[703] 64 Stat. 798, September 8, 1950, Sec. 401. [704] 56 Stat. 23, January 30, 1942, Sec. 1 (a). [705] _Id._ [706] 64 Stat. 5, February 14, 1950, Sec. 3 (d), (e). [707] 65 Stat. 69, June 15, 1951, Sec. 5. [708] 48 Stat. 58, May 18, 1933, Sec. 5 (j), (k). [709] 50 Stat. 885, September 1, 1937, Sec. 3 (a). [710] 55 Stat. 591, July 14, 1941, Sec. 4 (s). [711] 62 Stat. 274, May 26, 1948. [712] 64 Stat. 438, August 11, 1950, Sec. 3 (a), (f). [713] 64 Stat. 149, May 10, 1950, Sec. 3 (a). [714] 66 Stat. 163, June 27, 1952. [715] 49 Stat. 1081, August 31, 1935, Sec. 2 (a). [716] 58 Stat. 649, July 1, 1944, Sec. 4, 5. [717] 60 Stat. 755, August 1, 1946. [718] 62 Stat. 266, May 25, 1948. CHAPTER X [719] “The Constitution as Instrument and as Symbol,” 30 _American Political Science Review_, 1936, 1071 at 1077. [720] Yet note Harold D. Lasswell’s suggestion: “It is important to view the court system as a whole and not limit ourselves entirely to the words uttered by the Supreme Court. The damage to private rights and civilian principles can be accomplished in the thousands of minor jurisdictions (Federal, State, Local) into which our country is divided. Much of this damage is not brought to the notice of the highest tribunal in the land, if at all, until years have elapsed. In one of our earliest crises of national security, for example, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed (1798). Thousands of persons were imprisoned, and the Acts were presently repealed. Their constitutionality was never passed upon by the Supreme Court.” _National Security and Individual Freedom_ (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), pp. 45-46. [721] Albert L. Sturm, “Emergencies and the President,” II _Journal of Politics_, 1949, 121, 141. Sturm said: “Since the judiciary handles a mere trickle of the great issues arising in periods of crisis, it has been unable to retain its traditional potency. When the national security is imperiled, the Supreme Court, along with the other branches of the government, becomes a part of the national mechanism for preserving the existing social order.” We doubt that the Supreme Court and the judicial system have adequately been integrated into this effort thus far. [722] Note, cf., _Duncan_ v. _Kahanamoku_, 327 U.S. 304 (1946), in which Justice Black on behalf of the majority was careful to rest upon statutory interpretation his 1946 (post mortem) invalidation of certain aspects of military rule in the Hawaiian Islands during the War. Dissenting, Burton and Frankfurter asked the Justices in the majority whether the latter, if obliged to dispose of the case during the conduct of the war, would have reached the same conclusion and whether their holding would have been enforced by the Executive.