SUPPORTING BRIEF #1: THE PERVERSION OF THE INCOME TAX LAWS, Page 6
************************************************************************
BILLS THAT WERE PENDING BEFORE CONGRESSTO PERVERT THE SUPREME COURT
H.R. 8054 by Rep. Ramsey
Any question arising upon an attack against any Act of Congress, upon the ground that same is unconstitutional and void, raised in any of the said Courts (Inferior Federal courts and the state courts) shall, by the presiding judge thereof, be certified to the Supreme Court and further proceedings in the case stayed until such decision shall have been decided, and the decision certified back.
S.J. 149 by Sen. Norris
...the Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to render judgement declaring that any law enacted by Congress in whole or in part is invalid because it conflicts with some provision of the Constitution; but no such judgement shall be rendered unless concurred in by more that two- thirds of the members of the Court, and unless the action praying for such judgement shall have been commenced within six months after the enactment of the law
H.J. 287 by Rep. Dobbins
(proposed amendment to the Constitution)
...the concurrence of two-thirds of (the Supreme Court) members shall be necessary in any decision of that Court denying the validity of an attempted exercise of the constitutional powers of Congress.
H.R. 8100 by Rep. Crosser
That in all cases now pending, or which may hereafter be pending, in the Supreme Court...where is drawn in question an Act of Congress or statute of a State on the ground of repugnancy to the Constitution, at least three-fourths of the members shall concur before judgement shall be pronounced or rendered declaring said law or laws unconstitutional and void.
H.R. 8163 by Rep. Monaghan
...all of the members of the Court shall concur before judgement shall be pronounced or rendered declaring said law or laws unconstitutional and void.
H.J. Res. 301 by Mr. Monaghan
Whereas the Constitution of the United States gives no authority to any judicial officer to declare unconstitutional an Act which has been declared constitutional by a majority of the Members of the United States Senate and of the House of Representatives and by the President of the United States, who, on their several oaths, have declared the opinion in the passage of such Act that it is constitutional; and
Whereas in the Constitutional Convention, in which the Constitution of the United States was framed, the motion was three times made to give to the Supreme Court, in some mild form, the right to express an opinion upon the constitutionality of Acts of Congress, and was three times overwhelmingly rejected; and
Whereas such assumption of power by the Federal court interferes with the sovereignty of the people of the United States and diverts it from the hands of the representatives of the people in Congress assembled to a tribunal appointed for life and subject to no review and to no control by the people of the United States, and is therefore against a wise public policy; and
Whereas the declaration by any Federal court that the Acts of Congress are unconstitutional constitutes an usurpation of power; Therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That after the passage of this Act Federal judges are forbidden to declare any Act of Congress unconstitutional.
No appeal shall be permitted in any case in which the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is challenged, the passage by Congress of any Act being deemed conclusive presumption of the constitutionality of such Act.
Any Federal judge who declares any Act passed by the Congress of the United States to be unconstitutional is hereby declared to be guilty of violating the constitutional requirement of "good behavior" upon which his tenure of office rests and shall be held by such decision ipso facto to have vacated his office.
Section 2. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized to nominate a successor to fill the position vacated by such judicial officer.
(Researcher's note: It is interesting to note that just three days after this joint resolution was introduced into Congress, that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NRA laws being imposed upon "chicken farmers" were declared unconstitutional. The laws were not Acts of Congress, but Executive Orders signed by the President. The Justices were just doing their job pursuant to their oaths.)
H.J. Res. 329 by Rep. Quinn
(proposed amendment to the Constitution)
No court of the United States, or of any State, shall declare unconstitutional or void any law enacted by the Congress of the United States. All laws of the United States shall remain in full force and effect throughout the United States until repealed by Congress of the United States, or until vetoed or repudiated by the action of the legislatures of three-fourths of the States.
Section 2. The tenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
H.J. Res. 344 by Rep. Maas
(proposed amendment to the Constitution)
Every public act or public resolution of Congress shall, after having been presented to the President and approved by him, or not returned by him within ten days...shall not become law unless presented by the President to the Supreme Court for its decision on the constitutionality thereof and until sixty days...after it has been so presented. It shall be the duty of the Supreme Court to render such decision within such sixty days.
H.R. 9478 by Rep. Cross
Providing that in all cases filed in an inferior Federal court, the court shall pass upon both questions of law and fact with the exception that no inferior court shall pass upon the constitutionality of an Act of Congress; and further providing that the Supreme Court in deciding any case on appeal shall pass upon both law and fact with the exception that it shall not pass upon the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.
H.R. 10102 by Rep. Quinn
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and fourteen Associate Justices, and any ten of whom shall constitute a quorum.
H.R. 10315 by Rep. Sisson
To regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the jurisdiction of the inferior Federal courts and of state courts...No court of the United States (except the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction), or of any State, Territory, District, or possession of the United States, or any political subdivision of any such State, Territory, District, or possession, shall have jurisdiction, original or appellate, of any case or proceeding in which any party seeks by his pleadings, assignments of error, or otherwise, to have the court hear or decide any question as to the constitutionality of any statute of the United States which--
(A) Is, or purports to be, an exercise of any power of Congress...(relating to taxation, general welfare, commerce among the States, and money); or
(B) Affects, or purports to effect rights with respect to due process...when the rights affected are not procedural in nature.
This section shall not be construed to prevent any such court taking or retaining jurisdiction of any such case or proceeding to determine it without hearing or deciding such question of constitutionality.
H.J. Res. 462 by Rep. Scott
(proposed amendment to the Constitution)
No court shall have the power to set aside as unconstitutional any law passed by the Congress of the Unites States.
H.R. 10663, H.R. 10664, H.R. 10764, H.R. 10765, H.R. 10804, H.R. 10805 by Rep. Monaghan (these bills related to laws already on the statute books)
Federal judges are forbidden to declare this Act of Congress unconstitutional.
No appeal shall be permitted in any case in which the constitutionality of this Act is challenged, the passage of Congress of this Act being deemed conclusive presumption of its constitutionality.
Any Federal judge who declares this Act unconstitutional is hereby declared to be guilty of violating the constitutional requirement of "good behavior" upon which his tenure of office rests and shall be held by such decision ipso facto to have vacated his office, and the President of the United States is hereby authorized to fill the position vacated by such judicial officer.
(note: It was announced by Government attorneys that the effect of the bill, if seriously considered, not only was designed to nullify the Constitution but junk the Federal judiciary from the Supreme Court on down.)
"Senator David I. Walsh of Massachusetts made the following statement on the floor of the House on March 19, 1936: "In the one hundred and forty-seven years of its existence, the Supreme Court, in my opinion, has ever been strong, compositely, in breadth of view, in freedom from bias, in intellectual capacity, in devotion for the furtherance of the welfare of the people as far as that comes within the province of a court, and in freedom from ambition for political preferment. If we cannot get the answer as to the constitutionality of an act of Congress from the individuals of such a court, we cannot expect to get it at all...The Supreme Court was established as a barrier against the necessity of revolution if either the executive or the legislative branch attempted to take these rights from the people. This Court is the fortress, the arsenal, the standing army of the American people in the protection and enforcement of the inalienable rights which lovers of liberty in every civilized land poured out their blood and treasure to enjoy." ibid., pp. 27, 90-96.
Does anyone remember reading this in any of the history books in the public schools? I have found that the only way to get to the truth is to root it out on your own.
Note that, out of around 24,000 acts of Congress before the "New Deal", only 63 or 64 had been declared unconstitutional by the court. This equates to approximately one-third of one per cent of the laws up until that time. Note also that more acts of Congress were declared unconstitutional while the Republicans dominated the legislative and executive branches that were declared unconstitutional when the Democrats were in power. Since it was the Democratic party that was in the majority during the implementation of the "New Deal", then what were they so worried about? It is obvious that they knew they were violating the Constitution and had to pervert the court to get away with it.
During this period of our history, the Supreme Court was literally thrust into politics instead of just doing its job in judging the laws. The administration was attempting to convert the court into a political rather than constitutional court and to negate its effect in declaring federal laws unconstitutional.
Some of Mr. Roosevelt's allies in Congress defected on the issue of the Supreme Court and worked with the Court to prevent the administration from perverting the court. In Part 3 of The Saturday Evening Post article entitled "The 168 Days- 'The Strange Finale'" we read Senator Wheeler's sentiments on the President's court plan.
"How could the President have been so heartlessly cruel to eighty-year-old Justice Brandies, the first and best New Dealer of them all, as to make the justices' age the mainspring of his attack on the court?" ibid., pg. 20.
In the Sept. 25 article under the subheading of "A Hint to Devanter" we read:
"Throughout most of the fight the opposition senators were in pretty close touch with certain members of the Supreme Court, and one strong faction among them, headed by Senator Burke, desired to use these contacts to prevent any resignations or retirements from the bench... Their one desire was to prevent the packing of the court, and they believed that a retirement or so would weaken the President's case almost as much as the court's change of front in the Wagner decision had done." ibid., pg. 48.
It is evident that the court itself had to make some tough decisions in order to maintain its very structure. If the arguments that the President was making were not diffused, there was a strong likelihood that the court could be perverted to a great degree.
Thus, there is a strong presumption that the reason the court began upholding some the "New Deal" laws was to save itself from utter ruin as a judicial body. This indeed was a sad time for the law in America. This is the way in which the Supreme Court got its "new mind".
In examining the lists of Justices of the Supreme Court in the beginning of the Supreme Court Reporters, we will find that the Court had a completely new set of Justices by the close of the year 1941. The President appointed some of his closest allies to the bench. The court was effectively corrupted with politics.
Pollitæ legibus non leges politiis adaptandæ. Politics are to adapted to the laws, and not the laws to politics. Hob. 154.
An examination of some of these cases that began upholding the "New Deal" laws after the court was painfully aware of the attack being waged upon its independence will yield some of the most powerful dissenting opinions that can be read in the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Of the first cases to come before the Supreme Court attacking the constitutionality of the Social Security Act was Chas. C. Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548. In the opening statement of the case, we read:
"1. Taxation----61
Natural Rights are as much subject to taxation as rights of
	less importance." supra, 57 S. Ct. Rptr., pg. 883.
What authority did the court cite to substantiate this claim? Footnote #6 of the case brings forward the legal authority the court cited to substantiate this claim.
"6. The cases are brought together by Prof. John MacArthur in an essay, 'Taxing the Exercise of Natural Rights' (Harvard Legal Essays, 1934, pp. 273, 322)." supra, pg. 888.
We, as a people, are in deep trouble if all the government has to do to uphold its political philosophies is find a legal essay that agrees with their position. I wonder if We the People could use the writings of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln to uphold our Liberties.
The decision in this case was by a 5-4 majority. Mr. Justice McReynolds, in his dissenting opinion, made some profound statements that show the radical change that was taking place in the federal government.
"The invalidity also the destructive tendency of legislation like the act before us were forcefully pointed out by President Franklin Pierce in a veto message sent to the Senate May 3, 1854. He was a scholarly lawyer of distinction and enjoyed the advise and counsel of a rarely able Attorney General- Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts. This message considers with unusual lucidity points here specially important. I venture to set out pertinent portions of it which must appeal to all who continue to respect both the letter and spirit of our great charter." supra, pg. 896.
Former President Pierce's veto message was in regards an act that was to benefit the indigent insane of the country. Consider this excerpt from his veto message.
"I readily and, I trust, feelingly acknowledge the duty incumbent on us all as men and citizens, and among the highest and holiest of our duties, to provide for those who, in the mysterious order of Providence, are subject to want and to disease of the body or mind; but I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgement, be so contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." supra, pg. 898.
The final statement of Mr. Justice McRenoylds' dissenting opinion states:
"Ordinarily, I must think, a denial that the challenged action of Congress and what has been done under it amounts to coercion and impair freedom of government by the people of the state would be regarded as contrary to practical experience. Unquestionably our federal plan of government confronts an enlarged peril." supra, pg. 900.
Consider the closing statement of Mr. Justice Southerland's dissenting opinion.
"If we are to survive as the United States, the balance between the powers of the nation and those of the states must be maintained. There is a grave danger in permitting it to dip in either direction, danger- if there were no other- in the precedent thereby set for further departures from the equipoise. The threat implicit in the present encroachment upon the administrative functions of the states is that greater encroachments upon other functions, will follow." supra, pg. 903.