Show SUPREME COURT HOLDS OHIO ACT INOPERATIVE States Denied Referendum Rights Bights on Amendments Constitutional ional Pi I Cannot Be ne Submitted Submitted Sub Sub- for Ratification Tl The supreme court in a I opinion In In l TA t T d y v lf that i federal f d l' l cons co amendments amendments cannot be submitted to popular vote for b by states having referendum provisions in their constitutions The method of ratifying amendments amendments amend amend- ments the court held is a national power specifically granted by br the federal constitution and the states have no authority to provide other- other wise wisp In so holding the court declared declared declared de de- inoperative pr provisions of oC the Ohio state state constitution authorizing authorizing- submission of federal amendments to toa toa toa a referendum for for ratification and overturned state supreme court decrees decrees decrees de de- de- de crees dismissing injunction proceedings proceedings proceedings proceed proceed- ings in a taxpayers taxpayer's suit to enjoin submission of the prohibition and woman womans woman's s suffrage amendments to a referendum vote Next to the cases involving the validity of the prohibition amendment amendment amendment amend amend- ment and the enforcement the Ohio referendum cases were considered the most important before the ohe su- su pree court The decision does not a affect tho the pending prohibition cases Ends elS Tho The courts court's opinion however puts an end to any controversy as asto asto asto to whether Ohio has ratified both amendments aJI and puts Ohio definitely definite definite- ly In the list of states approving approving- each of the amendments Power to ratify a federal amendment amendment amend amend- ment according to the courts court's opinIon opinion ion ton which was rendered by Associate Justice Day is derived is-derived from the tile Lcd Lcd- oral eral constitution and a state has no authority to designate the means of ratification Justice Day said that l II by v requirIng requiring requiring ing ratification to bo be by the legisla legislatures tures tho the framers of or the constitution constitution tion meant ther ecu l leg legislative e bod body in each state The Ohio no auno UJ no court corri dismissing ten es LI- LI ee 8 1 brought b by George S. S Hawke of CIn- CIn C CIncinnati u- u to prevent submission of or the prohibition and woman suffrage amendments to the voters were set t aside by the court Seven Se other proceedings proceedings pro pro- have been lieen brought to pro pro- vent submission of the prohibition amendment to a referendum The courts In Oregon Maine Colorado Arkansas California and Michigan held that federal amendments were not subject to referendum J Judge Dayi Du Da Opinion Opinion- Justice Day In rendering the courts court's opinion which was unanimous unanimous unanimous said in part The constitution of the United States W was S ordained by the people and when duly ratified It became C Continued nUu ed on Page Four flour OHIO ACT INOPERATIVE From Page One the constitution of the people of the United States The states surrendered surrendered surrendered dered to the tho general government the powers specifically conferred conferred upon the nation and the constitution and the l laws of f the Unit United e l S States t the th supreme supreme law of the land The framers of the tho constitution realized that it might require require changes To that end the they adopted the fifth firth article T his article article article arti arti- cle makes provision for the proposal of amendments either b by t two thirds of both houses of oC congress or or on application application application ap ap- ap- ap of legislators of two-thirds two o of the states i The proposed change can only become become become be be- come effective b by the ratification uon of the legislatures of oC three-fourths three of oC the states or by conventions In a like number of states Choice to Congress The method of ratification is left to to the choice of congress Both methods of by legislatures or conventions call for action by deliberate deliberate deliberate de de- de- de liberate assemblages representative of the people which it was assumed would voice the will of the people The language of the article is plain and admits of no doubt in its interpretation The only question for determination tion is What did the framers of the constitution mean in requiring rati rati- ratification by legislators' legislators That was not a term terni of uncertain meaning when incorporated into the There can be no question question ques ques- tion Lion that the framers of the constitution constitution clearly understood and care- care tully used the terms in III which that Instrument referred to the action of the legislatures of or the states When I the they intended that direction b by the people should be had bad they were noless no noless less Jess accurate in the use of oC apt phraseology to carry out such pur pur- poses I |