troversy is not authorized or is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States. That in any action, suit, or proceeding in the Supreme Court when the meaning, interpretation, or construction of any language of any Federal law or of the Constitution of the United States shall be drawn in question or decided, the same shall be interpreted and construed literally as the words are commonly understood in everyday use, unless the Supreme Court, by unanimous decision of all its members qualified to sit in the cause, shall decide that such literal interpretation is not the true expression of the legislative intention and meaning in the language in controversy. SECTION 2. If any inferior Federal court, commission, or tribunal shall decide in any case that any provision of any such Federal or State law or provision of a State constitution is not authorized or is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, or shall interpret or construe the meaning of any language of any Federal law or constitutional provision to be different from its literal verbal statements as the words are commonly understood in everyday use, it shall be the duty of said lower court, commission, or tribunal to forthwith certify said question of constitutionality, meaning, interpretation, or construction to the Supreme Court of the United States for final decision. Every such Federal inferior court, commission, and tribunal is hereby authorized, in the discretion of the members thereof, to certify any such question to the Supreme Court of the United States for decision in advance of the trial of the cause on the merits in said lower court, commission, or tribunal. The United States Department of Justice shall pay all the necessary expenses and costs of presenting every such question in the Supreme Court of the United States. It shall be the duty of the Supreme Court to advance every such cause over all other causes on the docket not directly involving the constitutionality, meaning, interpretation, or construction of any such act, law, or constitutional provision. Mr. BOURNE. Mr. President, I shall not at this time present an argument upon this bill. The purpose of the measure will, I think, be readily apparent. The Congress of the United States is one of the coördinate branches of our government. A very considerable number of the Members of both Houses of Congress are learned in the law, and some of them are lawyers of considerable renown. In each House there is a Committee on Judiciary, composed of the strongest and ablest lawyers in each body, which committees give particular study to constitutional questions arising when proposed laws are under consideration. Because Congress is a coördinate branch, and because of the careful attention the Members of Congress give to constitutional questions arising regarding legislation, it has been held by the United States Supreme Court that no act of Congress should be held to be in violation of the Constitution unless the conflict appears beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the Court said in Ogden v. Saunders (12 Wheat. 269): It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity, and the patriotism of the legislative body by which any law is passed to presume in favor of its validity until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court has, however, in numerous instances held to be unconstitutional acts of Congress which some of the members of the Supreme Court believed to be entirely in harmony with our fundamental law. In cases such as this there certainly existed a very substantial doubt whether the measure in question was in fact in contravention of the Constitution. In my opinion, unless a State law or an act of Congress is so clearly unconstitutional that the Court will be unanimous in so declaring, the decision of the Court should uphold the validity of the act. I think it is generally conceded there is no express authority for the Supreme Court's exercise of power to declare a law unconstitutional. This power has been assumed by the Court as an incident of the exercise of the powers expressly conferred. I believe it is within the power of Congress to prescribe the number of concurring judges necessary in arriving at a decision which shall constitute the decision of the Court. The first section of the bill I have offered requires that where a State law or an act of Congress is declared unconstitutional the court must be unanimous. One dissenting vote will establish the existence of a reasonable doubt. It also provides that the language of an act must be construed literally unless the Court, by unanimous decision, rule otherwise. Regarding the second section of the bill, I wish merely to say that it is important that every constitutional question be determined at as early a date as possible by the highest court in the land; and, therefore, when any Federal or State law is held unconstitutional by an inferior Federal court, the question should be immediately certified to the United States Supreme Court. The purpose of this bill is not to allow one, two, three, or four members of the Supreme Court to overrule eight, seven, six, or five members of that distinguished branch of our government; but, rather, to enable one, two, three, or four members of that court to prevent eight, seven, six, or five of its members from overruling the wishes of the nation, as expressed through Congress, or the wishes of a sovereign State, as expressed by its electorate or by its legislature. I have requested that the bill be printed in the Record, and have made this explanation in the hope that the subject will be given discussion by both the laity and the legal fraternity before it comes up for consideration before the Judiciary Committee, to which I ask that it be referred. |