Establishing Rules of Interpretation Governing Questions of the Effect of Acts of Congress on State Laws

I suppose in light of the latest invasion by the Court of the legislative field which took place in the Icardi case yesterday, it is incumbent upon the chairman of the committee to state what legislative purpose the Congress has in mind when it legislates.

This subcommittee held hearings during the first session of this Congress in connection with H. R. 3, introduced by Mr. Smith of Virginia. H. R. 3 is a bill which would estabilsh rules of interpretation governing questions of the effect of acts of Congress on State laws. We are today resuming those hearings.

At the time of the last hearing the case of Pennsylvania v. Nelson which related to the subject of the relationship between State and Federal laws, was pending in the United States Supreme Court. That case has now been decided, and the opinion was handed down on April 2, 1956. Since that case was referred to at the time of the previous hearings, it is appropriate that we now examine the subject of legislation in this field in the light of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Lane, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Donovan, of New York, have introduced bills which bear upon this subject, but which are more limited in the scope of their application in that they relate specifically to the field of sedition.

At this point in the record we will insert H. R. 3, H. R. 10344, and H. R. 10335.

(The bills referred to are as follows:)

[H. R. 3, 84th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To establish rules of interpretation governing questions of the effect of Acts of Congress on State laws

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no Act of Congress shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which such Act operates, to the exclusion of all State laws on the same subject matter,

unless such Act contains an express provision to that effect. No Act of Congress shall be construed as invalidating a provision of State law which would be valid in the absence of such Act unless there is a direct and positive conflict between an express provision of such Act and such provision of the State law so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.

[H. R. 10344, 84th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To establish the concurrent jurisdiction of the Federal Government and the States and Territories with respect to sedition against the Government of the United States, States, and Territories, and their political subdivisions

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding any provision of law or court decision to the contrary, the Federal Government and the States and the Territories of the United States have concurrent power to legislate with respect to sedition against the Government of the United States, or the government of any State or Territory, or the government of any political subdivision of a State or Territory.

[H. R. 10335, 84th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To provide that Acts of Congress do not occupy, and shall not be construed to occupy, the field of sedition against the United States to the exclusion of State laws on such subject without express provision by Congress to such effect

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, (a) notwithstanding any other provision of law or court decision to the contrary, no Act or Acts of Congress enacted before the date of enactment of this Act, occupies, or shall be construed as occupying, the field of sedition against the Government of the United States to the exclusion of all laws of the States or the Territories of the United States dealing with such subject matter.

(b) No Act or Acts of Congress enacted after the date of enactment of this Act shall be construed as occupying or as being intended to occupy the field of sedition against the Government of the United States to the exclusion of all laws of the States and Territories of the United States dealing with such subject matter, unless Congress expressly provides that such Act or Acts so occupy such field. Mr. WALTER. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Lane of Massachusetts. He is detained because his subcommittee is in session, and at this point in the record we will insert his statement. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. LANE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Chairman, in recent years we have witnessed a gradual erosion of State's rights.

It goes without saying, that only the Federal Government can carry out certain functions, but the growing tendency to take over more and more authority. denying to the States even the right of cooperation, will lead to a topheavy centralization of power.

Amendment 10 to the Constitution provides that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Under the Smith Act, passed by the Congress, the Federal Government is empowered to try and punish those who are accused and are found guilty of sedition. The law does not specifically prohibit the States from taking such action under their own laws.

The Supreme Court of the United States has recently decided, but with a strong dissenting opinion by the minority, that only the Federal courts have jurisdiction in cases involving sedition.

This has paralyzed the initiative of those States which, under their own laws, have been most active in prosecuting sedition within their own borders. In turn, this has weakened our total efforts to protect ourselves from the Communist conspiracy, and has had the effect of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The Communists are expert in exploiting every legal loophole to their advantage, and will continue to do so as long as we permit them to claim a conflict between Federal and State laws on this issue. Any division plays into their hands.

Obviously, State officials are more familiar with certain aspects of the problem, as well as having the additional facilities to prosecute sedition.

Furthermore, there is a precedent for joint Federal-State action.

Under the Volstead Act, both authorities moved in on violators of the prohibition laws.

Unfortunately, the Smith Act was loosely written.

This fact is generally recognized as a result of the Supreme Court's interpretation.

To compensate for this omission, several bills are up for consideration by the subcommittee.

One of them is H. R. 3, to establish rules of interpretation governing questions of the effect of acts of Congress on State laws.

I submit that is language altogether too general.

It states "That no act of Congress shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which such act operates, to the exclusion of all State laws on the same subject matter, unless such act contains an express provision to that effect."

This covers all legislation.

It could have far-reaching applications, establishing the principle of precedence and priority on the part of the Federal Government "to occupy the field" if Congress so states. Without delegation of that power to the Federal Government by the States through amendment of the Constitution.

Secondly, H. R. 3 provides that, in cases of irreconcilable conflict between acts of Congress and State laws, the Federal law shall invalidate those contradictory provisions of the State laws.

We are primarily concerned here with the problem of sedition alone-and not dealing with possible legislation in which there might be an honest difference of opinion among our people-or progressive legislation which the several States might enact without fear of being subordinated in all cases to the will of Congress.

Again, there is no conflict on the issue of sedition.

We need, and want, the most effective employment of our courts to try and punish sedition.

Acting in concert, we shall make sure that no Communist conspirators will escape.

Speaking in support of my bill, H. R. 10344, I want to emphasize that it is specifically limited to sedition.

And that it will establish a concurrent jurisdiction as among the Federal Government, the States, the Territories, and their political subdivisions, to make certain that the laws and the courts give us full protection against those who conspire to overthrow the Government by force and violence.

To ferret out the Communist intriguers, there must be specific authority under both Federal and State laws for this purpose.

H. R. 10344, by establishing concurrent jurisdiction "with respect to sedition" keeps us "well on the target."

It avoids the suggestion that Congress might expressly provide for the exclusion "of all State laws on the same subject matter."

It clearly removes any possibility of judicial conflict of authority in dealing with the Communist danger, and without establishing rules of interpretation that might be used in similar circumstances, and regarding other issues, as a subterfuge for weakening our cherished institutions.

I submit that H. R. 10344 is strictly to the point.

Mr. WALTER. The next witness is Mr. Donovan of New York.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES G. DONOVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. DONOVAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have no prepared statement.

When the Supreme Court, in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, on the 2d of April, came down with a decision holding that by passing the Smith Act of 1940, as amended in 1948-which prohibits advocacy of overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violenceand the Internal Security Act of 1950 that requires Communists to

« Anterior Continuar »

Livros

Establishing Rules of Interpretation Governing Questions of the Effect of ...