Oh! I was for an amendment all right, but this
amendment you proposed is not the kind of amendment that I was thinking about. I am
therefore, going to spend my time, my efforts and my money to block the amendment,
although I would be awfully glad to help get some other kind of amendment ratified."
Two groups oppose my plan on the ground that they favor a constitutional amendment.
The first includes those who fundamentally object to social and economic legislation
along modern lines. This is the same group who during the campaign last Fall tried to
block the mandate of the people.
Now they are making a last stand. And the strategy of that last stand is to suggest the
time-consuming process of amendment in order to kill off by delay the legislation
demanded by the mandate.
To them I say: I do not think you will be able long to fool the American people as to
your purposes.
The other groups is composed of those who honestly believe the amendment process is
the best and who would be willing to support a reasonable amendment if they could
agree on one.
To them I say: we cannot rely on an amendment as the immediate or only answer to our
present difficulties. When the time comes for action, you will find that many of those
who pretend to support you will sabotage any constructive amendment which is
proposed. Look at these strange bed-fellows of yours. When before have you found them
really at your side in your fights for progress?
And remember one thing more. Even if an amendment were passed, and even if in the
years to come it were to be ratified, its meaning would depend upon the kind of justices
who would be sitting on the Supreme Court bench. An amendment, like the rest of the
Constitution, is what the justices say it is rather than what its framers or you might hope
it is.
This proposal of mine will not infringe in the slightest upon the civil or religious
liberties so dear to every American.
My record as Governor and President proves my devotion to those liberties. You who
know me can have no fear that I would tolerate the destruction by any branch of
government of any part of our heritage of freedom.
The present attempt by those opposed to progress to play upon the fears of danger to
personal liberty brings again to mind that crude and cruel strategy tried by the same
opposition to frighten the workers of America in a pay-envelope propaganda against the
Social Security Law. The workers were not fooled by that propaganda then. The people
of America will not be fooled by such propaganda now.
I am in favor of action through legislation:
First, because I believe that it can be passed at this session of the Congress. [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]