The Supreme Court is the creature of the Presidents and is subject to the direction of Congress, yet it has arrogated to itself the power of overriding the will of the entire people as recorded by its Congress and affirmed by its chief executive. If they are doing this without warrant of the Constitution, the day will come when, in the inevitable conflict between the court and the Congress or the President, or both combined, there will be precipitated a question which will rend the country with civil war. If they do this under the implied authority of the Constitution, that document should be amended so as to preclude their future interference with laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. As we exist today we are not a republic or a democracy, neither have we a representative form of government. We are a “judiciary”—if one may coin such a word. Ours is the only country on earth where an elective or appointed judge presumes to wield the most autocratic power of the absolute monarch, viz., the veto of a law passed and demanded by the people. We have become so accustomed to this that we do not properly realize what it means. We teach ourselves to acknowledge the “sacredness of the judiciary” and to bow in humble contrition to any mandate thundered from the Bench. We assent to the insane doctrine that there is not enough of wisdom in a House of Representatives elected by 17,000,000 voters, combined with the check of an ultra-conservative Senate chosen by forty-five state legislatures, and indorsed by the judgment and responsibility of a President, to incorporate for our government a law until such law has been affirmed by the majority of a Supreme Court. If there be sense in this dogma, I am unable to see why it is not equally just that a minority of the Supreme Court should not be empowered to annul laws. Why does the Supreme Court cling to the inconsistent theory that its majority possesses as much wisdom as its minority? In a series of articles which I am now preparing, I am attempting to discuss certain of these questions with as much frankness as I possess; but the purpose of this paper, and the one which preceded it, is to call attention to “the unopened door in the Constitution”—the one which Washington repeatedly referred to in the passages from which I have quoted. It is a difficult matter to arouse public attention to any single amendment, no matter how important the subject may be. There is a reason for this. The people instinctively know that no one amendment can redress the ills which now exist. They do not know how to go about a crusade for constitutional reform, and most of them probably imagine that there is no way in which it can be done. There is a way, a simple, practical and legal way, and the political party which takes advantage of it and conducts an intelligent campaign in its behalf will sweep all before it.