|
|
"Thurmond Claims Rights Act Product
of Practical Politics"
Harvard
Law Record - December 12, 1958 - Pages 1, 3
By Binder
reprinted by permission
Senator J. Strom Thurmond (D) of South Carolina Friday evening denounced The Civil Rights Bill passed by Congress last summer as "unnecessary, unwise and unconstitutional." Speaking before the Law School Forum, the Senator declared that "the greatest bulwarks of individual rights and freedoms in the long run are the twin principles of states' rights and independence of the three branches of government."
The former South Carolina governor accused all three branches of the Federal government with blatant violations of the Constitution in the recent past, scoring the judiciary for the school integration decision, the executive for the dispatch of troops to Little Rock and the Congress for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill (H.R. 6127).
Pointing out that the Constitution has not been lawfully amended to increase Federal powers since 1920, Senator Thurmond decried the practice of amendment by "interpretation" being used by the Supreme Court. Only the people can lawfully changed the Constitution, he stated, by means of the amending process ofas set forth in the instrument itself.
No power given
The Southern champion of states' rights denounced the 1954 school integration decision of the Supreme Court, declaring that "nowhere in the Constitution ... is the Federal government given any power in the field of public-school education."
Pointing out that the same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment also passed legislation providing for segregated schools in the District of Columbia, the Senator asserted that the integration decision "completely violates, beyond any real dispute, the plain intent of those who brought into being the 14th Amendment."
Senator Thurmond questioned the validity of the Amendment itself, noting the "force, fraud and peculiar circumstances surrounding its purported adoption." If the question of the legality of the adoption of this Amendment were now raised, he said, the Supreme Court would avoid and evade the question, refuse to decide it, and labeled "not justiciable."
Senator Thurmond charged that the Civil Rights Bill passed by Congress is the product of "practical politics in certain big city states." The Bill was unnecessary, he protested, because "the right of all qualified citizens to vote is protected by law in each of the 48 states and by Federal laws where applicable."
The reason, the Senator said, that the number of registered Negro voters in the South is small compared to the total number of Negroes of voting age is because "many Negroes fail to meet the basic voting qualifications which are applied alike to members of both races" and others "simply lack sufficient political consciousness to spur them on to participate in political affairs." A great number of the latter, he said, "probably also lacked certain other qualities prerequisite to casting a truly intelligent ballot...."
The Civil Rights Bill's most outspoken opponent challenged its validity for reasons extending from an "unconstitutional delegation of Congressional powers... to the lack of the guarantee of a jury trial in cases which are criminal in nature."
The Bill "is in direct conflict with the Constitution," Senator Thurmond charged, in denying the accused his right to a jury in a trial for criminal contempt if no fine in excess of $300 is levied or no sentence of more than 45 days imprisonment is meted out.
He pointed to Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, which provides, "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury," and the 6th Amendment, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a... trial, by an impartial jury."
Following his address Senator Thurmond was joined in a panel discussion by Professor Robert Braucher, Richard B. Dellheim, attorney and faculty member of Boston University, and Father Robert F. Drinan, Dean of Boston College Law School.
Professor Fleming James, Jr. was the program's moderator.