Constitutional history -- United States; United States -- Politics and government; United States. Constitution. 18th Amendment
That Congress had passed a statute, known as the “Corrupt Practices
Act.” In it, certain practices, at federal primary and other elections,
were prohibited and made criminal offenses. His client had been
tried and convicted by a jury as guilty of one of these practices in
a primary election for the nomination to the Senate of America. On
the appeal to the Supreme Court, Hughes urged that, as our American
government _is_ a government of _enumerated_ powers, _incidentally
a fact which his claim for the state governments in the National
Prohibition Cases flatly denies_. Congress could not _validly_ pass the
statute, under which his client had been convicted, unless the power to
pass a statute in that particular matter was found in some enumerated
power in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly gave Congress
power to pass laws concerning “elections” for federal officers. But,
urged Hughes, the Americans of 1788, the “conventions” in the Fifth
and Seventh Articles, did not know anything about “primary” elections.
Therefore, urged Hughes, Congress has not the power to make the same
thing a penal offense at “primary” elections, which Congress can make
a penal offense at the regular elections. By a divided Court, this
argument, based on the claim of _limited_ power in the _supreme_
legislature to prohibit what a candidate for Senator may do, was
sustained and the conviction was reversed.
It is amazing, therefore, to turn to the Eighteenth Amendment brief
of the same briefer, a few months earlier, and to find him contending
for his clients therein, twenty-four governments of state citizens, an
absolute omnipotence to interfere with individual freedom of American
citizens on every subject. And it is startling to find, in this brief,
audacious denial of any right in the Supreme Court even to consider
whether these governments of state citizens have that omnipotence over
the American citizen.
In the case of the candidate for Senator, it was his concept and his
claim that the Supreme Court can decide that the _supreme legislature_
in America had not the power to make a certain command to candidates
for seats in the American Senate. This is the doctrine that the only
government of the American citizens is a government of enumerated
powers. In the Eighteenth Amendment litigation, the following is
his contention, that thirty-six governments of state citizens (the
_inferior_ legislatures in America) have unlimited power, without any
constitutional restraint, to make commands to the American citizens on
any matter whatsoever:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account