You have found an item located in the Kentuckiana Digital Library.
No. 101 "Shall We Plow under the Supreme Court?" Speech of Jouett Shouse before the Bondmen's Club, Chicago, Illinois, February 6, 1936. American Liberty League. 400dpi TIFF G4 page images Digital Library Services, University of Kentucky Libraries Lexington, Kentucky Am_Lib_Leag_101 These pages may freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. No. 101 "Shall We Plow under the Supreme Court?" Speech of Jouett Shouse before the Bondmen's Club, Chicago, Illinois, February 6, 1936. American Liberty League. American Liberty League. Washington, D.C. 1936. This electronic text file was created by Optical Character Recognition (OCR). No corrections have been made to the OCR-ed text and no editing has been done to the content of the original document. Encoding has been done through an automated process using the recommendations for Level 1 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file. AN INVITATION TO JOIN THE AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE We extend to every American citizen who believes in the fundamental principles which gave birth to the Constitution of the United States an invitation to become a member of the American Liberty League. You may indicate your acceptance of this invitation by filling in the necessary information as to your name and address on the enrollment blank below and mailing it to American Liberty League, National Press Building, Washington, D. C. There are no fees or dues. If you are willing and able to give monetary help for the League's support your contribution will be appreciated, as our activities are supported entirely by the voluntary gifts of our members. ENROLLMENT BLANK Date_ I favor the principles and purposes of the American Liberty League and request that I be enrolled as a I regular lmember. â– 'contributing J Signalu Name (Mr. Mrs. Miss) *As a contributing member I desire to give $_ to help support the activities of the League: Cash here with_ Installments as follows: _ Shall We Plow under the Supreme Court? * â˜… â˜… Speech of jouett shouse President of the American Liberty League before the Bondmen's Club, Chicago, Illinois February 6, 1936 american liberty league National Headquarters NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. (101) Document No. 101 HEN you have finished with this pamphlet please pass it on to some friend or acquaintance who might be interested, calling his attention to the membership blank on page 24. Shall We Plow Under the Supreme Court â˜… Mr. CHAIRMAN and Gentlemen: For approximately 150 years this nation has lived and grown and prospered under a document known as the Constitution of the United States. We are one of the few nations of the world with a written Constitution. For the writing of that Constitution there was good reason. For its preservation unimpaired in its basic tenets there is better reason today than there has been during any one of the 150 years of its history. The GREATNESS of that Constitution is founded on two primary thoughts: 1. An exact, unshakable and unbreakable balance of power as between the three departments of our National Government, legislative, executive and judicial. 2. The fact that we have in reality a dual government: A national government of which the states are composite parts; a national government created by the states; a national government which derives every power that it possesses from the states; and a national government which, by the very charter of our liberties, cannot and must not impinge upon the powers that were not granted it by the states and therefore have been reserved to the states and to the people. THE SUPREME COURT of the United States had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution, but by the terms of the Constitution itself the Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter and determining factor as to what the Constitution means. The Constitution is the basic law and no law that Congress may pass can in any circumstances supersede or impinge upon or run contrary to w the basic law that was established by the people of this country to govern it. And therefore when the Supreme Court renders a decision upon an enactment of Congress it is not the business of the Supreme Court to say whether the act is a wise act or an unwise act. It is not the province of the Supreme Court to pass upon the merits of any legislative enactment of the government. It is the province and the sacred duty of the Supreme Court, in the light of the Constitution, to interpret to and for the American people the question as to whether an enactment of the Congress, a temporary body, contravenes in any way the basic law, which is the Constitution. NOW WE have pending in both houses of the Congress at the present time a number of resolutions which seek to amend the Constitution of the United States. The tenor and the purpose of practically all of those resolutions is to deprive the Supreme Court of the power vested in it under the Constitution to interpret the acts of Congress and, if they are not in conformity with the basic law, to declare them unlawful. Should these amendments, or should these resolutions, or any of them, be finally passed by the Congress and adopted by the necessary two-thirds of the states, what condition would we face in this country? We would have the situation where Congress could pass any act it saw fit, no matter how it might interfere with the so-called Bill of Rights, which constitutes the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Any act it saw fit, influenced by the temporary whim or desire of a mere majority of the Congress. And that would become the basic law of the land under which you must live and by which you must abide. I SUBMIT, gentlemen, that at no time in the prior history of this nation has there been such need as latterly and presently has existed for the preservation of the Supreme Court unimpaired and for the exercise under the Supreme Court of its solemn duty without ostentation, without prejudice, without acclaim, and without fear, to pass upon legislative enactments that may be presented to it, and for your protection to outlaw such enactments as do not conform to the basic and fundamental network of our law. Of course, it is not important, save as indicating a certain state of the public political mind, as to what resolutions may be pending before the Congress. In every Congress literally thousands of bills and resolutions are introduced which never have even serious consideration in a committee of the Congress, and no proposal is of consequence unless it is one upon which there is the possibility of definite action. There is, however, in the present situation, a need for a determination as to the attitude of certain people. I am extremely anxious to know, and I dare say you, as thoughtful American citizens, are extremely anxious to know, what is the attitude of the President of the United States toward possible amendment of the Constitution. I SPOKE a while ago of the equal division of powers as between the three coordinate branches of our government. That division formerly existed. Under this administration that division has ceased to exist because, unhappily, a subservient Congress has abdicated its function and has conferred upon the executive branch of the government practically every power which formerly belonged to the Congress by constitutional grant. But we do not stop there. From the beginning of this administration, from the day that its various and multifarious experiments were launched, there have been persistent rumors throughout the country that unless the Supreme Court of the United States should uphold these fantastic legislative enactments, the effort would be made in one way or another to influence and to control decisions of the Supreme Court. We have plowed under the pigs, we have plowed under the cotton, we have plowed under the wheat, we have plowed under the tobacco, we have plowed under the peanuts, we were about to engage in the experiment of plowing under the potatoes. But far more serious than any of them is the question: Shall the Supreme Court be plowed under? I SUBMIT that the basis of mere rumor is not one upon which fairly to condemn any man or any administration. And the fact that the Brain Trusters having, unhappily, the ear of the President as no other group in Washington has had it, have openly boasted that unless the Supreme Court behaved it would be packed through additional appointees, sympathetic to the executive point of view as to constitutional interpretation, that of itself is no just ground upon which to condemn the intention or the contemplated act of the administration. But, as your Chairman suggested a minute ago, let's look at the record. XjAST MAY, by unanimous vote, the Supreme Court of the United States held the NRA unconstitutional. That decision was rendered on a Monday, the twenty-seventh day of May. On Friday, the thirty-first day of May, the most unusual spectacle that has ever been witnessed in the history of this government was presented in Washington. The word went abroad to every newspaper man entitled to attend a Presidential press conference that there would be matters of unusual interest discussed, and the President's office was crowded, of course. The Vice President of the United States and the majority leader of the Senate were brought down from Capitol Hill. The Speaker of the House likewise was present. And then Mrs. Roosevelt came in. And before that carefully staged assembly, not in the heat of momentary passion but after hours of due deliberation, the President of the United States made a speech uninterrupted of nearly an hour and a half in which he condemned, with a bitterness unthinkable, this coordinate branch of the government of equal rank with him. He said that this decision of the Supreme Court carried us back to the horse and buggy days. He said it made impossible any social progress. He said it meant the deathknell of other pet projects in his legislative scheme. And he berated, with every term which caution would permit his tongue to use, the highest judicial tribunal of this land. Why? Because it had done its duty under the basic law which governs us. there was a reaction, the most marked reaction that had happened in this country in years, and exactly the contrary reaction to what Mr. Roosevelt expected. Instead of rising up, 120,000,000 strong, as he had anticipated, his diatribe served to bring a vast number of the American people to their senses, and on every side and from every section there was condemnation rather than commendation of this impudent and this improper assertion on the part of the President of the United States. And so for a time, in so far as Presidential circles were concerned (and I speak of the very intimate White House circle), nothing more was said about amending the Constitution. I believe it is only fair to suggest, because it was the thought in the mind of every newspaper man who attended that notable press conference, that Mr. Roosevelt fully and definitely expected at once to present amendments that would do two things: First, that would curtail the power of the Supreme Court, and second, that would so broaden the rights of the Federal Government under the commerce clause that Congress could pass practically any legislation it might see fit to govern and to regiment the business of the people of the United States. But neither of those things have been forthcoming. Now what has happened? We have had another decision of the Supreme Court. As Al Smith put it, three more letters of the alphabet have been thrown out the window. This time it was the AAA. The President has been cautious enough to make no comment, save a very significant, if passing, statement in his speech before the $50 a plate Jackson Day Dinner in Washington on the eighth of January. Note you the AAA decision was a six to three decision, three justices dissenting from the majority opinion of the Court. There Mr. Roosevelt said: "I am weighing very carefully the two opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States and I shall defer further comment until I have had more opportunity to study them." Two opinions of the Supreme Court! It is just about a year ago that there was another divided opinion of the Supreme Court, this time a five to four opinion on the gold clause. But that opinion by five to four held as Mr. Roosevelt wanted it to hold. Was there any suggestion then from him of studying the two opinions of the Supreme Court. And I am happy to say that from those who sincerely believe that the Supreme Court was mistaken in its finding in that connection there was never a word of suggestion of protest against the opinion. It has remained for the President of the United States, dealing with a coordinate branch of the government of equal power with himself, to speak of two opinions when the Supreme Court did not find according to his predilection and his desire. But IF Mr. Roosevelt personaUy has not expressed himself, there has been abundant expression from other administration sources. I have no unkind word to say for the gentleman who is Secretary of Agriculture. I have no unkind word to say for any man who doesn't agree with my point of view in this very trying time. I am leaving name-calling to the other side, and we are having plenty of it, unfortunately. I think Henry Wallace is as high-minded, as sincere, and as honest a public servant as I know, however much I may think him mistaken. But last week two remarkable thing8 happened. After the AAA decision the Supreme Court, this time by unanimous vote, held that the processing taxes which had been illegally collected from a group of rice millers in Louisiana must be returned, and Mr. Secretary Wallace in a radio speech referred to that decision as the greatest legalized steal that had ever been witnessed in the history of this country. ABOUT THE same time Mr. Wallace appeared before a committee of the Senate which was considering an attempted substitute measure for the AAA. He was asked his opinion as to the constitutionality of this substitute measure. Here is what he said: "I am firmly convinced that the bill is constitutional, and I think the committee is also convinced of its constitutionality, but constitutionality is one thing and passing the Supreme Court is another." I need not call your attention to the very frequent and the very pronounced expressions of opinion that come almost every day from your eminent fellow townsman, Mr. Secretary Ickes. He lets no occasion pass on which to impress upon the American people, from the profundity of his constitutional knowledge, the fact that the Supreme Court ought to be thrown out the window along with the alphabet, if the alphabet has to go, and that nothing that he and his confreres might force through Congress should ever be subject to a decision of unconstitutionality. HERE IS THE serious part of it: Both Mr. Wallace and Mr. Ickes are wholly unimportant as individuals, but Mr. Wallace and Mr. Ickes are members of the cabinet of the man who presently is President of the United States. Neither one of them is a Democrat. I don't know how Mr. Roosevelt found them, but he got them. He didn't get them from his party or my party. He may have gotten them from what is his party now. Upon those two men he has conferred powers such as have never before been exercised by any two members of a cabinet in any administration. I wonder if perhaps Mr. Wallace and Mr. Ickes do not interpret far more accurately the Presidential mind than the only outstanding Democrat in the cabinet, for example, Cordell Hull of the State Department. I DO MAKE this assertion: When a cabinet officer assumes to make statements such as those I have quoted from Mr. Wallace, an officer empowered to speak for his chief on all matters relating to his department, and those statements go unrebuked and uncontradicted, they must be accepted as representing the views and the desires of the President himself. I have no quarrel with any man who seeks in the way provided by the Constitution itself to amend that document. I may oppose his amendment; I may not agree with his amendment; but any citizen of America has a perfect right, in a constitutional way, to attempt to amend the Constitution if he believes it is in the public interest. Certainly Mr. Roosevelt has. But the American people have the right to know whether Mr. Roosevelt wants to see the Constitution amended, and if so, exactly the character of amendment that he would offer. Here IN Chicago a little less than four years ago my party met in convention assembled. And I am still a Democrat, in spite of this administration. It drafted a platform which I think every Republican will admit is the best 10 statement of political principles that has ever been put out by either political party. The candidate nominated by that convention flew to Chicago from Albany in order to give 100 per cent endorsement to this great platform. A platform will be written again this year by those who are now posing as in charge of the Democratic Party. This time it will be written at Philadelphia. If Mr. Roosevelt wants to present to the American people suggested amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the platform written at Philadelphia is the place to make his proposal, for if I have any notion of the determination of the people of this country they are not going again to accept mere lip service to a platform and see that platform destroyed after a man gets into office. What character of legislation have we had that has made it necessary for the Supreme Court to upset already (and my guess is that the story isn't more than half told) more legislative enactments of this administration, aye, twice as many, as have ever before been upset in one administration? What is the character of that legislation? I said to you a while ago that Congress has surrendered its powers. If it be possible, it has done an even more dastardly thing than that, because it has blindly surrendered its powers. I used to be a Member of Congress, as your Chairman said. I hope I am forgiven. But in those days, and speaking seriously, in the stress of war, when action by the Congress of the United States was absolutely vital to the carrying forward of this enterprise upon which perhaps the fate of civilization hung, and in which we had enlisted to the extent of all our resources and all our man power even then, in the stress of war, Congress did its own legislating, and there was never a suggestion that it shouldn't do it. 11 YOU REMEMBER the Draft Act that came up in May of 1917 after the declaration of war against Germany. It is true that a proposed outline of a bill, at the request of the Military Affairs Committee of both houses, was sent down from the War Department. The Democratic side of the Military Affairs Committee of the House was unanimously against the Draft Act. None of them would introduce it. It was introduced by old Julius Kahn, of California, the ranking Republican on that committee. And when that bill was presented to the House, 35 per cent of the membership of the House was unalterably opposed to it. What happened? There were ten days of general debate. In so far as I recall, it was the last great debate that took place on the floor of the House of Representatives. And as a result of that debate, and as a result of the legislation which the House itself wrote in committee of the whole, when the final vote was cast about 75 per cent of the membership of the House voted in favor of the act. Now WHAT have we seen in these last two years? An emergency? Oh, yes. I grant you there was an emergency, a serious emergency, but I do not grant that it was any more serious than the emergency in the time of the World War. But under this administration, not one, not two, but literally dozens of bills, the authorship of which in many instances is wholly unknown, have been sent down from the White House to the committees of Congress with instructions that they be passed overnight without the change in the dot of an "i" or the cross of a "t," without amendment and without debate. Even the chairmen of the committees who have received them and have presented them and in whose names they have appeared as legislative enactments haven't known what was in the bills. That is the kind of legislation you have been 12 having since the spring of 1933. There isn't a township school board in Illinois that would accept or pass the most trivial matter with so little real consideration as has been given by the Congress, your Congress, to legislation which had, as its definite and prepared purpose, an utter subversion of American institutions as we have known them and as we believe in them, and of the whole character and form of American life. Is it any wonder that as successively these half-baked, unconstitutional, unnecessary, unlawful and undesirable legislative enactments have come to the Supreme Court, that the Su-j preme Court, in conformity with its sworn duty, , has had to find them contrary to the basic law ! of the land, which is the Constitution of the United States? Youh aven't forgotten just a year ago there came down from the White House on Monday afternoon to Buchanan, of Texas, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the House, a bill calling for an appropriation of $4,880,000,-000, to be placed as a blank check in the hands of the President of the United States. It was $4,880,000,000. That is more money than was spent for every activity of the Federal Government in any year from 1922 to 1931. This bill, placed in Buchanan's hands at two o'clock on Monday afternoon, he was ordered to have passed immediately without a single change. He wasn't even permitted to have a meeting of his 1 committee to consider the bill. He gathered to-gether three or four as a subcommittee and had j two officers from the Treasury come down for an hour, and all they said to him was, "The President wants this bill passed." And so, under a gag rule, without permitting debate, without permitting amendment, a bill appropriating to the President of the United States this gigantic sum was forced through the House within forty-eight hours from the time it came down from the White House. 13 They DON'T even any longer call that sort of thing legislation in Italy or in Germany, and it isn't legislation here any more than it is there. That is the character of legislation you have had. I could go on ad infinitum, taking up these different bills in serial form and showing you the procedure that has been followed. Now what is the situation? Congress has abdicated. Congress has surrendered all of its power to the executive branch of the government. And the one last thin line that has stood between the American people and the destruction of the form of government in which they believe has been the Federal judiciary. Now you are confronted with the question as to whether you will allow that also to be plowed under. I WANT TO refer briefly to a speech made over the radio a few evenings ago by Senator Joseph T. Robinson of Arkansas. In his address the Senator made this amazing declaration: "In the whole United States there is not a single individual who can honestly and truthfully charge Franklin D. Roosevelt with advocating the suppression of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assemblage, freedom of worship, or any of those other basic rights guaranteed to us in the immortal Bill of Rights." The Senator is 50 per cent right. The President has advocated the suppression of only five out of the ten articles in the immortal Bill of Rights. I suspect my friend from Arkansas has not been reading the newspapers, has not studied recent decisions of the Supreme Court and has forgotten his lessons in the Constitution. IN THE FIRST place the First Amendment of the Constitution, guaranteeing, among other precious liberties, the freedom of the press, was 14 made the object of direct attack two years ago when the President and the NRA fought to license the press of the United States. I summon as witnesses the editors and publishers of most of the influential newspapers of the country to the truth of the assertion that the Administration was forced to include in the Newspaper Code, under NRA, a clause in which the signers asserted that they were waiving none of their rights under the First Article of the Bill of Rights. The spirit of the Fourth Article of the Bill of Rights was under attack in the administration bill which gave the President unprecedented powers under the NRA. Under this bill power was granted to examine the books and records of all private industry, as the President or his agents desired. What about the Fourth Amendment's guarantee that the people shall "be secure in their persons, houses, papers?" The further prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures" was ignored in this bill. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Article of the Bill of Rights was violated in the Frazier-Lemke Bill and the Railroad Pension Act. That Amendment provides that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Is that guarantee so insignificant that the Senator from Arkansas overlooked it? DISTINGUISHED lawyers have publicly expressed the opinion that the Ninth Article of the Bill of Rights was violated by the now notorious Potato Act of 1935. Briefly the Act is regarded generally as giving to the Federal Government rights which are reserved to the people. The whole act is so unsavory that even the Administration has now repudiated it, although the President approved the measure by signing it. Lawyers contend that it also violates the Fifth and Tenth Articles of the Bill of Rights. 15 The Tenth and last Article of the Bill of Rights was held by the Supreme Court a few weeks ago to have been violated by the AAA act, which it declared unconstitutional. It invaded the rights of the States. So there stand five out of ten Articles in that "immortal" Bill of Rights whose suppression this Administration has advocated. If we had lost those five guarantees of liberty we should no longer be able to call ourselves 100 per cent Americans. We should have to be content with being 50 per cent Americans, marked down from 100 per cent. Senator Robinson properly calls the Bill of Rights "immortal." But it is not "immortal" if any administration, under any plea of emergency, may destroy it. The Supreme Court is the bulwark that has protected it against its enemies. Attempts to plow under the Constitution by nullification and usurpation shall not prevail. Neither shall the present effort succeed in plowing under the Supreme Court. I spoke of emergency a while ago. Emergency was used as the excuse for all of this legislation initially, and each one of these acts in a long prelude would cite the emergency that existed as a justification for the passage of the act. Some of them, a few of them, had definite time limitations placed upon them. NRA, for example, was to be limited to two years. The AAA was to be limited to the period of the emergency, but the President was to declare when the emergency ended. But emergency, emergency, emergency, was given as the excuse for each one in turn. What have we seen, however, within the last year? We have seen the statements successively, first about the NRA, then about the AAA, then about this, that and the other thing, that they were to be made permanent. The illusion of emergency dispelled, if you please, the pretense of emergency abandoned. 16 I SPOKE of the haphazard way in which this legislation has been passed by Congress, but do not assume, gentlemen, that there has not been a very carefully thought out plan behind this legislation. If you go back to the very beginning and take each act successively, you will see that they are all parts of a very definite whole, that each one has had its own positive place in bringing about a situation which would change the whole form and contour and context of the American government. Don't for an instant think that there hasn't been behind each of them a very definite, concerted and careful plan. NOW WHAT about this platform to which I referred a while ago that was written here in Chicago in 1932 ? Mr. Roosevelt's defenders say that it has been impossible for him to live up to that platform because of the seriously changed conditions that have taken place in this country. Particularly is that plea made with reference to this orgy of extravagance that has characterized his administration. Do you recall the conditions that prevailed here the latter part of June of 1932? I do very distinctly. There was a run on your hanks here in Chicago, a run that, except for certain very definite steps that were taken, might have closed every bank in the town, and its reverberations would have been felt from one end of this country to the other. Your business and the business of America the latter part of June of 1932 was at the lowest ebb. It was in those circumstances, it was under those conditions, that the Democratic platform was written. That platform pledged the immediate exercise of economy to effect a reduction in Federal expenditures of not less than 25 per cent. Now, if you please, for the sake of argument, contend that the conditions that confronted Mr. Roosevelt after he became President were far more desperate than those that prevailed when the platform was written (though I personally 17 do not think so), he started out magnificently with his Economy Bill. But by the summer of 1933 his policy was entirely changed. I think there is no man who can contend, in fairness, that from March 10, 1933 to July 1, 1933, there had been a retrogression, so far as business is concerned. On the contrary, according to every spokesman for the Roosevelt administration, there was a great improvement within that period, and I agree with that claim. LEAVE out the Chicago platform, if you please, and let's see what Mr. Roosevelt himself said on March 10, 1933, to the Congress of the United States. After enumerating the successive deficits of four years, on March 10, 1933, he made this statement: "Thus we shall have piled up an accumulated deficit of $5,000,000,000. With the utmost seriousness I point out to the Congress the profound effect of this fact upon our national economy. It has contributed to the recent collapse of our banking structure. It has accentuated the stagnation of economic life of our people. It has added to the ranks of the unemployed. Our government's house is not in order, and for many reasons no effective action has been taken to restore it to order. Upon the unimpaired credit of the United States Government rests the safety of deposits, the security of insurance policies, the activity of industrial enterprises, the value of agricultural products, and the availability of employment. The credit of the United States Government definitely affects these fundamental human values. It therefore becomes our first concern to make secure the foundations national recovery depends upon. Too often in recent history liberal governments have been wrecked on the rocks of loose fiscal policy. We must avoid this danger." AND AFTER those words, not the words of the Democratic platform, not the words of that period during which there have been these ter-18 rific changes that made necessary a change of policy, according to the Roosevelt defenders after those words, within three months, Franklin Roosevelt had deliberately wrecked the foundation upon which he had based the economy measure and had entered upon an orgy of spending such as had no counterpart in the history of any nation from the beginning of the world. You gentlemen representing the Bondmen's Club of Chicago are quite as familiar as am I with the situation that now confronts this nation in its accumulated deficits. And while unfortunately there is no way in which the Supreme Court can assist in preventing a continuance of this utter waste of your money by an irresponsible national administration, yet you and the rest of the people of the United States have the remedy in your own hands. If I AM any judge of public opinion in America, the era of sanity is about to return. If I am any judge of public opinion, the hard common sense of America is about to reassert itself. And that hard common sense realizes that to work and to earn and to save constitutes the only way in which an individual or a family or a nation can ultimately survive. If I am any judge of public opinion in this country, the people already have awakened and are rapidly awakening to the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States is the great protector of their individual rights and their individual opportunities. And I welcome the issue from this or any other administration of an attempt to plow the Supreme Court under. 19 PAMPHLETS AVAILABLE Â£JOPIES of the following pamphlets and other League literature may be obtained upon application to the League's national headquarters. Statement of Principles and Purposes American Liberty League Its Platform The $4,880,000,000 Emergency Relief Appropriation Act The Bonus Inflation The Thirty Hour Week Bill The Holding Company Bill Price Control The Labor Relations Bill The Farmers' Home Bill The TVA Amendments The Supreme Court and the New Deal The Revised AAA Amendments The President's Tax Program Expanding Bureaucracy Lawmaking by Executive Order New Deal Laws in Federal Courts Potato Control Consumers and the AAA Budget Prospects Dangerous Experimentation Economic Planning Mistaken But Not New Work Relief The AAA and Our Form of Government Alternatives to the American Form of Gov- A Program for Congress The 1937 Budget Professors and the New Deal Wealth and Income The President Wants More Power (leaflet) The Townsend Nightmare (leaflet) The National Labor Relations Act Summary of Conclusions from Report of the National Lawyers Committee Straws Which Tell An Open Letter to the President By Dr. Neil Carothers The Constitution What It Means to the Man in the Street By John W. Davis How to Meet the Issue Speech by W. E. Borah The Duty of the Church to the Social Order Speech by S. Wells Utley The American Bar The Trustee of American Institutions Speech by Albert C. Ritchie PAMPHLETS AVAILABLE (continued) Two Amazing Years Speech by Nicholas Roosevelt Legislation By Coercion or Constitution Speech by Jouett Shouse The Imperilment of Democracy Speech by Fitzgerald Hall The Spirit of Americanism Speech by William It. Ellis The Test of Citizenship Speech by Dean Carl W. Acherman Today's Lessons for Tomorrow Speech by Captain William H. Stayton ""Breathing Spells" Speech by Jouett Shouse The Duty of the Lawyer in the Present Crisis Speech by James M. Beck The Constitution and the Supreme Court Speech by Borden Burr The Economic Necessity in the Southern States for a Return to the Constitution Speech by Forney Johnston The National Lawyers Committee of the American Liberty League Speech by Ethan A. H. Shepley Our Growing National Debt and Inflation Speech by Dr. E. W. Kemmerer Inflation is Bad Business Speech by Dr. Neil Carothers The Real Significance of the Constitutional Issue Speech by R. E. Desvernine Arousing ClaBS Prejudices Speech by Jouett Shouse The Fallacies and Dangers of the Townsend Plan Speech by Dr. Walter E. Spahr What of 1936? Speech by James P. Warburg Americanism at the Crossroads Speech by R. E. Desvernine The Constitution and the New Deal Speech by James M. Carson The American Constitution Whose Heritage? Speech by Frederick H. St inch field The American Form of Government Let Us Preserve It Speech by Albert C. Ritchie The Redistribution of Power Speech by John W. Davis Time to Stop Speech by Dr. Neil Carothers The President Has Made the Issue Speech by Charles 1. Dawson The Facts In the Case Speech by Alfred E. Smith The Townsend Utopia Speech by Dr. Ray Bert Wester field