Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains material relating to carl Albert.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525894
label
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, November 8, 1965
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525894
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, November 8, 1965
description
This file contains material relating to carl Albert.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Executive-Legislative relations
Freedom of speech
Intergovernmental relations
Political parties
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525894
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1965-11-30
month
11
year
1965
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-11-01
month
11
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
49f722d29fa623b6
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D19, folder "Southern Methodist University,
Dallas, TX, November 8, 1965" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and
Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D19 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
SOUTHENN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
DALLAS,
TEXAS
OFFICE OF THE DEAN
DALLAS, TEXAS 75222
1965-1966
Semi-Centennial Year
February 2, 1966
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
The House of Representatives
in
Fifth District, Michigan
House Office Building
Washington, D. C.
Dear Jerry:
I am enclosing a copy of the galley proof
on the address by you at S.M.U. Will you please check
this and return it to us with any changes you wish made, and
we will go to press right away.
With kindest personal regards, I am,
Yours very sincerely,
Charles Charley O. Galvin
COG:db
Enc.
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
General
Ford appearances, etc.
1
Galvin, Dr.C.O. corrected galley
proof
February 4, 1966
Hr. Charles 0. Galvin, Dean
School of Law
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, Texas 75222
Dear Charley,
Enclosed is the corrected galley proof, as requested in your letter of
February 2nd.
Warmest personal regards.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford, M. c.
GRF/ed
encl.
FORD : LIBRARY 038870
ADDRESSES BY
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Representative from the Fifth District of Michigan,
and Republican Minority Leader
and
The Honorable Carl Albert
Representative from the Third District of Oklahoma
and Democratic Majority Leader
of
THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Given November 8 and December 9, 1965
SCHOOL OF LAW
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
DALLAS, TEXAS
FORD is LIBRARY OFRALD
Addresses By
THE HONORABLE GERALD R. FORD
Representative from the Fifth District of Michigan,
and Republican Minority Leader
and
THE HONORABLE CARL ALBERT
Representative from the Third District of Oklahoma
and Democratic Majority Leader
of
THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Given November 8 and December 9, 1965
SCHOOL OF LAW
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
DALLAS, TEXAS
SERALD
Foreword
During the academic year 1965-1966 Southern Methodist Univer-
sity is officially observing its Fiftieth Anniversary. As part of this
observance, the various schools and colleges of the University have
scheduled lectures, institutes, colloquia, and other scholarly and pro-
fessional activities.
On November 8, 1965, the School of Law presented The Honorable
Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, the Republican Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives, and on December 9, 1965, The Honorable
Carl Albert of Oklahoma, the Democratic Majority Leader of the
House of Representatives.
In all of the history of the United States, no Congress has enacted
more legislation affecting every aspect of American life than the
Eighty-Ninth Congress in its First Session. The two men most
intimately involved in this important process of government are the
Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the House of Representa-
tives. In all of the sensitive and complicated areas of legislation, these
two gentlemen act directly or indirectly in final review or final
action. They have, therefore, a grave and serious responsibility in a
free society, and the nation is fortunate that two able, dedicated
Americans occupy these key positions.
CHARLES O. GALVIN, Dean
FORD i LIBRARY 07/170
Balance in Government: An Analysis
of the Legislative Process
Born in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1913, Gerald ("Jerry") Ford spent bis
An address delivered by The Honorable Gerald
childhood in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where be received bis elementary
R. Ford, Representative from the Fifth District
and high school education and won all-city and all-state football bon-
of Michigan, and Republican Minority Leader.
ors. He received bis Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of
Michigan in 1935, was selected a member of Michigamua, senior bonor
November 8, 1965.
society, and won three varsity football letters. He received bis Bachelor
of Laws degree from Yale in 1941 where be also acted as assistant var-
Ladies and gentlemen:
sity football coach. He had 47 months of active duty in World War II,
serving for two years abourd the aircraft carrier Monterey. In 1959, be
Several months ago when Dean Galvin thoughtfully invited me
was selected by "Sports Illustrated" as one of the twenty-five football
to participåte in this anniversary series of speeches, his letter read
players of twenty-five years before who had contributed the most to
something like this:
their fellow citizens in the quarter century. Upon release to inactive
"Dear Congressman Ford: In 1965 S.M.U. is celebrating its Fiftieth
duty in 1946, be returned to Grand Rapids to practice law. He has
served in the House of Representatives since 1948, having been elected
Anniversary and ours Law School its Fortieth. To highlight these mile-
Minority Leader in January, 1965. He was a member of the board
stones the Secretary of State, the Honorable Dean Rusk, and Mr.
appointed by President Johnson under the chairmanship of Chief Jus-
Sargent Shriver, head of both. the Peace Corps and the Poverty Pro-
tice Warren to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy. His
gram, have already accepted our invitations. I am pleased to extend
book: "Portrait of the Assassin" is a description of Lee Harvey Oswald
an invitation to you to be on the program. Until now our scheduled
as revealed to the investigating commission.
speakers have been exceptional.
It is indeed difficult to follow Secretary Rusk and Sarge Shriver,
for both are very able, articulate and truly dedicated Americans.
Furthermore, my problems are complicated as I understand my very
good friend, the Honorable Carl Albert, House Majority Leader,
will follow me from the same rostrum in several weeks. Let me assure
you in advance Carl Albert will make a fine presentation. He is an
outstanding legislator, an articulate spokesman and a properly recog-
nized leader in the Democratic Party.
In my substantive remarks this evening, I will discuss four corner-
stones of our American political system and indicate my deep con-
cern that each is in some jeopardy in this crucial period in our na-
tional and global history. There may be other fundamental American
political concepts or principles that are suffering from the serious
erosion of an "imbalance in government," but I will limit my obser-
vations to the following:
1. The system of "checks and balances" in the federal government,
or the division of responsibilities between the Executive, the
Legislative and the Judicial branches;
4
5
GERALD
LIBRARY
2. The relationships between the federal government and the 50
David and Goliath. Congress, the Legislative branch, is David. The
states;
Executive-the White House and all its agencies-is Goliath.
3. The two-party system; and
On the side of David are 535 elected officials-100 Senators, 435
4. The right of free speech and other related privileges and re-
Representatives-with a comparatively small number of employees
sponsibilities.
representing the American voters in each of the 50 states. The Legis-
Each of these four cornerstones have contributed significantly to
lative branch has a relatively small operating budget compared with
America's freedom and progress. All but one are constitutionally or-
that of Goliath-the Executive branch. Most importantly, however,
dained. Their importance to the strength of our political fabric must
those in the Congress regularly go to their constituents for approval
not be underestimated. The wide swing of political pendulums and
or rejection. Their "record" is put "on the line." Each member is
public opinion, which oftentimes creates an imbalance in government
responsive to the views, the opinions of those "back home" they
or on parts of it, must not destroy any one of them.
represent.
3
300
$22
The first cornerstone was built by the wise drafters of our federal
In contrast, the Executive branch today has million civilian
constitution under the theory of separation of powers. In those
employees with an annual payroll of approximately billion.
deliberations in Constitution Hall almost 200 years ago they made
In addition, there are about 2 million 800 thousand military personnel
an important decision to give specific responsibilities to each branch
also under the Commander-in-Chief. The current yearly payroll for
of the national government
to give each of them strength and
those in uniform in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines approxi-
6
authority but I hasten to add. not superiority over anyone of the
nearly
$40
mates another $16 billion. The net result-about million 300
other The finely tuned provisions in this historic document were
thousand employees under the Chief Executive a 12-month payroll
$17.5
designed to be a lasting bulwark against the concentration of power
of $33 billion and a total federal budget to be spent by them
in the hands of one man, one group within our society or one segment
for this year of $127 billion.
of our government.
This vast army of employees working in the Executive branch of
#136
The architects of the federal Constitution were understandably
the federal government is really isolated and immunized from the
concerned with concentrations of power and the tragic dangers that
American voter. Out of the vast bureaucracy in the Executive branch
flow inevitably from its misuse because most of them, or their fore-
only the President and the Vice President put their records on the line
fathers, had fled from tyranny, oppression and autocracy in Western
at election time and then only once every 4 years.
Europe. They had suffered severe privation and maximum danger to
There is a growing apprehension that there is a potential and real
find and establish a new land of freedom. Therefore, in the document
danger in the burgeoning power of the federal government's Execu-
for the governing of this newly-established nation there had to be
tive branch with all this manpower and such vast funds. However,
safeguards. Although it was obvious from their deliberations that we
I have faith that the minds of many of our people and the good
should have a strong President heading the Executive branch, a strong
judgment of Americans will cut down Goliath to proper size by
Congress representing the Legislative branch and a strong Judicial
strengthening the power and prestige in the Congress. Balance in this
branch headed by the Supreme Court, it was equally certain that in
aspect of government will be restored.
the document there was woven the essential checks and balances
I am pleased to report that the Congress itself is conscientiously,
predicated on three co-equal branches of the government.
and I believe constructively, working toward that end. Early in 1965
In my judgment, today we find an erosion of the power and pres-
a Joint House-Senate, bi-partisan committee was appointed to analyze
tige of the legislative branch, a change of the intended direction of
our procedures, our internal legislative structure, in fact, all aspects
the Judiciary and an awesome build-up of strength and use of this
of the Legislative branch. This study, these recommendations, should
power in the Executive arm.
be most beneficial so that Congress can and will do a better job-
In this situation there is a modern-day parallel with the story of
hopefully helping to re-establish its proper place as a co-equal branch
6
7
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
in our federal government.
Under legislation enacted by Congress in 1965 your state education
Let me add a word on the relationship of the Legislative arm vis-a-
officials can, and undoubtedly will, be by-passed as the federal authori-
vis the Judicial branch. It is my judgment that today the Judicial
ties gradually extend their encroachment.
branch is to some unfortunate extent arbitrarily elbowing its way
Fortunately many of our Governors, Democrats and Republicans,
into spheres not intended at the time the Constitution was drafted.
are showing a growing concern. During the consideration of the
I subscribe to the views of the late Supreme Court Justice Felix
poverty legislation in 1965 thirty-seven Governors objected strenu-
Frankfurter who so convincingly espoused the philosophy of "judicial
ously to the elimination of a provision in the law that gave to our
restraint." I believe he also soundly raised an arm of caution to the
Governors some control and responsibility in the administration of
courts suggesting they might wisely stay out of the "thicket" of
the vast sums allocated to their states for the attack on the problems
political matters relying in such cases on the "ultimate sound judg-
of poverty.
ment of the conscience of the voters." Quite frankly, I favor a
In addition, citizens in many of our states appreciate the need for
strong and firm attitude by our courts in those areas where their
the modernization of state constitutions to meet the challenge of
"arm" can bring reason, order and respect for law to our system.
burgeoning populations. Michigan's outmoded constitution was sup-
In retrospect is it fair to ask: "Have the Frankfurter words of
planted by one that gives new and better tools to elected state officials.
caution been wrong?"
In my travels this year to forty of our states, I note a realization that
Another cornerstone in America's political fabric is the relation-
the state constitutions of the past are not adequate for the solution of
ship between our respective states and the national government. Those
the problems of the future.
who met in Constitution Hall in the City of Philadelphia represented
Yes, I am convinced that we need not accept the inevitability of
sovereign states or commonwealths. Their purpose was to put together
a bigger federal government and a lesser role for our states. Dynamic
a document for the new nation that would permit the federal gov-
leadership, up-to-date constitutions, sufficient local revenue, com-
ernment to assume those responsibilities essential for the national
bined with a resolution to do the job at home, in your state and mine,
welfare such as the common defense, a postal system and the like.
can stem the drive to federalize completely the republic.
Such powers were delegated, but to the sovereign states the traditional
A two-party system has been a bulwark of strength for freedom
role of local government was retained.
and progress in America. A two-party system is not constitutionally
In recent years there has been a growing abdication of this role
ordained in our land, but early in our history it was found to be the
and these responsibilities with a corresponding expansion of the in-
best way for most of our citizens to participate in the political arena
fluence of the federal establishment. The shrinking potency of the
and to give expression to their political philosophy. By having a two-
states can be attributed in part to archaic state constitutions, inade-
party system we have avoided the loss of freedom of one-party gov-
quate sources of revenue, and a lack of dynamic and resourceful
ernments. There is no freedom in those one-party governments behind
leadership at the state level. Whatever the cause, the result has been
the Iron Curtain. Furthermore, by having a two-party system we
a federal octopus moving steadily forward making vast inroads into
have avoided the chaos and confusion that exists in multi-party
the functions initially carved out for your state and for mine. For
governments.
example, today we find our states by-passed by substantial federal
Today we do not have two strong, nearly equal-in-strength politi-
funds controlled by multiplying federal officials going directly to local
cal parties. This imbalance, if permitted to exist for too long a time,
communities. In many instances these substantial federal arrange-
will have serious repercussions. Competition between two major
ments also by-pass responsible local authorities.
political parties has been healthy for Americans just as competition
This new pattern for the extension of federal control is most vividly
in business and in the professions produces a better result for all
illustrated by the President's poverty program, but there is a similar
concerned.
trend developing in the area of primary and secondary education.
Let me assure you that although I speak tonight for the minority,
8
9
the Republicans, I do not believe that those in the minority can or
munist atrocity take root. And yet the appeasers speak of morality.
should sit back and bide their time. There are some, a very few
Some are concerned with the physical uncleanliness of these irre-
fortunately, who argue that the minority party should await a na-
sponsible protesters. I am not so much concerned with their personal
tional disaster at home or abroad and then move in, pick up the pieces
hygiene as with their moral sterility. For if we condemn public apathy
and build from the shambles. This I contend is neither the tradition
toward victims of street crimes, what can we say of apathy and dis-
nor the heritage of the Republican Party in the 1960's. This was not
interest regarding victims of Communist aggression}.
the role of the Republican Party under Lincoln or Eisenhower. We
The well intentioned, but unrealistic, placard carrying marchers
must by the competence of our candidates, by the record of legislators
who bear no public responsibilities cannot alter this country's policy
and administrators and by the philosophy that we espouse earn the
in Viet-Nam. But their words and actions may lead to dangerous
respect of our fellow citizens.
miscalculation by the enemy of our nation's course of present and
I am glad to report we in the minority party leadership realize
future action. Such miscalculation by the Communists in Peking or
under our system no Party can be doctrinaire, sectarian, narrow in
elsewhere could have dire consequences for all mankind. Those who
its appeal and still attract the majority of the electorate. The high
misuse the right of free speech in America mock the very society that
ground of moderation with unselfish unity is not only common horse-
makes this privilege possible. The destruction of America from within,
sense for a political party-it is also representative of the people and
or without, would inevitably destroy free speech and all other privi-
in keeping with the underlying genius of the American political
leges guaranteed by the first ten amendments.
INSERT
system.
I have talked as though I am fearful, apprehensive, and pessimistic.
With this format we aim to correct the imbalance in our two-
I am, but to a very limited extent. On the other hand, I am optimis-
party system. We are dedicated to restoring vigor and competition
tic
and let me tell you why. I have a strong abiding faith in the
in the political arena so that the cornerstone of two-party government
good judgment of the American people. When alerted to dangers to
will again function for a better America.
their government they respond.
A fourth cornerstone of the Constitution involves the right of free
Most of our citizens would agree with the late statesman Sir
speech with its many ramifications. I would do all possible to keep
Winston Churchill who said, " democracy is the worst form of
this priceless "right" inviolate and to protect the right of those who
government except all those other forms that have been tried from
wish to exercise this privilege. Yes, we want the right of dissent and
time to time."
disagreement. We oppose a monolithic society. We need, however,
There is an ever-growing realization that our system is the finest
responsible dissent and an educational dialogue between those with
in the history of mankind. We believe in our Constitution. Those
varying In the viewpoints. past few months placards during in Washington,
wise men who put it together almost 200 years ago created a his-
toric document that has made it possible for 13 poor, struggling
placards 'Why Die for Viet-Nam?"
colonies to grow to a Nation of 50 states that today is at the pin-
How many of us remember the similar questions raised by irre-
nacle industrially, agriculturally, militarily, and more importantly
sponsible voices in Chamberlain's Britain, little over a quarter cen-
spiritually.
tury ago: "Why Die for the Sudetanland?" and "Why Die for
In concluding, I recall a statement made by Benjamin Franklin the
Danzig?"
day work was completed on our Constitution. He was asked, "What
We know now-and many did then-that these voices were serving
have we got-a monarchy or a republic?" Franklin answered, "A
the purposes of Nazi aggression. The placard-bearers cried for peace
republic-if you can keep it!"
while the seeds of Buchenwald and Belsen were taking root.
The responsibility for the American people then
as it is now
Today, draft card burners and those who blockade shipments of
is to keep our Republic
to keep it strong, progressive, free. We
military supplies cry for peace-at-any-price-while the seeds of Com-
have in the past; we will in the future. Thank you.
10
11
i
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Legislative Leadership in the Great Society
An address delivered by The Honorable Carl
Albert, Representative from the Third District
of Oklahoma, and Democratic Majority Leader
Born in McAlester, Oklahoma, in 1908, Carl Albert attended the
December 9, 1965
Flowery Mound rural school and McAlester High School. He received
bis Bacbelor of Arts degree in government from the University of Okla-
Ladies and gentlemen:
homa, where be was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. In 1931, be was awarded
a Rbodes Scholarship "to Oxford University, where be received the
In dealing with my subject, I am going to try to show that while
Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Civil Laws degrees. In 1946, be was
President Johnson probably has greater influence with the Congress
elected to represent the Third Congressional District of Oklahoma in
than any President of our time, the indispensable work done in the
the Eightieth Congress, and has served in the House continuously since
that time. He is dean of the Oklahoma delegation. He was chosen Ma-
implementation of the Great Society was done in the Congress itself.
jority Whip in 1955 and was chosen Majority Leader in 1962. In 1964,
We should begin, I think, by making the point that the role of the
be served as Chairman of the Committee on Resolutions and Platform
leadership is not confined to the textbook outlines of programming
of the Democratic National Committee.
bills which have been reported and shepherding them through passage
on the floor of the House. The leadership is responsible to the House
and to the country for legislative failure at any stage. Sometimes the
most difficult problems are the least sophisticated. I remember, for
instance, as I remember no nightmare, the night of December 23,
1963. The first session of the 88th Congress had not yet completed
action on the Foreign Aid Appropriations bill. Christmas was just a
few hours away, and the second session due to convene on January 7.
The Rules Committee had not even reported a rule to take up the
conference report on the Foreign Aid Appropriations bill. The Chair-
man of the Committee on Rules was against the bill. The Chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations was against the bill. The Chair-
man of the Subcommittee on Foreign Aid Appropriations which was
handling the bill was against the bill. The Republican Leader of the
House was against the bill. All of the Republican Members of the
Committee on Rules were not only against the bill but had left Wash-
ington. Some of the Democratic members of the Committee on Rules
had left Washington leaving the Committee without a quorum. The
President, the Speaker and I sat up in the White House on the tele-
phone until two o'clock in the morning trying to contact and per-
suade members to return to Washington. We were finally able to get
one lone Dixiecrat member who was against the bill back to Washing-
ton to make a quorum of the Committee on Rules so we could
report the bill out. We finally passed the bill and adjourned the
12
13
Congress on December 29th, the longest peace-time session in history.
moderate image as the result of an election, in practice it does not
President Johnson had been in office only a little more than a month,
work out that way. When an election is over, one cannot immediately
and John McCormack and I were serving our first full terms as
surmise that, because so many liberals defeated so many conservatives,
Speaker and Majority Leader. The standing joke around the House
or vice versa, on X, Y, and Z issues, the Congress will automatically
was that Sam Rayburn had died before teaching us how to adjourn
act in a certain manner. First, you must know who is returning to
the House.
the Committees that will deal with the specific issues and second, who
This leads us to the 89th Congress and the Great Society. You have
will return to the Committee on Rules which deals with all issues.
heard a lot about the role of President Johnson in the implementation
The greatest power struggles in the modern history of the House
of the Great Society in the first session of the 89th Congress, and I
of Representatives have grown out of rules changes designed to
can repeat here that President Johnson is the most skillful legislative
eliminate some of the frustrations caused by the seniority system. The
tactician of this generation. But I can also tell you with absolute
most significant and far-reaching reforms of House rules since the
certainty that the most important, indeed the indispenable battle of
revolt against Cannon in 1911 were those which I have already men-
the Great Society, was won on the very first day of the first session
tioned and which were made on the very first day of the First Session
of the 89th Congress, and the victory was totally and completely and
of the 89th Congress. This was an intra-House fight. The President
entirely a legislative victory, a victory conceived and effected by the
had nothing to do with it. It was conceived, sponsored, and directed
legislative leadership of the House. I refer to the changes made on
by the leadership of the House. Yet it was the greatest victory ever
that day in the Standing Rules of the House. More specifically, I
won on behalf of the President's Great Society program, because this
refer to the adoption of the so-called "21-day rule," which allowed
was the day when the Great Society was saved. The victory came on
the House leadership to bypass the House Committee on Rules under
top of a victory in the 87th Congress. Sam Rayburn's last great vic-
certain circumstances, and also to the adoption of a rule allowing
tory came during that Congress, when after a terrific battle, we were
bills which have passed both the House and the Senate to go to a
able to increase the membership of the Committee on Rules from 12
conference committee without first receiving the permission of the
to 15 members, giving the democratic leadership tenuous control of
Committee on Rules.
the Committee with an 8 to 7 vote on most issues. We made this
To understand the importance of what happened on the first day
reform permanent in the 88th Congress and retained it in the 89th
of the last session, you have to understand the nature of the House.
Congress.
The truth of the matter is, the House of Representatives is a hybrid
Another similar major reform, effected during the organization of
political animal. The membership of the House, the leadership of the
the 89th Congress, was a change in the ratio of Democrats to Repub-
House, represent the most recent expression of the public will. Com-
licans on the Committee on Ways and Means, a change which gave
mittees, on the other hand, are organized on the so-called seniority
the leadership partial control over this vital committee which had
system. Thus, while there were 66 new members in the 88th Congress
jurisdiction this year over such important areas as Medicare and taxes.
as a result of the 1962 elections, membership on the Committee on
It requires only a little checking back to see just how important
Rules was unchanged from the previous Congress. Sometimes, as a
these reforms were. If we had not had that one extra vote on the Com-
result of the seniority system, a committee becomes stacked in a
mittee on Rules, we would have had the identical membership on that
certain direction. This may result in the Administration's program
Committee that we had ten years ago. Think of that! The identical
being reported rapidly from one committee, substantially without
membership-man for man-when the House itself is entirely differ-
change, while in another committee the program may be so modified
ent both in its membership and its outlook! Judge Howard Smith,
as to be almost unrecognizable, if indeed, it ever reaches the floor at
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, would literally have been
all. This contributes to the fact that, while many so-called experts
running a Congress which is more than two to one Democratic. It is
conceive of a given Congress as having a liberal, conservative, or
doubtful, in view of his attitude, whether one single important Great
14
15
Society measure would have been reported to the floor. More than
prodding, refused to budge on this very important element of the
this, it took the 21-day Rule to get up two of the most important
Great Society program. But even more important than that we now
controversial bills, and had this rule not been on the books, we would
had a Committee on Ways and Means that would help bring our
have lost our majority on several other proposals. The constant threat
victory at the polls to other key committees of the House. Last
of the 21-day rule was a catalyst for many bills.
January we had all these wonderful new members who had been swept
The fact that the leadership took over control of the Committee
in by the Johnson landslide. They were strategically placed where
on Ways and Means was probably, in many ways and certainly in the
they were needed. We put several of them on the Committee on
long run, more significant than our reforms of the Rules Committee,
Education and Labor which had so many of the key Great Society
although the Ways and Means change took place almost unnoticed.
bills. As a result that Committee, which only a few years before had
The Committee on Ways and Means has control over two major areas.
been anti-labor and anti-federal aid to education, became the most
In the first place, it has legislative jurisdiction over all revenue mat-
pro-Administration committee in the House, reporting to the floor
ters, including tariffs and social security. In the second place, the
every measure recommended by the President, not in rubber stamp
Democratic members of the committee served as the Democratic com-
fashion but tailored to Congressional specifications and usually more
mittee on committees. In this latter capacity they give other mem-
liberal in their provisions than the Administration proposals. This
bers their committee assignments. This gives them control over the
reform of the Ways and Means Committee will gradually give the
character and composition of the other committees. For many years
national party position and the Administration a better deal on other
the leadership had lost control of the Committee on Ways and Means.
committees. We still do not have, for instance, a cooperative com-
Rayburn and McCormack were defeated in the caucus three consecu-
mittee on the District of Columbia. Here we were unable to get
tive times by Southern anti-administration Democrats. Historically,
either the District Committee or the Rules Committee to make in
the Committee on Ways and Means has been divided on a ratio of
order a vote on home rule for the District of Columbia. We had to
fifteen majority members to 10 minority members. We broke this
use a discharge petition for this purpose, a device so difficult that it
division for the first time this year. With a majority of more than
could hardly be used more than once during any Congress without
2 to 1 we determined that we were not going to give the Republicans
creating insurmountable problems for the leadership. I repeat what
40 percent of the votes on the Committee, particularly in view of
I said before-that these reforms which we accomplished in January
the fact that some of our own members had been elected over the
were the most important things we did all year. They set the stage
opposition of the leadership and felt totally independent of the leader-
for the most impressive legislative session in the history of the
ship. We changed the ratio of the Committee to 17 Democrats and 8
Congress. This session passed 73 major Administration bills, about 85
Republicans, giving the leadership real control over the policies of
percent of the total Great Society Program as well as many other bills
this committee for the first time in more than a score of years. Where,
not included in the President's program.
I ask you, would the President's program be if we had not made these
This brings us to the role of the President in the legislative process.
changes?
What about the "rubber stamp" charge? The President, of course, has
Let me give you one example. When the 1964 presidential cam-
a major constitutional role in legislation. He reports to the Congress
paign got under way, President Johnson called the Speaker and me
on the State of the Union. He has the power of veto. His depart-
and told us that the one thing the House could do to help most in the
ments and agencies administer the laws enacted by the Congress.
campaign would be to pass Medicare. We called members of the Ways
These facts, however, have lead to certain misconceptions of the role
and Means Committee and so did the President. We spent weeks
and capacity of the Congress and its leadership. One of these miscon-
trying to move a bill, all to no avail. If we had not changed the ratio
ceptions is that Congress has been incapable of initiating and pro-
of the Committee, the membership this year would have been identical
ducing on its own major legislation accomplishments. This is not the
to the membership last year when the Committee, after months of
case. Any number of examples may be cited to disprove this popular
16
17
theory, and I will proceed to discuss several after I make two obser-
men was led by Senator and former House Member Harrison A.
vations: First, the legislative process is slow. It generally takes from
Williams of New Jersey. The first mass transit bill was put together
5 to 25 years for a great issue to develop in our democracy from a
in 1960 by a bipartisan group in both bodies, and explanatory hear-
"need for legislation" to an "act of legislation." The last stages of
ings were held before the Committees on Banking and Currency in
this process are marked by Presidents calling for the Congress to
both Houses. Due entirely to Congressional insistence that some
enact a bill, and the public and the press confuse the White House's
action had to be taken on this subject, an experimental program was
identification with the issue as an initiation of the issue. Second, legis-
incorporated in the Housing Act of 1961. Strong Congressional pres-
lative leadership, in the broader sense, is not the exclusive province
sure for action in this area played a major role in President Kennedy's
of the elected leaders. Wide opportunities to initiate and to promote
recommendations for legislation in 1963 and the support given it by
legislation are open to all members of Congress, and great national
President Johnson in 1964 as an element of his Great Society program.
leadership in many areas of legislation have come from the ranks of
This brings us to another popular misconception about the leader-
great committees.
ship which Congress furnishes in the legislative process. There are
Now for some examples of Congress at work-Congress the initi-
many, particularly in the news media and in the academic world,
ator of legislation-Great Society legislation as well as other legisla-
who feel that Congress, in dealing with the legislative recommenda-
tion, Congress the very opposite of anything approaching a "rubber
tions of the Executive, is unable and ill equipped to play a truly
stamp." For instance, starting in 1955, Senator Paul Douglas and
constructive role; that Congress acts either as a rubber stamp or
Congressman Daniel Flood began their great work to bring forth
engages in purely negative guerilla warfare against the President's
what became the Area Redevelopment Act. Observing that poverty
program. The truth is that the Congress is not limited to these alterna-
tended greatly to afflict some geographical areas while scarcely touch-
tives. President Johnson, himself, clearly demonstrated during his
ing others, Senator Douglas first held hearings before the Joint
tenure as Senate Democratic leader, when dealing with a Republican
Economic Committee to collect all possible information on the sub-
administration, that even when one political party controls the White
ject. He found the thinking very immature at the time. After his
House and the other the Congress, a large degree of cooperative effort
hearings he introduced legislation designed to create opportunities in
between the two co-equal branches of government is still possible and
poverty areas. In 1956 his bill passed the Senate. Similar bills sub-
that Congress can modify and even direct the President's program in
sequently passed both Houses of Congress in 1958 and again in 1960,
many domestic areas without engaging in warfare with the Executive.
but they were vetoed by President Eisenhower. There were no lobby-
More pertinent, however, to the topic under discussion-"Legis-
ists who had any real interests in this legislation, and in all candor,
lative Leadership and the Great Society"-is the fact that many of
those theories coming in from the academic community were in a
the laws passed by the first session of the 89th Congress have been
most unrefined form. Two outstanding Senators voted for the legis-
the joint product of the President and the Congress. Many of them
lation every time it was up, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson,
have been in the process of growth in the country as well as in the
but they were not on the committees considering these bills and had
Congress and the Executive Branch for years. For instance, one of
nothing to do with their formulation. President Kennedy later recom-
the monumental Great Society bills, enacted by the recent session,
mended this legislation and signed it as did President Johnson, who
was the new Immigration Act, eliminating the national origins
made it a part of his Great Society Program, but it is clear that
quotas. If you will go back to the Congressional Record for 1928,
Congress and not the Executive was the innovator.
you will find that the maiden speech of John McCormack in the
The Urban Mass Transportation Act, of 1964, another very im-
House was a speech against the National Origins Quota System. This
portant Great Society Program, was the beneficiary of a vast amount
was five years before Lyndon Johnson was old enough to be a mem-
of work that had been undertaken on Capitol Hill since before 1960
ber of the House of Representatives. It was several years before he
by a group of Senators and Congressmen. This group of Congress-
had even graduated from college.
18
19
In other cases legislative recommendations have come from the
supported by the lobbies of older citizens and others. In what seemed
President but the Congress has modified them and quite frequently
like a single week to the national press, the Committee on Ways and
improved them and made them more progressive. Without question,
Means, meeting in secret session, brought all elements of this issue
the outstanding example this year of Congressional ability to originate
together and wrote a brand new bill that, at once, pleased beyond
ideas as well as work with the President is the Medicare bill we enacted.
measure the supporters of King-Anderson and knocked permanently
Proposals for Governmental health insurance have been around since
off balance King-Anderson's opponents who had been trying to kill
the 1930's and the New Deal. The movement to achieve something
it with kindness. The new bill went on to become law in pretty much
by restricting the idea to our older citizens crystallized in the 1950's
the form in which it had been drafted by the Committee. This was
by the introduction of the so-called medicare bill by Congressman
congressional handling of a President's proposal at its best.
Amie Forand of Rhode Island. The Executive Branch, controlled by
While there are many other similar examples where the Congress
President Eisenhower, opposed this legislative proposal. Presidents
improved on Presidential proposals, let us now turn to and examine
Kennedy and Johnson made a part of their program Amie Forand's
an instance in which the Congress accepted almost verbatim a Presi-
bill, which had become the King-Anderson bill after Congressman
dential bill. Even here we shall see that in the preparation of this bill
Forand retired. The King-Anderson program, which was boomed by
the Administration drew extensively on previous Congressional con-
Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, was strictly limited to the payment
tributions in a similar area. This was the Elementary and Secondary
of older citizens' hospital and nursing bills-not doctors' bills-and
Education Act of 1965. The bill was reported from the House Com-
the program was to be financed by raising the social security taxes
mittee on Education and Labor in the form the President wanted;
paid by workers and employers. This was the extent of President
it passed the House without amendment; it passed the Senate without
Johnson's proposal when it was sent early this year to the House
amendment; and President Johnson signed it with great satisfaction.
Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Congressman Wilbur Mills
Federal aid to lower education had been proposed for decades. Recent
of Arkansas. This Committee had always opposed medicare bills in
Democratic Congresses had gone several times to the very edge of
past years and consequently it had been their graveyard. This year,
enacting such a bill but had always gone aground on the reefs of
as I have previously pointed out, the leadership had taken over partial
church versus state, local government versus Federal government, and
control of the Committee on Ways and Means when we organized
the civil rights issue. President Johnson, in one of his finest hours as
the House on the heels of the Democratic Party's great victory at
a legislator, charted a course that skirted all these reefs. He bucked
the polls in November, 1964. The climate looked right for passage
the church versus state issue to the individual states and ultimately
of the King-Anderson bill this year. A massive lobby was launched
to the courts. To avoid the other problems, he spread a thick coating
against the King-Anderson bill by two forces: the American Medical
of his "war on poverty" over the program, tying the amount of
Association, believing the House would never buy anything more
benefits and the types of benefits to the degree and nature of poverty
extensive than King-Anderson, began to show how really limited
that exists in every area of the country. The President found the key
was the assistance to be provided under King-Anderson and called
to this issue and deserves immeasurable credit for the passing of this
instead for passage of what it called an "Eldercare" program, which
keystone of the Great Society. At the same time, it cannot be denied
would pay doctor's bills as well as hospital bills along the lines of
that the key was conceived, designed, and manufactured years ago
the Kerr-Mills Bill already on the statute books. At the same time,
by a great Congressman, the late Cleveland Bailey of West Virginia.
the Republican Party leaders zeroed in on the social security financing
Under the Bailey Acts, for years, the Federal Government has pro-
features of the King-Anderson bill by deploring the fact that social
vided financial assistance to elementary and secondary school districts
security taxes are inexorable (as, indeed, all taxes are) and calling for
in so-called "Federally-impacted areas." Under this theory, when the
a "voluntary" plan. The White House stuck with King-Anderson, in
Federal government buys property in a school district and takes it off
the form the program had developed over the years and as it was
the local tax rolls and at the same time moves in a host of Federal
20
21
FORD
employees who send their children to the local schools, the Federal
and sometimes people are reluctant to be moved. Compromise is an
Government should recognize the serious impact it is making on the
essential ingredient of the legislative process. Our 435 Congressmen
local community's ability to finance its school system and it should
come from every section of the country, from every walk of life.
therefore support the local schools. This was the gist of Congressman
They represent different needs, different backgrounds, different inter-
Bailey's famous statutes, known as Public Law 815 and Public Law
ests, different mores, different likes and dislikes, different views and
874. President Johnson picked up this key and tied the financing of
even different prejudices. In a country so vast and so heterogeneous
this year's school bill to the "impact of poverty" on individual school
as ours, legislative programs can sometimes only be moved through
districts. Here was a measurable way of determining how to divide
the process of accommodation. From the Constitutional Convention
Federal benefits-and a way acceptable to most Americans because
to the Great Society compromise has often been necessary. Had
it appeals to their reason and their humanitarian interests. Without
the founding fathers not understood this our experiment in self-
diminishing the President's great, personal victory, he found his key
government would have fallen by the way side. Had the leaders of
to this problem in the workshop of Congress, where the "impact of
the 89th Congress not been willing to compromise, The Housing Bill,
defense" had successfully been used as a basis for Federal aid to
the Aid to Elementary and Secondary Education Bill, the Medicare
education.
Bill, the Farm Bill, the Voting Rights Bill, and the Water Pollution
Again, it was the Congress and not the Executive which was the
Bill, to name only a few of the big ones, would never have been
first to embark on a modern economic policy of deliberately creating
passed. It was said a long time ago by one of the greatest men ever
a deficit for the purpose of stimulating a sluggish economy and
to use our language that "there is a tide that runs in the affairs of
creating additional tax revenue despite a tax reduction, a view resisted
men." Viewed in these terms I honestly believe that the first session
in the bureaucracies but sponsored by many theorists in the academic
of the 89th Congress came in with the flood tide and left its mark
community.
on the shores of time. This session has moved to new zeniths in more
My experience in this and in many areas, such as that involving
fields, has scaled more legislative heights, has accomplished more
the new Reciprocal Trade Act, leads me to believe that the Con-
legislative breakthroughs, has stood up to more national problems, has
gressional committee system, because of its flexibility and maneuvera-
settled more persistent issues than any Congress in the history of our
bility, its informality, its lack of an entrenched bureaucracy having
country.
a vested interest in the status quo, is in a position to give most effective
Yet to say that the 89th Congress has been the Congress of com-
leadership to new economic and social theories and is thus, in many
plete fulfillment, or that the Great Society heralds the millenium
instances, a true ally of the intellectual community. The job of the
would of course be ridiculous. But we of that Congress have made
leaders of Congress in these as in all other areas dealt with in the first
a major effort to face up to the issues of the day. In our pride in our
session of the 89th Congress has been extremely difficult. Every
own accomplishments, however, we must remind ourselves that what
major controversial bill in the Great Society Program required days
we did was but to give expression to the people's will. The tide in
and days of patient work, contacting members one by one, getting
the affairs of men which Shakespeare told us can lead on to fortune
other key members to contact members, making use of friendly
has been taken at the crest. It was the venerable Wilt Whitman who
formal and informal congressional groups-such as the Democratic
identified the tides running in America with the single word-
Study Group-getting the President, the White House Staff, and
"democracy." He declared that "its doctrines will only be effectually
Departmental personnel to contact members, getting organizations at
incarnated when the spirit is at the root and center." Woodrow
the grass roots level to contact members until 218 affirmative votes
Wilson echoed this thought that democracy flourishes only as it is
could be counted on each bill. It is just as simple as that and, believe
nurtured from its roots. "A people shall be saved," he said, "by the
you me, it is just as hard as that, and I can testify that sometimes it
power that sleeps in its own deep bosom or by none. The flower does
is really hard. In legislative leadership you have got to move people,
not bear the root, but the root the flower."
22
23
SOUTHERN METHODIST VERITAS UNIVERSITY
...
DALLAS, TEXAS
Flattery is fining
Amat, great man
Housing
Vergan Island
Rotary Instation
Bur of Int. RW
2 memembered you
12 8 Introduction
had has There
"Balance in Government: An Analysis of the Legislative Process"
No one 1 what you sold
Presented by The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader
House of Representatives
Congress of the United States
Southern Methodist University - November 8, 1965
In today's context, an issue of salient significance is whether
an excess concentration of Federal sovereignty is to destroy state and
local government, thus suppressing individual freedom and opportunity.
This examination of the legislative process centers on the three
branches of government, their balance or lack of it, with particular
emphasis on The Congress.
A responsible dialogue discussing the legislative process includes
the three cornerstones of our American political society, two of them
constitutionally ordained, the other a tradition of our Democracy.
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
Page 2
The first cornerstone is the relationship of the Executive,
Legislative, and Judicial branches of government, best in balance when
they guard against mediocrity -- always the danger of a society overly-planned.
These are relationships of paramount importance in government, which
most properly must create a social order permitting every individual to
live in dignity, respect law and receive justice, and exploit endlessly
the best in himself.
In granting powers to the Executive branch, drafters of the Constitution
very wisely decided to carefully delineate the authority establishing a
Presidential position of balanced strength.
Strength, too, was demanded in the Legislative branch of Federal
Government, giving the Congress a vital role.
A strong judicial system under the United States Supreme Court was
written into the document.
It is most significant that those who authored the Constitution,
insisting on strength in each of the three branches, gave no superiority to
any one branch.
LIBRARY RAR
Page Three
The second cornerstone of the Republic is the Constitutional provision
that each State shall retain a pluralistic degree of sovereignty in relation
to the Federal establishment.
In their fidelity to detail, the patriots who created the Constitution
separated the powers and responsibilities of state and national governments.
Not Constitutionally-ordained, the third cornerstone of our Nation
is a strong two-party political system.
Early in America's history, out of the political experience of the
early years there developed two major political parties. This system has
served the best interest of the people. As a result, we have avoided the
loss of freedom that exists in one-party government. We have avoided the
chaos and confusion that accompanies multi-party government.
Perhaps the late Sir Winston Churchill best described the functions
of the American Republica when he said: "Democracy is the worst form
of government except for any other that has ever been tried."
GERALD FORD LIBRAR)
Page Four
Accepting the premise that the Constitution is to be a lasting
bulwark against the concentration of power in any one branch of government,
let us examine our political society in possibly history's most crucial
and turbulent era.
The Executive branch increases in power and strength. Its manpower
corps numbers more than five million -- approximately half of the personnel
in the military services. With this huge mass of personnel comes a total
annual payroll of close to $30 billion and the right to spend out of the
Federal Treasury nearly $127 billion each year.
The social implications of this awesome power come in disjointed
phrases, incomplete references, and an anachronistic comment.
Executive accomplishments are detailed to the Nation by the device
of "releases" at times distributed in flurries. Federal agencies are
directed to provide information to the White House, which takes unto itself
the credit. Often the timing of disseminating information to America at
large has political overtones and implications.
FORD is LIBRAR 078339
Page Five
Congress -- the Legislative branch -- has great strengths and
great weaknesses. The human equation is paramount in Congressional action
and inaction.
It has been said that "Congress is a very human institution, part
and parcel of our American culture." The late Speaker of the House, Sam
Rayburn, used to describe "those rolling waves of sentiment" that dictate
Congressional decisions.
Critics attempt to denigrate the Congress, demanding reform, seeking
to abolish certain prerogatives.
This dichotomy between the Congress and its critics has existed for
decades. The long estrangement will follow forward into history.
It is difficult for anyone to stand between the critics and the
Congress for he faces assault from one side as an apologist for alleged
incompetence, and from the other for moralistic philosophastry.
QERALD FORD VIBRARY
Page Six
Thus the disagreement prevents a meaningful dialogue between the
Congress and its society of critics.
The lack of responsible debate and dissent is the Nation's loss,
for Congress needs help from outside its own political community in meeting
the challenges of the present and the future.
Certainly, Congress needs the help of the academic, business, industrial,
commercial and cultural worlds.
However, the assistance and advice must be based on an understanding
of Congressional experience -- its depth and width -- and the psychology and
logic of the Congressional processes.
Too often critics seem more intent on seeking new ways to alter Congress
than to truly learn how it functions. They could turn to the advice of
Thomas Huxley, who said a century ago: "Sit down before facts as a little
child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion -- or you shall
learn nothing."
Page Seven
It has been said that Congress is not as bad as many of its critics
allege, nor as good as many of its members believe. Only by a recognition
of both its weaknesses and strengths can we achieve a rational understanding
of the Congress.
A sensitive description and an accurate appraisal of the Congress
should have as their base a personal and prolonged experience either as a
Member or as a dedicated observer.
Those who criticise severely could well assume the responsibility
of seeking public office, winning an election, assuming a legislative role,
and trying to be returned to office on a record of performance.
The neglected aspects of Congressional life demand appraisal,
dissecting, and change. Among them are the operation of lobbyists in the
legislative processes, some outmoded parliamentary procedures, the realities
of the seniority system, and day-to-day routines.
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
Page Eight
From Congress itself is emerging such a study. A joint bi-partisan
committee currently is conducting research in depth with the major goal of
improving the operations of Congress.
There will never be perfect agreement within or outside of Congress
on the scope of the problems and the methods for solving them. However,
the present study is a bold move toward dissolving much of today's criticism
and dissent.
A contemporary examination of balance in the three branches of government
indicates a trend in the judicial system to arbitrarily elbow its way into
areas that were not intended by the authors of the Constitution.
In my opinion, the views of the late Justice Felix Frankfurter were
sound and wise. He espoused the philosophy of judicial restraint, a course
of action I believe should be more closely followed by the courts.
Without over-indulgence in political partisanship, I can say that
in this age, an imbalance exists in the relationship of government's three
branches.
FORD & LIBRARY GRAVID
Page Nine
The political party dominating the Congress by a two-to-one
majority has one of its own in the White House. The accelerated trend
in the Federal Judiciary in upsetting well-established practices and taking
action which make new law adds to the lack of balance.
The role of the minority power in this situation should be greater
than that of traditional "loyal opposition."
With wisdom and foresight, the late President Theodore Roosevelt warned
the party out of power that "mere negation and obstruction and attempts to
revive the dead past spell ruin."
He was correct then, and his words are just as correct and meaningful
now.
The minority power has an obligation to its supporting electorate and
the entire Nation to provide a system of checks and balances as intended in
the Constitution, the blueprint of our Republic.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Page Ten
In the national interest, the strength of the minority power
must have the necessary volume and substance to not only serve as a counter-
weight but to initiate positive and constructive legislative proposals.
The minority party must be imaginative, dedicated, and alert. If
it fails to be given needed strength and voice by the electorate, the true
progress of our Nation is impeded, mis-directed, or stopped short of
desirable goals.
Despite the present imbalance in government with an over-abundance
of power in the Executive branch, a steeply-tilted majority in the Congress,
and the lack of judicial restraint in the courts, there are reasons to be
optimistic.
I have a strong abiding faith in the good judgment of the American
people. There is a growing realization that our political system is the
finest in the history of mankind.
I see strong indications of the American people seeking to fulfill
a wish expressed by Benjamin Franklin on the day work was completed in
QERAL R.FORD, BRAN
framing the Constitution.
Page Eleven
He was asked: "What have we -- a monarchy or a republic?"
Franklin answered: "A Republic -- if you can keep it."
Americans by and large are dedicated to keeping our republic in the
face of criticism at home and abroad.
There is a growing realization in America that a government big
enough to give us everything we want is big enough to take from us everything
we have.
+++++
Speech by
File capy
W.Ford w
Rep. Gerald R. Ford
at
that send
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, Texas
November 8, 1965
&. storey.
Dean Storey, President Tate, ladies and gentlemen. It is truly a
high honor and rare privilege to participate in a part of SMU's 50th
Anniversary program. In all sincerity I can say I have always been
greatly impressed with SMU's academic reputation, both under-graduate
and graduate, but as an old-time sports enthusiast I have also watched
with admiration the athletic prowess of the Mustangs.
I am deeply grateful that Dean Storey took the time from his very
busy life, which in recent years was intended to be one of rest and
relaxation, to honor me by his introduction. He has been much too
generous in his comments. I only hope that my words or text will match
the build-up he has given me.
Dean Storey mentioned our association in the assignment to find the
truth in the circumstances surrounding the tragedy of November 22, 1963.
As one of the seven members appointed by President Johnson to the
Committee to Investigate the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
I was privileged to meet and work with Dean Storey during the months
that the federal and Texas authorities sought to dig up the facts,
determine the truth and recommend improvements in many federal agencies
and policies for the future. Dean Storey made invaluable suggestions to
the Warren Commission and the Report to the President was a better
document because of his contributions. Again, it is nice to se e you,
Dean, and my very best to you.
Over the years I have admired Texams because of their staunch and
steadfast independence. Speaking of independence, many Texans undoubtedly
fall in a group that might be involved in the following story.
While Congress is in session my family and I live in a Washington,
D.C. suburb. A next-door neighbor is a high-ranking official in the
Bureau of Internal Revenue. Several weeks ago we were chatting and he
asked if I had ever noticed that in the upper right-hand corner of
one's federal income tax return there is a small area marked off and
underneath there are the words, "Please do not write here." I confessed
my ignorance of the blocked-off area or the words. He then said,
GERALD FORD LIBRARI
-2-
"You would be astonished, Jerry, at the number of federal taxpayers who
sign their income tax return, write the check paying their indebtedness
and then write in the upper right-hand corner - 'I'll write any darn
place I please.
Several months ago when Dean Galvin thoughtfully invited me to
participate in this anniversary series of speeches, his letter read
something like this:
"Dear Congressman Ford! In 1965 S.M.U. is celebrating its 50th
Anniversary and our Law School its 40th. To highlight these milestones
the Secretary of State, the Honorable Dean Rusk, and Mr. Sargent
Shriver, head of both the Peace Corps and the Poverty Program, have
already accepted our invitations. I am pleased to extend an invitation
to you to be on the program. Until now our scheduled qeakers have been
exceptional."
It is indeed difficult to follow Secretary Rusk and Sarge Shriver,
for both are very able, articulate and truly dedicated Americans.
Furthermore, my problems are complicated as I understand my very good
friend, the Honorable Carl Albert, House Majority Leader, will follow
me from the same rostrum in several weeks. Let me assure you in advance
Carl Albert will make a fine presentation. He is an outstanding legis-
lator, an articulate spokesman and a properly recognized leader in the
Democratic Party.
In my substantive remakks this evening, I will discuss four corner-
stones of our American political system and indicate my deep concern that
each is in some jeopardy in this crucial period in our national and
global history. There may be other fundamental American political
concepts or principles that are suffering from the serious erosion of
an "imbalance in government," but I will limit my observations to the
following:
1. The system of "checks and balances" in the federal goverment,
or the division of respansibilities between the Executive,
the Legislative and the Judicial branches;
2. The relationships between the federal government a nd the
50 states;
3. The two-party system; and
4. The right of free speech and other related privileges and
responsibilities.
-3-
Each of these four cornerstones have contributed significantly to
America's freedom and progress. All but one are constitutionally
ordained. Their importance to the strength of our political fabric must
not be underestimated. The wide swing of political pendulums and public
opinion, which oftentimes creates an imbalance in government ar on parts
of it, must not destroy any one of them.
The first cornerstone was built by the wise drafters of our federal
constitution under the theory of separation of powers. In those delibera-
tions in Constitution Hall almost 200 years ago they made an important
decision to give specific responsibilities to each branch of the national
government
to give each of them strength and authority, but I hasten
to add not superiority over anyone of the other. The finely tuned
provisions in this historic document were designed to be a lasting
bulwark against the concentration of power in the hands of one man, one
group within our society or one segment of our government.
The architects of the federal Constitution were understandably
concerned with concentrations of power and the tragic dangers that flow
inevitably from its misuse because most of them, or their forefathers,
had fled from tyranny, oppression and autocracy in Western Europe. They
had suffered severe privation and maximum danger to find and establish
a new land of freedom. Therefore, in the document for the governing of
this newly-established nation there must be safeguards. Although it
was obvious from their deliberations that we should have a strong
President heading the Executive branch, a strong Congress representing
the Legislative branch and a strong Judicial branch headed by the Supreme
Court, it was equally certain that in the document there was woven the
essential checks and balances predicated on three co-equal branches of
the government.
In my judgment, today e find an erosion of the power and prestige
of the legislative branch, a change of the intended drection of the
Judiciary and an awesome build-up of strength and a use of this power
in the Executive arm.
In this situation there is a modern-day parallel withthe story of
David and Goliath. Congress, the Legislative branch, is David. The
Executive - the White House and all its agencies - is Goliath.
On the side of David are 535 elected officials - 100 Senators,
435 Representatives - with a comparatively small number of employees
representating the American voters in each of the 50 states. The
QERALD, FORD LIBRARY
Legislative branch has a relatively small operating budget compared with
that of Goliath - the Executive branch. Most importantly, however,
those in the Congress regularly go to their constituents for approval or
rejection. Their "record" is put "on the line." Each member is respon-
sive to the views, the opinions of those "back home" they represent.
In contrast, the Executive branch today has over 2½ million civilian
employees with an annual payroll of approximately $17 billion. In addi-
tion, there are about 2 million 800 thousand military personnel also
under the Commander-in-Chief. The current yearly payroll for these in
uniform in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines approximates another
$16 billion. The net result - about 5 million 300 thousand employees
under the Chief Executive - a 12-month payroll of over $33 billion and
a total federal budget to be spent by them for this year of $127 billion.
This vast army of employees working in the Executive branch of the
federal government is really isolated and immunized from the American
voter. Out of the vast bureaucracy in the Executive branch only the
President and the Vice President put their records on the line at election
time and then only once every 4 years.
There is a growing apprehension that there is a potential and real
danger in the burgeoning power of the federal government's Executive branch
with all this manpower and such vast funds. However, I have faith that
the minds of many of our people and the good judgment of Americans will
cut down Goliath to proper size by strengthening the power and prestige in
the Congress. Balance in this aspect of government will be restored.
I am pleased to report that the Congress itself is conscientiously,
and I believe constructively, working toward that end. Early in 1965 a
Joint House-Senate, bi-partisan committee was appointed to analyze our
procedures, our internal legislive structure, in fact, all aspects of the
Legislative branch. This study, these recommendations, should be most
beneficial so that Congress can and will do a better job - hopefully
helping to re-establish its proper place as a co-equal branch in our
federal government.
Let me add a word on the relationship of the Legislative arm
vis-a-vis the Judicial branch. It is my judgment that to day the Judicial
branch is to some unfortunte extent arbitrarily elbowing its way into
spheres not interned at the time the Constitution was drafted.
I subscribe to the views of the late Supreme Court Justice Feilt
FORD
-5-
Frankfurter who so convincingly espoused the philosophy of "judicial
restraint"" I believe he also soundly raised an arm of cuution to the
courts suggesting they might wisely stay out of the "thicket" of
political matters relying in such cases on the "ultimate sound judgment
of the conscience of the voters." Quite frankly, I favor a strong and
firm attitude by our courts in that areas where their "arm" can bring
reason, order and respect for law to our system.
In retrospect is it fair to ask: "Have the Frankfurter words of
caution been wrong?"
Another cornerstone in America's political fabric is the relation-
ship between our respective states and the national government. Those
shu met in Constitution Hall in the City of Philadelphia represented
sovereign states or commonwealths. Their purpose was to put together
a document for the new nation that would permit the federal government
to assume those responsibilities essential for the national welfare
such as the common defense, a postal system and the like. Such powers
were delegated, but to the sovereign states the traditional role of
local government was retined.
In recent years there has been a growing abdication of this role
and these respon-sibilites with a corresponding expansion of the in-
fluence of the federal establishment. The shrinking potency of the
states can be attributed in prt to archaic state constitutions, inade-
quate sources of revenue, and a lack of dynamic and resourceful leader-
ship at the state level. Whatever the cause, the result has been a
federal octopus moving steafily forward making vast inroads into the
functions initially carved outfor your state and for mine. For example,
today we find our states by-passed by substantial federal funds controlled
by multiplying federal officials going directly to local communities.
In many instances these substantial federal arrangements also by-pass
responsible local authorities.
This new pattern for the extension of federal control is most
vividly illustrated by the President's poverty program, but there is a
similar trend developing in the area of primary and secondary education.
Under legislation enacted by Congress in 1965 your state education
officials can, and undoubte dly will, be by-passed as the federal
authorities gradually extend their encroachment.
Fortunately many of our Governors, Democrats and Republicans, are
showing a growing concern. During the consideration of the poverty
-6-
legislation in 1965 thirty-seven Governors objected strenously to the
elimination of a provision in the law tlat gave to our Governors some
enitrol and responsibility in the administration of the vast sums
allocated to their states for the attack on the problems of poverty.
In addition, citizens in many of our states appreciate the need
for the modernization of state constitutions to meet the challenge of
burgeoning populations. Michigan's outmoded constitution was supplated
by one that gives new and better tools to elected state officials. In
my travels this year to forty of our states, I note a realization that
the state constitutions of the past are not adequate for the solution
of the problems of the future.
Yes, I am convinced that we need not accept the inevitability of
a bigger federal goverment and a lesser role for our states. Dynamic
leadership, up-to-date constitutions, sufficient local revenue,
combined with a resolution to do the job at home, in your state and
mine, can stem the drive to federalize completely the republic.
A two-party sytem has been a bulwark of strength for freedom and
progress in America. A two-party system is not constitutionally ordained
in our land, but early in our history it was found to be the best way
for most of our citizens to participate in the political arena and to
give expression to their political philosophy. By having a two-party
system we have avoided the loss of freedom of one-party governments.
There is no freedom in those one-party governments behind the Iron
Curtain. Furthermore, by having a two-party system we have avoided the
chaos and confusion that exists in multi-party governments.
Today we do not have two strong, nearly equal-in-strength political
parties. This imbalance, if permitted to exist for too long a time, will
have serious repercussions. Competition between two major political
parties has been healthy for Americans just as competition in business
and in the professions produces a better result for all concerned.
Let me assure you that although I speak tonight for the minority,
the Republicans, I do not believe that those in the minority can or
should sit back and bide their time. There are some, a very few
fortunately, who argue that the minority party should await a national
disaster at home or abroad and then move in, pick up the pieces and
build from the shambles. This I contend is not the tradition or the
heritage of the Republican Party in the 1960's. This was not the role
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-7-
of the Republican Party under Lincoln or Eisenhower. We must by the
competence of our candidates, by the record of legislators and
administrators and by the philosophy that we espouse earn the respect
of our fellow citizens.
I am glad to report we in the minority party leadership realize
under our system no Party can be doctrinaire, sectarian, narrow in its
appeal and still attract the majority of the electorate. The high
ground of moderation with unselfish unity is not only common horse-sense
for a political party - it is also representative of the people and in
keeping with the underlying genius of the American political system.
With this format we aim to correct the imbalance in our two-party
system. We are dedicated to restoring vigor and competition in the
political arena so that the cornerstone of two-party government will again
function Bor a better America.
A fourth cornerstone of the Constitution involves the right of free
speech with its many ramifications. I ould do all possible to keep
this priceless "right" inviolate and to protect the right of those who
wish to exercise this privilege. Yes, we want the right of dissent and
disagreement. We oppose a monolithic society. We need, howver,
responsible dissent and an educational dialogue between those with
varying viewpoints.
In the past few months during demonstrations in Washington, some
placards read: "Why Die for Viet-Nam?"
How many of us remember the similar questions raised by irresponsible
voices in Chamberlains 'MrAtain, little over a quarter century ago: "Why
Die for the Sudetanland?" and "Why Die for Danzig?"
We know now-ang many did then-that these voices were serving the
purposes of Nazi aggression. The placard=bearers cried for peace--------
while the seeds for Buchenwald and Belsen W ere taking root.
Today, draft card burners and those who blockade shipments of
military supplies cry for peace-at-any-price---while the seeds of
Communist atrocity take root. And yet the appeasers speak of morality.
Some are concerned with the physical uncleanliness of these
irresponsible protesters. I am not so much concerned with their per-
sonal hygiene as with their moral sterility. For if we condemn public
apathy toward victims of street crimes, what can we say of apathy and
disinterest regarding victims of Communit aggression?
The well Intentioned, but unrealistic, placard-carrying marchers
FORD
who bear no public responsiblities cannot alter this country's policy
LIBRARY
-8-
in Viet-Nam. But their words and actions may lead to a dangerous mis-
calculation by the enemy of our nation's course of present and future
action. Such miscalculation by the Communists in Peking or elsewhere
could have dire consequences for all mankind. Those who misuse the
right of free speech in America mock the very society that makes this
privilege possible. The destruction of America from within, or without,
would inevitably destroy free speech and all other privileges guaranteed
by the first ten amendments.
I have talked as though I am fearful, apprehensive, and pessimis-
tic. I am, but to a very limited extent. On the other hand, I am
optimistic and let me tell you why. I have a strong abiding faith
in the good judgment of the American people. When alerted to dangers
to their government they respond.
Most of our citizens would agree with the late statesman Sir
Winston Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government,
except for any other that has ever been tried."
There is an ever-growing realization that our system is the finest
in the history of mankind. We believe in our Constitution. Those wise
men who put it together almost 200 years ago created an historic docu-
ment that has made it possible for 13 poor, struggling colonies to grow
to a Nation of 50 states that today is at the pinnacle industrially,
agriculturally, militarily, and more importantly spiritually,
In concluding, I recall a statement made by Benjamin Franklin the
day work was completed on our Constitution. He was asked, "What have
we got---a monarchy or a republic?" Franklin answered, "A republic
if you can keep it!"
The responsibility for the American people than...as it is now...
is to keep our Republic. to keep it strong, progressive, free. We have
in the past; we will in the future.
Thank you.
Please relum
Speech by
Rep. Gerald R. Ford
at
Southern Rethodist University
Dallas, Texas
November 8, 1965
Dean Storey, President Tate, ladies and gentlemen. It is truly a
high honor and rare privilege to participate in SMU's 50th Anniversary.
In all sincerity I can say I have always been greatly impressed with the
academic reputation, baw under-graduate and graduate, but as an old-time
sports enthusiast I have also watched with admiration the athletic
prowess of the MUSTANGS.
I am deeply grateful that Dean Storey took the time from his very
busy life, which in recent years was intended to be one of rest and
relaxation, to honor me by his introduction. He has been much too
generous in his comments. I any hope the t my words or text will match
the build-up he has given me.
Dean Storey mentioned our association in the assignment to find the
truth in the circumatances burrounding the tragedy of November 22, 1963.
As one of the seven members appointed by resident Johnson to the
Committee to Investigate the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
I was privileged to meet and work with Dean Storey during the months
that the federal and Texas authorities sought to dig up the facts,
determine the truth and recommend improvements in marry federal agencies
and areas for the future. Dean Storey madetinvaluable suggestions to
the Warren Commission and the Report to the resident was a better
document because of his contributions. Again, it is nice to see you,
Dean, and my very best to you.
Over the years I have admired Texans because of thier staunch and
steadfast independence. Speaking of independence, many Texans undoubtedly
fall in a group that might be involved in the following story.
While Congress is in session my family and I live in a Washington,
D.C. suburb. A next-door neighbor is a high-ranking official in the
Bureau of Internal Revenue. Several weeks ago we were chatting and he
asked if I had ever noticed th t in the upper right-hand corner of
one's federal income tax return there is a small area marked off and
underneath there are the words, "Please do not write here." I confessed
my ignorance of the blocked-off area or the words. He then said,
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
"You would be astonished, Jerry, at the number of federal taxpayers who
sign their income tax return, write the check paying their indebtedness
and then write in the upper right-hand corner -- "I'll write any darn
place I please."
Several months ago when Dean Galvin thoughtfully invited me to
participate in this anniversary series of speeches, his letter read
something like this:
"Dear Congressman Ford: In 1965 S.M.U. is celebraging its 50th
Anniversary and our Law School its 40th. To highlight these milestones
the Secretary of State, the Honorable Dean Rusk, and Mr. Sargent
Shriver, head of both the Peace Corps and the Poverty Program, have
already accepted our invitations. I am pleased to extend an invitation
to you to be on the program. until now our scheduled speakers have
been exceptional."
It is indeed difficult to follow Secretary Rusk and Sarge Shriver,
for both are very able, articulate and truly dedicated Americans.
Furthmmore, my problems are complicated as I understand my very good
friend, the Honorable Carl Albert, House Majority Leader, will follow
me from the same rostrum in several weeks. Let me assure you in
advance Carl Albert will make a fine presentation. He is an outstanding
legislator, an articulate spokesman and a properly recognized leader in
the Democratic Parry.
In my substantive remarks this evening, I will discuss four
cornerstones of our American political system and indicate my deep concern
that each is in some jeopardy in this crucial period in our national
and global history. There may be other fundamental American political
concepts or principles that are suffering from the serious erosion of
an "imbalance in government," but I will limit my observations to the
following:
(1). The system of "checks and balances" in the federal govern-
ment)or the abdication of responsibilities between the
Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial branches;
(2). The relationships between the federal government and the
50 states;
(3). The two-party system; and
(4). The right of free speech and other related privileges and
responsibilities.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-3-
Each of these four cornerstones have contributed significantly to
Americads freedom and progress. All but one are constitutionally
ordained. Their importance to the strength of our political fabric must
not be underestimated. The wide swing of political pendulums and pullic
opinion, which often creates an imbalance in government, must not
destroy any one of them.
The first cornerstone was built by the wise drafters of our federal
constitution under the theory of separation of powers. In those delibera-
tions in Constitution Hall almost 200 years ago they made an important
decision to give specific responsibilities to each branch of the
national government
to give each of them strength and authority,
but I hasten to add not superiority over anyone of the other. The
The finely timed provisions intthis historic document were designed to
be a lasting bulwark against the concentration of power in the hands
of one man, one group within our society or one segment of our government.
The architects of the federal Constitution were understandably con-
cerned with coneentrations of power and the tragic dangers that flow
inevitably fromits misuse because most of them them, or their forefathere,
had fled from tyranny, oppression and autofracy in Western Europe. They
had suffered severe privation and maximum dagger to find and establish
a new land of freedom. Therefore, in the document for the governming of
this newly-established nation there must be safeguards. Although it
was obvious from their deliberations that we should have a strong
President heading the Executive branch, a strong Congress representing
the Legislative branch and a strong Judicial branch headed by the Supreme
Court, it was equally certain that in the document there was woven the
essential checks and balances predicated on three co-equal branches of
the government.
In my judgment, today we find an erosion of the power and prestige
of the legislative branch, a change of the intended direction of the
Judiciary and an awesome build-up of strength and a use of this power
in the Executive arm.
In this situation there is a modern-day parallel with the story of
David and Goliath. Congress, the Legislative branch, is David, The
Executive --- the White House and all its agencies -- is Goliath.
On the side of David are 535 elected officials,100 Semtors,
435 Representatives-with a comparatively small number of employees
BERALD FORD LIBRAR,
-4-
The Congressional branch
representing the American voters in each of the 50 states.
relatively small operating budget compared with that of Goliath,- the
Executive branch. Most importantly, however, those in the Congress
regularly go to their constituents for approval or rejection. Their
"record" is put "on the line." Each rembersive to the views, the
opinions of those "back home" they represent.
In contrast, the "xecutive branch today has over 21 million civilian
employees with an annual payroll of approximately $15 billion. In
addition, there are about 2 million 800 thousand military personnel also
under the Commander-in-Chief. The current yearly payroll for those
in uniform in the Army, Nary, Air Force and Marines approximates another
$15 billion. The net result -- about 5 million 300 thousand employees
under the Chief Executive -- a 12-month payroll of over $30 billion and
a total federal budget to be spent by themefor this year of $127 billion.
This vast army of employees working in the federal gobernment is
really isolated and immunized from the American voter. Out of the wast
bureaucracy in the Executive branch only the President and the Vice
President put their recordson the line at election time and then only
once every 4 years.
There is a growing apprehension - that there is a potential and
real danger in the burgeoning power of the federal government's
executive branch with all this manpower and such vast funds. However,
I have faith that the minds of many of our people and the good judgment
of Americans will cut down Goliath to proper size by strengthening the
power and prestige in the Congress. Balance in this aspect of govern-
ment will be restored. I am pleased to report that the Congress itself
is conscientiously, and I believe constructively, working toward that
end. Early in 1965 a Joint House-Senate, bi-partisan committee was
appointed to analyze our procedures, our internal legislative structure,
in fact, all aspects of the Legislative branch. This study, these
recommendations, should be most beneficial so that Congress can and
will do a better job --- hopefully helping to re-establish its proper
place as a co-equal branch in our federal government.
Let me add a word on the relationship of the Legislative arm
vis-a-vis the Judicial branch. It is my judgment that today the
Judicial branch is to some unfortunate extent arbitrarily elbowing its
way into spheres not intended at the time the Comtitation was drafted.
I subscribe to the views of the late Supreme Court Justice
DERALD FORD LIBRARY
-5-
Felix Frankfurter who BO convincingly espoused the philosophy of
"judicial restraint". I believe he also soundly raised an arm of
caution to the courts suggesting Zhey might wisely stay out of the
"thicket" of political matters relying in such cases on the "ultimate
sound judgment of the conscience of the voters". Quite frankly, I
favor a strong and firm attitude by our courts in those areas where
their "arm" can bring reason, order and respect for law to our system.
I'n restrospect is it fair to ask; U have the Frankfurter words of
caution been wrong?"
Another cornerstone in America's political fabric is the relation-
ship between our respective states and the national government. Those
who met in Constitution Hall in the City of Philadelphia represented
sovereign states or commonwealths. Their purpose was to put together
a document for the new nation that would permit the federal government
to assume those responsibilities essential for the national welfare
such as the common defense, a postal system and the like. Such powers
were delegated but to the sovereign states the traditional role of
local government was retained.
In recent years there has been a growing abdication of this role
and these responsibilities with a corresponding expansion of the in-
fluence of the federal establishment. The shrinking potency of the
states can be attributed in part to archaic state constitutions,
inadequate sources of revenue, and a lack of dynamic and resourceful
leadership at the state level. Whatever the cause, the result has
been a federal octopus moving steadily forward making vast inroads
into the functions initially carved out for your state and for mine.
For example, today we find our states by-passed by substantial federal
controlled by
funds and multiplying federal officials going directly to local
communities. In many instances these substantial federal arrangements
also by-pass responsible local authorities.
This new pattern for the extention of federal control is most
vividly illustrated by the President's poverty program but there is a
similar trend developing in the area of primary and secondary education.
Under legislation enacted by Congress in 1965 your state education
officials can,and undoubtedly will, be by-passed as the federal
authorities gradually extend their encroachment. Fortunately
Fortunately many of our Governors, Democrats and Republicans,
are showing a growing concern. During the consideration of the poverty
legislation in 1965 thirty-seven governors objected strenously to the
elimination promision the aur Governars some
-6-
control and responsibility in the administration of the vast sums
allocated to their states for the attack on the problems of poverty.
In addition, citizens in many of our states appreciate the need
for the modernization of state constitutions to meet the challenge
of burgeoning populations. Michigan's outmoded constitution was
supplanted by one that gives new and better tools to elected state
officials. In my travels this year to forty of our states, I note
a realization that the state constitutions of the past are not
adequate for the solution of the problems of the future.
Yes, I am convinced that we need not accept the inevitability
of a bigger federal government and a lesser role for our states.
Dynamic leadership, up-to-date constitutions, sufficient local revenue,
combined with a resolution to do the job at home, in your state and
mino, can stem the drive to federalize the republic.
A two-party system has been a bulwark of strength for freedom
and progress in America. A two-party system is not constitutionally
ordained in our land land, but early in our history it was found to be the be
best way for most of our citizens to participate in the political
arena and to give expression to their political philosophy. By
having a two-party system we have avoided the loss of freedom of one
party governments. There is no freedom in those one-party govern-
ments behind the Iron Curtain. Furthrmore, by having a two-party
system we have avoided the chaos and confusion that exists in multi-
party governments.
Today we do not have two strong, nearly equal-in-strength
political parties. This imbalance, if permitted to exist for too
long a time time, will have serious repercussions. Competition between
two major political parties has been healthy for Americans just as
and
competition in business in the professions produces a better result
for all concerned.
Let me assure you that although I speak tonight for the minority,
the Republicans, I do not believe that those in the minority can or
will
should sit back and bide their time. There are some, a very few
fortunately, who argue that the minority party should await a national
disaster at home or abroad and then move in, pick up the pieces and
build from the shambles. This I contend is not the tradition or the
heritage of the Republican Party in the 1960's. This was not the
role of the Republican Party under Lincoln or Eisenhower. We must by
the competence of our candidates, by the record of legislators and
LIBRARY
-7-
and administrators and by the philosophy that we espouse earn the
respect of our fellow citizens.
I am glad to report we in the minority party leadership realize
under our system no Party can be doctrinaire, sectarian, narrow in
its appeal and still attract the majority of the electorate. The
high ground of moderation with unselfish unity is not only common
horse-sense for a political party - it is also representative of
the people and in keeping with the underlying genius of the American
politbal system.
With this formato we aim to correct the imbalance in our two-
party system. We are dedicated to restoring vigor and competition
in the political arena so tlat the cornerstrone of two-party govern-
ment will again function for a better America.
A fourth cornerstone of the Constitution involves the right
of free speech with its many ramifications. I would do all possible
to
to keep this priceless "right" inviolate and protect the right of
those who wish to exercise this privilege. Yes, we want the right
of dissent and disagreement. We oppose a monolithic society. We
need, however, responsible dissent and an educational dialogue.
In the past few months during demonstrations in Washington,
some placards read: "Why Die for Viet-Nam?"
How many of us rember the similar question raised by
irresponsible voices in Chamberlain's Britain, litle over a quarter
century ago: "Why Die for the Sudetanland?" and "Why Die for Danzig?"
We know now-and many did then-that these voices wre serving the
purposes of Nazi aggression. The placard-bearers cried for peace
while the seeds for Buchenwald and Belsen were taking root.
Today, draft card burners and thosewho blockade shipments of
military supplies cry for peace-at-any-price---while the seeds of
Communist atrocity take root. And yet the appeasers speak of morality.
Some are concerned with the physical uncleanliness of these
irresponsible protesters. I am not 80 much concerned with their
personal hygiene as with their moral sterility. For if we condemn
public apathy toward victims of street crimes, what can we say of
apathy and disinterest regarding wictims of angurim
The well intentioned but unrealistic, placard-carrying marchers
who bear no public responsiblities cannot alter this country's policy
in Viet-Nam. But their words and actions may lead to a dangerous
miscalculation by the enemy of our nation's course of present and
-8-
future action. Such miscalculation by the Communists in Peking or
elsewhere could have dire consequences for all mankind. So,
11
shose
who misuse use of the right of free speech in America
mock
the very society that makes this privilege possible. The
destruction of America from within or without, would inevitably destroy
free speech and all other privileges guaranteed by the first ten
amendments.
I have *alked as though I am fearful, aprehensive, and pessimie
tic. I am, but to a very limited extent. On the other hand, I am
optimistic and let me tell you why. I have a strong abiding faith
in the good judgment of the American people. When alerted to dangers
to their government they respond.
Most of our citizens would agree with the late statesman Sir
Winston Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government,
except for any other that has ever been tried."
There is an ever-growing realization tht our system isthe finest
in the history of mankind. We believe in our Constitu ion. Those wise
men who put it together almost 200 years ago created an historic docu-
ment. that has made it possible for 13 poor, struggling colonies to grow
to a Nation of 50 states that today is at the pinnacle industrially,
agriculturally, militarily, and more importantly spiritually.
In concluding, I recall a statement made by Benjamin Fraiklin
the day work was completed on our Constitution. He was asked, "What
have we got---a monarcy or a republic?" Franklin answered, "A
republic if you can keep it!"
The responsibility for the American people then...as it is now
is to keep our Republic.
to keep it strong, progressive, free. We
have in the past; wewill in the future.
Thank you.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Speech by
Rep. Gerald R. Ford
at
Southern "ethodist University
Dallas, Texas
November 8, 1965
Dean Storey, President Tate, ladies and gentlemen. It S truly a
part
program
high honor and rare privilege to participate in SMU's 50th And ersary
In all sincerity I can say I have always been greatly impressedwith the SMV's
academic reputation, butₙinder-gradunte and graduate, but as an old-time
sports enthusiast I have lso watched with admiration the athletic
prowess of the mustangs
I am deeply grateful that Dean Storey took the time from his very
busy life, which in recent years was intended to be one of rest and
relaxation, to honor me by his introduction. He has been much too
generous in his comments. I only hope that my words or text will match
the build-up he has given me.
Dean Storey mentioned our association in the assignment to find the
truth in the circumstances Surrounding the tragedy of November 22, 1963.
As one of the seven members appointed by President Johnson to the
Committee to Investigate the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
I was privileged to meet and work with Dean Storey during the months
that the federal and Texas authorities sought to dig up the facts,
determine. the truth and recommend improvements in many federal agencies
and policies areas for the future. Dean Storey made invaluable suggestions to
the Warren Commission and the Report to the President was a better
document because of his contributions. Again, it is nice to see you,
Dean, and my very best to you.
Over the years I have admired Texans because of thier staunch and
steadfast independence. Speaking of independence, many Texans undoubtedly
fall in a group that might be involved in the following story.
While Congress is in session my family and I live in a Washington,
D.C. suburb. A next-door neighbor is a high-ranking official in the
Bureau of Internal Revenue. Several weeks ago we were chatting and he
asked if I had ever noticed that in the upper right-hand corner of
one's federal income tax return there is a small area marked off and
underneath there are the words, "Please do not write here." I confessed
my ignorance of the blocked-off area or the words. He then said,
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
-2-
"You would be astonished, Jerry, at the number of federal taxpayers who
sign their income tax return, write the check paying their indebtedness
and then write in the upper right-hand corner -- "I'll write any darn
place I please. #
Several months ago when Dean Galvin thoughtfully invited me to
participate in this anniversary series of speeches, his letter read
something like this:
"Dear Congressman Ford: In 1965 S.M.U. is celebrating its 50th
Anniversary and our Law School its 40th. To highlight these milestones
the Secretary of State, the Honorable Dean Rusk, and Mr. Sargent
Shriver, head of both the Peace Corps and the Poverty Program, have
already accepted our invitations. I am pleased to extend an invitation
to you to be on the program.
intil now our scheduled speakers have
been exceptional."
It is indeed difficult to follow Secretary Rusk and Sarge Shriver
for both are very able, articulate and truly dedicated Americans.
Furthrmore, my problems are complicated as I understand my very good
friend, the Honorable Carl Albert, House Majority Leader, will follow
me from the same rostrum in several weeks. Let me assure you in
advance Carl Albert will make a fine presentation. He is an outstanding
legislator, an articulate spokesman and a properly recognized leader in
the Demorratic Parry.
In my substantive remarks this evening, I will discuss four
cornerstones of our American political system and indicate my deep concern
that each is in some jeopardy in this crucial period in our national
and global history. There may be other fundamental American political
concepts or principles that are suffering from the serious erosion of
an "imbalance in government," but I will limit my observations to the
following:
(1). The system of "checks and balances" in the federal govern-
division
ment or the abdication of responsibilities between the
Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial branches;
(2). The relationships between the federal government and the
50 states;
(3). The two-party system; and
(4). The right of free speech and other related privileges and
responsibilities.
-3-
Each of these four cornerstones have contributed significantly to
America's freedom and progress. All but one are constituionally
ordained. Their importance to the strength of our political fabric must
not be underestimated. The wide swing of political pendulums and pudic
an parts 2 di
opinion which oftentimes creates an imbalance in government must not
9
destroy any one of them.
The first cornerstone was built by the wise drafters of our federal
constitution under the theory of separation of powers. In those delibera-
tions in Constitution Hall almost 200 years ago they made an important
decision to give specific responsibilities to each branch of the
national government
to give each of them strength and authority,
but I hasten to add not superiority over anyone of the other. The
The finely tuned provisions in this historic document were designed to
be a lasting bulwark against the concentration of power in the hands
of one man, one group within our society or one segment of our government.
The architects of the federal Constitution were understandably con-
cerned with coneentrations of power and the tragic dangers that flow
inevitably from its misuse because most of them or their forefathers,
had fled from tyranny, oppression and autorracy in Western Europe. They
had suffered severe privation and maximum danger to find and establish
a new land of freedom. Therefore, in the document for the governming of
this newly-established nation there must be safeguards. Although it
was obvious from their deliberations that we should have a strong
President heading the Executive branch, a strong Congress representing
the Legislative branch and a strong Judicial branch headed by the Supreme
Court, it was equally certain that in the document there was woven the
essential checks and balances predicated on three co-equal branches of
the government.
In my judgment, today we find an erosion of the power and prestige
of the legislative branch, a change of the intended direction of the
Judiciary and an awesome build-up of strength and a use of this power
in the Executive arm.
In this situation there is a modern-day parallel with the story of
David and Goliath. Congress, the Legislative branch, is David, The
Executive --- the White House and all its agencies -- is Goliath.
side
On the said of David are 535 elected officials/ 100 Senators,
435 Representatives with a comparatively small number of employees
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-4-
fagilative
branch
representing the American voters in each of the 50 states. We have
a
relatively small operating budget compared with that of Goliath, -- the
Executive branch. Most importantly, however, those in the Congress
regularly go to their constituents for approval or rejection. Their
"record" is put "on the line.' Each member is responsive to the views, the
opinions of those "back home" they represent.
In contrast, the Executive branch today has over 21 million civilian
7
employees with an annual payroll of approximately $15 billion. In
addition / there are about 2 million 800 thousand military personnel also
under the Commander-in-Chief. The current yearly payroll for those
in uniform in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines approximates another
$16 billion. The net result -- about 5 million 300 thousand employees
3
under the Chief Executive -- a 12-month payroll of over $30 billion and
a total federal budget to be spent by them for this year of $127 billion.
evecutive branch The
This vast army of employees working in the federal government is
really isolated and immunized from the American voter. Out of the vast
bureaucracy in the Executive branch only the President and the Vice
President put their record on the line at election time and then only
once every 4 years.
There is a growing apprehension that there is a potential and
real danger in the burgeoning power of the federal government's
executive branch with all this manpower and such vast funds. However,
I have faith that the minds of many of our people and the good judgment
of Americans will cut down Goliath to proper size by strengthening the
power and prestige in the Congress. Balance in this aspect of govern-
ment will be restored. P I am pleased to report that the Congress itself
is conscientiously, and I believe constructively, working toward that
end. Early in 1965 a Joint House-Senate, bi-partisan committee was
appointed to analyze our procedures, our internal legislative structure,
in fact, all aspects of the Legislative branch. This study, these
recommendations, should be most beneficial 80 that Congress can and
will do a better job -- hopefully helping to re-establish its proper
place as a co-equal branch in our federal government.
Let me add a word on the relationship of the Legislative arm
vis-a-vis the Judicial branch. It is my judgment that today the
Judicial branch is to some unfortunate extent arbitrarily elbowing its
way into spheres not intended at the time the Costitution was drafted.
I subscribe to the views of the late Supreme Court Justice
-5-
Felix Frankfurter who so convincingly espoused the philosophy of
an
"judicial restraint". I believe he also soundly raised the arm of
caution to the courts suggesting. might wisely stay out of the
"thicket" of political matters relying in such cases on the "ultimate
sound judgment of the conscience of the voters". Quite frankly, I
favor a strong and firm attitude by our courts in those areas where
their "arm" can bring reason, order and respect for law to our system.
In restrospect is it fair to ask: u lave the Frankfurter words of
caution been wrong?
Another cornerstone in America's political fabric is the relation-
ship between our respective states and the national government. Those
who met in Constitution Hall in the City of Philadelphia represented
sovereign states or commonwealths. Their purpose was to put together
a document for the new nation that would permit the federal government
to assume those responsibilities essential for the national welfare
such as the common defense, a postal system and the like. Such powers
were delegated, but to the sovereign states the traditional role of
local government was retained.
In recent years there has been a growing abdication of this role
and these responsibilities with a corresponding expansion of the in-
fluence of the federal establishment. The shrinking potency of the
states can be attributed in part to archaic state constitutions,
inadequate sources of revenue, and a lack of dynamic and resourceful
leadership at the state level. Whatever the cause the result has
been a federal octopus moving steadily forward making vast inroads
into the functions initially carved out for your state and for mine.
For example, today we find our states by-passed by substantial federal
contralled Ing by
funds and multiplying federal officials going directly to local
communities. In many instances these substantial federal arrangements
also by-pass responsible local authorities.
This new pattern for the extention of federal control is most
vividly illustrated by the President's poverty program but there is a
similar trend developing in the area of primary and secondary education.
Under legislation enacted by Congress in 1965 your state education
officials can, and undoubtedly will, be by-passed as the federal
authorities gradually extend their encroachment. Fortunately
Fortunately many of our Governors, Democrats and Republicans,
are showing a growing concern. During the consideration of the poverty
FORD
legislation in 1965 thirty-seven governors objected strenously to the
elimination of a provision in the law that gave to our Governors some
LIBRARY
-6-
control and responsibility in the administration of the vast sums
allocated to their our states for the attack on the problems of poverty.
In addition, citizens in many of our states appreciate the need
for the modernication of state constitutions to meet the challenge
of burgeoning populations. Michigan's outmoded constitution was
supplanted by one that gives new and better tools to elected state
officials. In my travels this year to forty of our states, I note
a realization that the state constitutions of the past are not
adequate for the solution of the problems of the future.
Yes, I am convinced that we need not accept the inevitability
of a bigger federal government and a lesser role for our states.
Dynamic leadership, up-to-date constitutions, sufficient local revenue,
combined with a resolution to do the job at home, in your state and
mine, can stem the drive to federalize completely the republic.
A two-party system has been a bulwark of strength for freedom
and progress in America. A two-party system is not constitutionally
ordained in our land, but early in our history it was found to be the
best way for most of our citizens to participate in the political
arena and to give expression to their political philosophy. By
one
having a two-party system we have avoided the loss of freedom of our
party governments. There is no freedom in those one-party govern-
ments behind the Iron Curtain. Furthermore, by having a two-party
system we have avoided the chaos and confusion that exists in multi-
party governments.
Today we do not have two strong, nearly equal-in-strength
political parties. This imbalance, if permitted to exist for too
long a time will have serious repercussions. Competition between
two major political parties and has been healthy for Americans just as
competition in business n in the professions produces a better result
for all concerned.
Let me assure you that although I speak tonight for the minority,
the Republicans, I do not believe that those in the minority can or
Their
should sit back and bide our time. There are some, a very few
fortunately, who argue tlat the minority party should await a national
disaster at home or abroad and then move in, pick up the pieces and
build from the shambles. This I contend is not the tradition or the
heritage of the Republican Party in the 1960's. This was not the
role of the Republican Party under Lincoln or Eisenhower. We must by
FORD
the competence of our candidates, by the record of legislators and
LIBRARY
-7-
and administrators and by the philosophy that we espouse earn the
respect of our fellow citizens.
I am glad to report we in the minority party leadership realize
under our system no Party can be doctrinaire, sectarian, narrow in
its appeal and still attract the majority of the electorate. The
high ground of moderation with unselfish unity is not only common
horse-sense for a political party --- it is also representative of
the people and in keeping with the underlying genius of the American
politbal system.
With this format we aim to correct the imbalance in our two-
party system. We are dedicated to restoring vigor and competition
in the political arena so tlat the cornerstrone of two-party govern-
ment will again function for a better America.
A fourth cornerstone of the Constitution involves the right
of free speech with its many ramifications. I would do all possible
to keep this priceless "right" inviolate and/protect the right of
those who wish to exercise this privilege. Yes, we want the right
of dissent and disagreement. We oppose a monolithic society. We
between those with marying
need, however, responsible dissent and an educational dialogue.
In the past few months during demonstrations in Washington,
some placards read: "Why Die for Viet-Nam?"
How many of us rember the similar question raised by
irresponsible voices in Chamberlain's Britain, litle over a quarter
century ago: "Why Die for the Sudetanland?" and "Why Die for Danzig?"
We know now-and many did then that these voices were serving the
purposes of Nazi aggression. The placard-bearers cried for peace
while the seeds for Buchenwald and Belsen were taking root.
Today, draft card burners and thosewho blockade shipments of
military supplies cry for peace-at-any-price---while the seeds of
Communist atrocity take root. And yet the appeasers speak of morality.
Some are concerned with the physical uncleanliness of these
irresponsible protesters. I am not so much concerned with their
personal hygiene as with their moral sterility. For if we condemn
public apathy toward victims of street crimes, what can we say of
apathy and disinterest regarding victims of Communist aggression?
The well intentioned, but unrealistic, placard-carrying marchers
who bear no public responsiblities cannot alter this country's policy
in Viet-Nam. But their words and actions may lead to a dangerous
miscalculation by the enemy of our nation's course of present and
FORD LIBRARY
-8-
future action. Such miscalculation by the Communists in Peking or
elsewhere could have dire consequences for all mankind. So, it behooves
misuse
those who make use of the right of free speech in America do nothing
mack
to destr oy the very society that makes this privilege possible. The
destruction of America from within 1 or ithout / would inevitably destroy
free speech and all other privileges guaranteed by the first ten
amendments.
I have talked as though I am fearful, aprehensive, and pessimis-
tic. I am, but to a very limited extent. On the other hand, I am
optimistic
and let me tell you why. I have a strong abiding faith
in the good judgment of the American people. When alerted to dangers
to their government they respond.
Most of our citizens would agree with the late statesman Sir
Winston Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government,
except for any other that has ever been tried."
There is an ever-growing realization that our system is the finest
in the history of mankind. We believe in our Constitution. Those wise
men who put it together almost 200 years ago created an historic docu-
ment. that has made it possible for 13 poor, struggling colonies to grow
to a Nation of 50 states that today is at the pinnacle industrially,
agriculturally, militarily, and more importantly spiritually.
In concluding, I recall a statement made by Benjamin Franklin
the day work was completed on our Constitution. He was asked, "What
have we got---a monarcy or a republic?" Franklin answered, "A
republic if you can keep it!"
The responsibility for the American people then as it is now
is to keep our Republic to keep it strong, progressive, free. We
have in the past; we will in the future.
Thank you.
GERALE FORD LIBRATE,
Speech by
Rep. Gerald R. Ford
at
Southern "ethodist University
Dallas, Texas
November 8, 1965
Dean Storey, President Tate, ladies and gentlemen. It is truly a
high honor and rare privilege to participate in SMU's 50th Anniversary.
In all sincerity I can say I have always been greatly impressed with Smu's
academic reputation, both under-graduate and graduate, but as an old-time
sports enthusiast I have also watched with admiration the athletic
prowess
of
the
universit
I am deeply grateful that Dean Storey tooll the time from histwery
busy life, which in recent years Was intended to the one of rest and
relaxation, to honor me by his introduction. He Rais been much too
generous in his comments. I only hope the my words or text will match
the build-up he has given me.
Dean Storey mentioned our association in the assignment to find the
truth in the circumstances burrounding the tragedy of November 22, 1963.
AB one of the seven members appointed by President Johnson to the
Committee to Investigate the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,
I was privileged to meet and work with Dean Storey during the months
that the federal and Texas authorities sought to dig up the facts,
determine the truth and recommend improvements in many federal agencies
and areas for the future. Dean Storey made invaluable suggestions to
the Warren Commission and the Report to the President was a better
document because of his contributions. Again, it is nice to see you,
Dean, and my very best to you.
Over the years I have admired Texans because of thier staunch and
steadfast independence. Speaking of independence, many Texans undoubtedly
fall in a group that might be involved in the following story.
While Congress is in session my family and I live in a Washington,
D.C. suburb. A next-door neighbor is a high-ranking official in the
Bureau of Internal Revenue. Several weeks ago we were chatting and he
asked if I had ever noticed that in the upper right-hand corner of
one's federal income tax return there is a small area marked off and
underneath there are the words, "Please do not write here." I confessed
my ignorance of the blocked-off area or the words. He then said,
LIBRARY
-2-
"You would be astonished, Jerry, at the number of federal taxpayers who
sign their income tax return, write the check paying their indebtedness
and then write in the upper right-hand corner -- "I'll write any darn
place I please."
Several months ago when Dean Galvin thoughtfully invited me to
participate in this anniversary series of speeches, his letter read
something like this:
"Dear Congressman Ford: In 1965 S.M.U. is celebraging its 50th
Anniversary and our Law School its 40th. To highlight these milestones
the Secretary of State, the Honorable Dean Rusk, and Mr. Sargent
Shriver, head of both the Peace Corps and the Poverty Program, have
already accepted our invitations. I am pleased to attend an invitation
to you to be on the program. Until now our scheduled speakers have
been exceptional."
It is indeed difficult to follow Secretary Rusk and Sarge Shriver,
for both are very able, articulate and truly dedicated Americans.
Furthermore, my problems are complicated as I understand my very good
friend, the Honorable Carl Albert, House Majority Leader, will follow
me from the same rostrum in several weeks. Let me assure you in
advance Carl Albert will make a fine presentation. He is an outstanding
legislator, an articulate spokesman and a properly recognized leader in
the Democratic Parry.
In my substantive remarks this evening, I will discuss four
cornerstones of our American political system and indicate my deep concern
that each is in some jeopardy in this crucial period in our national
and global history. There may be other fundamental American political
concepts or principles that are suffering from the serious erosion of
an "imbalance in government," but I will limit my observations to the
following:
(1). The system of "checks and balances" in the federal govern-
ment, or the abdication of responsibilities between the
Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial branches;
(2). The relationships between the federal government and the
50 states;
(3). The two-party system; and
(4). The right of free speech and other related privileges and
responsibilities.
-3-
Each of these four cornerstones have contributed significantly to
Americade freedom and progress. All but one are constitutionally
ordained. Their importance to the strength of our political fabric must
not be underestimated. The wide swing of political pendulums and public
opinion
which
often
creates
an
imbalance
in
government
must
not
)
destroy any one of them.
The first cornerstone was built by the wise drafters of our federal
constitution under the theory of separation of powers. In those delibera-
tions in Constitution Hall almost 200 years age they made an important
decision to give specific responsibilities to each branch of the
national government
to give each of them strength and authority,
but I hasten to add not superiority over anyone of the other. In
The finely taned provisions intthis historic document were designed to
be a lasting bulwark against the concentration of power in the hands
of one man, one group within our society or one segment of our government.
The architects of the federal Constitution were understandably con-
cerned with coneentrations of power and the tragic dangers that flow
inevitably from its misuse because most of them or their forefatherg
had fled from tyranny, oppression and autofracy in Western Europe. They
had suffered severe privation and maximum danger to find and establish
a new land of freedom. Therefore, in the document for the governing of
this newly-established nation there must be safeguards. Although it
was obvious from their deliberations that we should have a strong
President heading the Executive branch, a strong Congress representing
the Legislative branch and a strong Judicial branch headed by the Supreme
Court, it was equally certain that in the document there was woven the
essential checks and balances predicated on three co-equal branches of
the government.
In my judgment, today we find an erosion of the power and prestige
of the legislative branch, a change of the intended direction of the
Sudiciary and an awesome build-up of strength and a use of this power
in the Executive arm.
In this situation there is a modern-day parallel with the story of
David and Goliath. Congress, the Legislati ive branch, is David, The
Executive --- the White House and all its agencies -- is Goliath.
On the said side of David are 535 elected officials 100 Semators,
1
435 Representatives with a comparatively small number of employees
QERALD FORD LIBRARY
-4-
The Congressional branch
representing the American voters in each of the 50 states. # have a
relatively small operating budget compared with that of Goliath,-- the
Executive branch. Most importantly, however, those in the Congress
regularly go to their constituents for approval or rejection. Their
"record" an put "on the line." Each Member 1 is responsive to the views, the
opinions of those "back home" they represent.
In contrast contrast, the "xecutive branch today has over 21 million civilian
employees with an annual payroll of approximately $15 billion. In
addition there are about 2 million 800 thousand military personnel also
under the Commander-in-Chief. The current yearly payroll for those
in uniform in the Army, Naty, Air Force and Marines approximates another
$15 billion. The net result -- about 5 million 300 thousand employees
under the Chief Executive -- a 12-month payroll of over $30 billion and
a total federal budget to be spent by them for this year of $127 billion.
This vast army of employees working in the federal government is
really isolated and immunized from the American voter. Out of the wast
bureaucracy in the Executive branch only the President and the Vice
President put their record on the line at election time and then only
once every 4 years.
There is a growing apprehension to that there is a potential and
real danger in the burgeoning power of the federal government's
executive branch with all this manpower and such vast funds. However,
I have faith the t the minds of many of our people and the good judgment
of Americans will cut down Goliath to proper size by strengthening the
power and prestige in the Congress. Balance in this aspect of govern-
ment will be restored. I am pleased to report that the Congress itself
is conscientiously, and I believe constructively, working toward that
end. Early in 1965 a Joint House-Senate, bi-partisan committee was
appointed to analyze our procedures, our internal legislative structure,
in fact, all aspects of the Legislative branch. This study, these
recommendations, should be most beneficial so that Congress can and
will do a better job -- hopefully helping to re-establish its proper
place as a co-equal branch in our federal government.
Let me add a word on the relationship of the Legislative arm
vis-a-vis the Judicial branch. It is my judgment that today the
Judicial branch is to some unfortunate extent arbitrarily elbowing its
way into spheres not intended at the time the Comtitation was drafted.
I subscribe to the views of the late Supreme Court Justice
-5-
Felix Frankfurter who so convincingly to espoused the philosophy of
"judicial restraint". I believe he also soundly raised the arm of
story
caution to the courts suggesting might wisely stay out of the
"thicket" of political matters relying in such cases on the "ultimate
sound judgment of the conscience of the voters". Quite frankly, I
favor a strong and firm attitude by our courts in those areas where
their "arm" can bring reason, order and respect for law to our system.
I'n restrospect is it fair to ask; have the Frankfurter words of
caution been wrong?"
Another cornerstone in America's political fabric is the relation-
ship between our respective states and the national government. Those
who met in Constitution Hall in the City of Philadelphia represented
sovereign states or commonwealths. Their purpose was to put together
a document for the new nation that would permit the federal government
to assume those responsibilities essential for the national welfare
such as the common defense, a postal system and the like. Such powers
were delegated but to the sovereign states the traditional role of
local government was retained.
In recent years there has been a growing abdication of this role
and these responsibilities with a corresponding expansion of the in-
fluence of the federal establishment. The shrinking potency of the
states can be attributed in part to archaic state constitutions,
inadequate sources of revenue, and a lack of dynamic and resourceful
leadership at the state level. Whatever the cause, the result has
been a federal octopus moving steadily forward making vast inroads
into the functions initially carved out for your state and for mine.
For example, today we find our states by-passed by substantial federal
controlled by
funds and multiplying federal officials going directly to local
communities. In many instances these substantial federal arrangements
also by-pase responsible local authorities.
This new pattern for the extention of federal control is most
vividly illustrated by the President's poverty program but there is a
similar trend developing in the area of primary and secondary education.
Under legislation enacted by Congress in 1965 your state education
officials can,and undoubtedly will, be by-passed as the federal
authorities gradually extend their encroachment. Fortunately
FORD LIBRARY
Fortunately many of our Governors, Democrats and Republicans,
are showing a growing concern. During the consideration of the poverty
legislation in 1965 thirty-seven governors objected strenously to the
elimmation of a provision the law thab gave our Governare
-60
control and responsibility in the administration of the vast owns
allooated to our states for the attack on the problems of poverty.
In addition citizens in many of our states appreciate the need
for the modernismtion of state constitutions to meet the challenge
of burgeoning populations. Michigan's outmoded constitution was
supplanted by one that gives new and better tools to elected state
efficials. In my travels this year to forty of our states, I note
a realization that the state constitutions of the past are not
adequate for the solution of the problems of the future.
Yes, I an convinced that we need not accept the inevitubility
of a bigger federal government and a lesser role for our states.
Dynamic leadership, up-so-date constitutions, sufficient local revenue,
combined with n resolution to do the Joh at home, in year state and
mine. can stom the drive to federalise the republic.
A two-party aystem has been a bulwark of strength for freedom
and progress in America. A two-party system is not constitutionally
erdained in our land but early in our history 18 was found to be the be
best way for most of our citizens no participate in the political
arena and to give expression to their political philosophy. By
having a two-garty system we have avoided the loss of freedom of our
party governments. There is no freedom in those one-party govern-
ments behind the Iron brtain. Purthamore, by having a two-party
system have avoided the chaos and confusion that exists in multi-
party governments.
Today NO do not have two strong. nearly equal-in-strength
political parties. This inhalance if permitted to exist for 800
long a time will have serious repercussions. Competition between
two major political parties has been healthy for Americans just as
competition in business, in the professions produces n botter result
for all concerned.
Tet me assure you that although I speak tonight for the minority,
the Republicans, I do not believe that those in the minority can or
should sit back and hide our time. There are some, a very few
fortunately, who argue the the minority party should await a national
disaster at home or abroad and then move in, pick up the pieces and
build from the shambles. This I contend is not the tradition or the
heritage of the Republican Party in the 1960's. This was not the
FORD
role of the Republican Party under Lincoln or "isenhower. me must by
the competence of our candidates. hr the record of legislators and
LIBRARI
-6-
control and responsibility in the administration of the vast sums
allocated to states for the attack on the problems of poverty.
In addition citizens in many of our states appreciate the need
for the modernication of state constitutions to meet the challenge
of burgeoning populations. Michigan's outmoded constitution was
supplanted by one that gives new and better tools to elected state
officials. In my travels this year to forty of our states, I note
a realization that the state constitutions of the past are not
adequate for the solution of the problems of the future.
Yes, I am convinced that we need not accept the inevitability
of a bigger federal government and a lessor role for our states.
Dynamic leadership, up-to-date constitutions, sufficient local revenue,
combined with a resolution to do the job at home, in your state and
mine, can stem the drive to federalize the republic.
A two-party system has been a bulwark of strength for freedom
and progress in America. A two-party system is not constitutionally
land but early in our history it was found to be the be
in the political
arena and to give expression 26;
having a two-party system we have avoided the loss of w
party governments. There is no freedom in those one-party govern-
ments behind the Iron Curtain. Furthermore, by having a two-party
system we have avoided the chaos and confusion that exists in multi-
party governments.
Today we do not have two strong, nearly equal-in-strength
political parties. This imbalance, if permitted to exist for too
long a time will have serious repercussions. Competition between
two major political parties has been healthy for Americans just as
and
competition in business in the professions produces a better result
for all concerned.
Let me assure you that although I speak tonight for the minority,
the Republicans, I do not believe that those in the minority can or
should sit back and bide their time. There are some, a very few
fortunately, who argue that the minority party should await a national
disaster at home or abroad and then move in, pick up the pieces and
build from the shambles. This I contend is not the tradition or the
heritage of the Republican Party in the 1960's. This was not the
role of the Republican Party under Lincoln or Eisenhower. We must by
the competence of our candidates. hv the record of leciclatora and
LIBRARY
-7-
and administrators and by the philosophy that we espouse earn the
respect of our fellow citizens.
I am glad to report we in the minority party leadership realize
under our system no Party can be doctrinaire, sectarian, narrow in
its appeal and still attract the majority of the electorate. The
high ground of moderation with unselfish unity is not only common
horse-sense for a political party - it is also representative of
the people and in keeping with the underlying genius of the American
politbal system.
With this formate we aim to correct the imbalance in our two->
party system. We are dedicated to restoring vigor and competition
in the political arena 30 tlat the cornerstrone of two-party govern-
ment will again function for a better America.
A fourth cornerstone of the Constitution involves the right
of free speech with its many ramifications. I would do all possible
to
to keep this priceless "right" inviolate and protect the right of
those who wish to exercise this privilege. Yes, we want the right
of dissent and disagreement. We oppose a monolithic society. We
need, however, responsible dissent and an educational dialogue.
In the past few months during demonstrations in Washington,
some placards read: "Why Die for Vict-Nam?"
How many of us resmber the similar question raised by
irresponsible voices in Chamberlain's Britain, litle over a quarter
century ago: "Why Die for the Sudetanland?" and "Why Die for Danzig?"
We know now-and many did then-that these voices wre serving the
purposes of Nazi aggression. The placard-bearers cried for peace
while the seeds for Buchenwald and Belson were taking root.
Today, draft card burners and those who blockade shipments of
military supplies cry for peace-at-any-price---while the seeds ##
Communist atrocity take root. And yet the appeasers speak of morality.
Some are concerned with the physical uncleanliness of these
irresponsible protesters. I an not 80 much concerned with their
personal hygiene as with their moral sterility. For if we condemn
public apathy toward victims of street crimes, what can we say of
apathy and disinterest regarding wictims of ession?
Community aggression? 2
The well intentioned but unrealistic, placard-carrying marchers
who bear no public responsibilities cannot alter this country's policy
in Viet-Nam. But their words and actions may lead to a dangerous
miscalculation by the enemy of our nation's course of present and
FORD LIBRARY
&
future action. Such miscaloulation by the Communists in Peking or
elsewhere could lave dire consequences for all mankind. so, st behooves
those who misuse of the right of free speech in America de nothing but
mock
to the very society that makes this privilege possible. The
destruction of America from within or without would inevitably destroy
free speech and all other privileges guaranteed by the first ten
amendments.
I have *alked as though I am fearful, aprehensive, and pessimis-
tic. I am, but to a very limited extent. On the other hand, I am
optimistic and let me tell you why. I have a strong abiding faith
in the good judgment of the American people. When alerted to dangers
to their government they respond.
Most of our citizens would agree with the late statesman Sir
Winston Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government,
except for any other that has ever been tried."
There is an ever-growing realization tht our system is tte finest
in the history of mankind. We believe in our Contitu ion. Those wise
men who put it together almost 200 years ago created an historic docu->
has
ment.that made it possible for 13 poor, struggling colonies to grow
to a Nation of 50 states that today is at the pinnacle industrially,
agriculturally, militarily, and more importantly spiritually.
In concluding, I recall a statement made by Benjamin Fraiklin
the day work was completed on our Constitution. He was asked, "What
have we got--a a monarcy or a republic?" Franklin answered, "A
republic if you can keep it!"
The responsibility for the American people then...as it is now.
is to keep our Republic... to keep it strong, progressive, free. We
have in the past; we will in the future.
Thank you.
Ruth/
4581268
will you please type (migh Haft)
an original & two Lopies. This to
to be the Spuch 2 send to Southmen
University for report in
their mappine
Have I'm Judge look it NY
9/2 will go over it on Monday
before sending it to Texas on
Tuesday
&
/
Dean story, Present Tate, takes of
gentlemen. IT is truly a high honor and name
provilege to particypate in S.M N's 5
annowring. In all sincerely 2 can my
2 have always been greatly impressed with the
academic asputation, birth reader graduate and grabute,
but as an old Tame sports 2 have also
admination
watched with admired the athleter frower of
the
2 am deeply grateful That Dran story
tooh the time from his they broy life, which
in recent ylars
1
was intended to be me of next k relevation, to how
me by his introduction. He has been much
No generame in his comments. 2 only hope
that my work or tept will match The
build up he has given me.
2
Dear story mentioned our association in
the assignment respondability I find the truth in the
uncomitances smounding The tragedy of Novi22,
1963. as me) The seven members appointed
by President fohnm to the Committee to
Investryate The assumation of President
(spell (not)
I F,K. 2 was problegal to meet and work
with Dean Storey during the months
that The federal &Tyns authorities sought to
dig up The facts determine the truth of
in many federal agencies + areas
recommend improvements for The future Dean
story made imaliable antintions suggestions to The
Warren Commission and the Report to the
Pressdent was, a better downment become 7 In
contributions. again, It is nice to All you
FORD
Dean + my very best to you.
3
One the years 2 have almind Tyans
become of Their stanch t steadfast
intelyoner Speaking I many
that might be
Twans fall in Ma group, smoked
in the following story
While Engress is in my family
& 2 live in a Everthington D.C. subach a next
dow neighbor is a high ranking official in
The Benean of Internal Revenue, Akvaral weeks
ago we were chatting 4 he asked if 2 had
wer notical that in the upper myth hand
conner of ones federal meme Tax neturn there
is
a small area marked off + underwath
there are The words, "Please do not write here".
2 confissord my Insurance of the blocked If men N
the worts. He then smil, "You would
H
Jerry
le astrunted at the member ? federal
thopagers who sign their income That return,
write The check paying Their
and then write in the upper myth hand
Countr 1 "I'l write any dam place 2 please."
Several months ago when Dear Aalom
thoughtful instituted me the participate m
this, anneverong series of speeches his letter real
something has this
"Dear Engineman 7ml:
In 196
S.M.Y. is celebrating its 50th University of
our for School its 40 the To highlight
There milestones the See. of State, the Honrable
FORD
Dam Rush 4 Mr. Argunt fermer, hand
lith the Pean Crops x the Poraty Program
J
alrenty
have, accupted our invitations 2 am pleased
Is that an smortation I you to scheduled be of The
program, Up until won me, speakers
have been exceptional
IT is intert depart to follow
Acc, R and do Garge Serwar for both
very alle, atticulate of
are truly dedreated Americans, 7
complicated as
my problems
are 2 understand my very good friend, the Honorable
Carl allert, Home Majorty Jahr will
follow me, in several weeks. Jet me Missum
from the same rostrum
you in advance Carl about will make a
pm presentation. . He is an outstanding ligistator,
an anticulate sprhaman of and a properly mergmyod leader
in the Democratic Party.
GERALD FORD VIBRARA
6
on my substrutation memorhs This
evening, 2 will descuss from commerstons
of End american political system and
indicate my deep concern that such is in
some jegarly in This Limcal print in
mr national X global hrotong. Their maybe
other prolamented american political concepts on principles
that are suffaing from the services min
of an "ronbalance in government" but I will
himit my observations to the following
1). The system of "checks + Calances"
allocation of
in the federal government on the responsibility
between The Eventive, the + the
Indicial branches,
2) The relationships between The
FORD : LIBRARY 076835
federal government X the 50 states ;
7
3) the two party system; and
4) the night of free much 4
other compath related prowleys & responsible
Each Then, for communitions have controlated
symposently to america's freedom + propers,
all but me are constitutionally ordanil
Their importance to the strength of ow political
fabric must nt be understand The
wide shing of political pendulums 4 public
which flextrones creates an underlance m government
spenim must not destroy any my them.
The first commentine federal was butt by the
unit drafters 7 an constitution under the
therry 2 separation of powers. In than Weberations
BERALD FORD
in Constitution Hall almost 200 years ago they
make an important diamn to give specific
8
responsible to each branch ? the natural
government
to give lach of them theough
& authority, but 2 hasten to and not suppriority
over the other, The finely tuned provide
anyone of
in the histric document were designed to
be a lasting What against The incentration
7 power in the hanto of one man, one
group within our society on one segment ?
our government
The architicts of the federal constitution
were understandably concerned with concentrations
? powern & the trage dangers that flow indiatably
from its
misure became most them vthir frefathers
had fled from Tynanny, oppression of automacy
in Wastern Europe. They Al suppered severe prostation
FORD is LIBRARY
ti mapamem danger to find of that a new hand
9
of freedom Thank In the document for The growning
istablished
3 This newly frankation nation them must
aletingh obwors
a suppends IT was, from Their diliberations
that are should have n story President heading The
Eventure Crinch, a story Empare representing the
Legative Branch of a Almy Indical lynnch
headed by the Angreme Count, it was
expeally certain that in The document there
was women the essential check + Winers
preducated on three co-squal branches
of the government
2 my judgement, today we pind an
proson ? the Terrotation Grandes power of
other Registrations branch
the
prestige, a change of intended direction of the
Judiary of an awarme build-up of Freigth
da use
1
In the Eventure am
of this prover
QERALD FORD VIBRAGIA
10
In This situation There is a madern 1 day
parallet with the story of David & Holeath
Compare, The Segulation Loansh, is David, The
Executive - - the & lite And of all its agencies
is Greath,
On the side ? Danil are 535 elected
Spends, 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, with
a comparaturely small number of employees
requesenting The american stevens in each the 50
states We have a relatively small operating
Unlyst compared with that? Aleath c The
Exacutive branch, most importantly, however,
there m The Congress regularly go to their
constituents for approval or registion Their
"record" is put "n the line", Each is responsive
To the vews, The openions 3 There "lack home" "They
represent
B
T5B
A 534-7671
Ext.
$118 /
1960 corecity
828-5426
pa 1/26
GERRIOR FORD LIBRAR.
,
In contrast The Examine lunch Toking has are
2 1/2 millim cuvilian employees with an annual
In addition there me
payroll of approximately $15 Gllim, plur about
2,millin 800 thousand multary personnel also
current
under The Commander - In- they. The yearly
in The Ring, Mary, his York smerio
payroll for those in unform with
#/5 lilling The met moult 1 about
5 millin 300 Thousand Imployees inder the Cheef
Greature, and 12 month paysell within Rem who
total
30 Whim of a, budget for This your of
8/27 billin.
This wast army of Amphyees working
in The federal government are mally isolated d
immungel from The American Anter. Out?
the wast Incometary in the Granch
only The Prendunt of the Vice President put
12
their ment in The line at election time of
There is a potentional + real langer There
then only once in every 4 years,
that the Granch burgionen with all this power manpows of + the such federal funts spearture Hong have firth that the -
is a grown apprehension in
the minds of may of our people n Marath
good will will ble judgment of american will and down
Greath to proper size by strengthering the
power + prestage in the Engress, Blance in
this aspect of procoument
will be restruct and 2 am pleased To
report That the Empress itself in consounting
A 1 behine constructively, working Truand that
and Early in 1965 a Just Home )
Sinate, bi - partion committee, was
appointed to analize our procedures, mr
internal degislation
structure
mithods in fact all aspects 7 the Legestive
branch This study, these recommendations,
should be most beneficial so the Congress
Inlt
$
GERALD R. FORD <1 BRAND
13
to
Can & will do a better for
hosefully helping
its proper place as a Co - equal branch
in our federal government,
In me add a word on the relationship
fthe Logalative am who -a-Nis the
Judurd branch. IT is my judgment
that today The Julient brunk is to some
infortuncte extent alboung is
way into sphreve not intended at the
time the Constitution was drafted
I subscribe to the News of the
late Supreme Crust Instru Felith
who so communcely to me reported the
philophy of "jndical restrint 2 believe
he also soundly varid The am of
canton I The counts suggesting it might
H
wisely stay out of the "thichet" 7
political matters Anchas melying on the "ittermate
in such case
sound judgment of the conscill of the
water". Quite frankly, 2 favor a
story STRONE of from actitude by our Crusto
in there areas where Their "arm" can
& respect for law
bring reason, * order to our system.
W is there need to go toxymal the
In restropect it is fair to ask have The
areas 8 promote julical extensum
Frankfurted words 2 contron been wrong
GERALD GERALD R. FORD
15
another connerstone in amenca's
political fabric is The relationship between
our respective states + The national government
Those who met in Constitution Hall m The
City of Philadelphia represented states
N commonwealths. their purpose when
to put Together a domement for the mm
nation that would permit the federal
government to respond those responsabilities
essential for The national welfare such
as The common defense, a pootal system
and the like. such powers ware delegated
but to the sovereign states the traditional
role of local government was retained
In recent years there has been
a growing abdication of This note of then
16
with
responsibilities * a corresponding Hopansin
of the influence of the federal LotaMadhment
The shring potency of the states can le
attributed in part to archaic state constitutions,
inadequate sources of sevenue and a lach
8 dynamic + nearuraful leadership at the
state level. W hatever the cause The
moult has been a federal actipns moving
steadily forward making vast instals
into the functions instially carrel nt
Mr Hample
In your state of for mini. Today we
are states ly-parsidly
find, substanted federal funk of muthophy
federal Nacials going directly to local
communities. In many instructs then sutatential
federal anrangements also ly-pass responsible
FORD
local authorities.
17
This new pattern for the intention I
critrol is most inity illnstrated
by the Presidents' poverty program but
there is a similar Trend developing in
the area of primary of recording education
Under hystatem inacted by Company in 1965
your state education Nink can of undertting
will be by-prosed as the federal authorities
gradually extend Their enemelment
Fortunately many of our
Demonts #R youtherno, are showing a growing
concern. During the consideration of the
presty legeslation in 1965 thethy-seven
government algeted to the elemination
our
FORD is LIBRARY 938839
of a in the law that gave to
governors some control of responsibility in
18
the administration 7 the want sums
alleated to our states for The attach on the
problems 3 presty.
in address citizens in many f me
states appreciate The meed for The mokernyth
of state conditutions to mut The challenge
of burgaming propulations. Michigans outmoded
constitution was supplanted State by one that
+ Letter
gives new tools to lected Mark. In
my truch this year to forty of our
states, 2 note a realystime that the
state constitutions of the paot are not
adaquate fro the solution of the publems
of the future
you, 2 am commed that are
DERATO FORD MBMAR
need not accept the inertability 8
19
a begger federal government th lesson note
medium uptidate
constitutions, supperent Land nevenue,
for our states. Rase # Dynamic leadership
1
combined with a resolution I do the job
at home, in your state of mine, can stem
the drive to federating the nymblic
a two party mptem has been
a bulwork of strength for freedom of
progress in america. a two party
system is not constitutionally ordained in
our land but early in our history it was
frund to be the best way for not
of sur citizons to participate in The
political arena of to give expression to their
political philoshy By having a two party
FORD
BIT
system we have avoided the loss of
freedom of one party governments. Them
20
is no freedom in Those Frenthermor, one party Insurants
behind the from Curtome, By having a
two party system we have the
chass 4 confrom that thats in
multe - party gramments.
Today we do not have # two
storm nearly equal-in - strength political
parties. This imbalance if permitted
to efirat for too long a time will
have serimes representation 1 Competition
between political parties has been
two myor
healthy fn american just as competition
in Insurers, in the proframs products
a better result for all concerned
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARI
It me assure you that although
2 speak trught for the memority, The
hl
Rynbhears, 2 dr not behive that there
subtrait In fate and bide our time. There
in the minity can N should sit bach
and awart a disaster to our nation
a very few fortunately
are some, who argue that the minority party
should await a natural desmster at home N
alroad and Then move in, pich up the
preces 4 build from the shambles this
7 content is not the tradition orthe
orthe she of the Regubhean Party in The
1960s. This was not The role f the Republican
Party Monder Instru N Wr
the competence 7
must lyr our cardidates, * by the record of
of legalators t almonestration of by the philophy
that we reports lam The respect four
follow
FORD LIBRAN,
2 am glad to account we in The
zr
minority party leadership realize under
our system no Party can u Rostomains,
narms in its appeal & still
attract The majority of the electricte The
high ground of motoration with unselfish
unity is not only common Louse-sease
for a political party - it is also representative
of the people of in Aceping with The underlying
gorms of the Comerson political system
with This fromat we aim to
connect the embalance in our Two
We am dedicated to
party system. $ restring vyov of competition
the commenstive of
in the political arena As that, two -party
government will again function for a letter
America.
Government
-10-
I have talked as though I am fearful, apprehensive, and pessimistic.
Include
I am, but to a very limited extent. On the other hand, I am
optimistic...and let me tell you why.
First...I have a strong abiding faith in the good judgment of
the American people. When alsoted to dangers to their government
They respond
Secondly, Congress is taking steps to improve its image, to
Senate + House
improve its day-to-day working habits. A joint bi-partisan committee
Congessional
constructive
is studying methods and procedures. I am certain corrective propopals
onit
will be forthcoming.
And third...I believe most Americans are realising that they have
to help the Congress become a stronger partner in t he relationship of
the Executive and Judicial branches of government.
Fourth. I believe our governors in many states now realize that if their
the
units
state
their
set-ups
unites of government are to be strong partners, their constitutions must
be modernized. More governors are strengthening their desire to
1898 GERALD R. FORD
assume responsibilities and not pass them off to the federal establishment!
-more-
Government
-11-
most of me citizens would agree with
to
.
footusts,
T
recell
shart
what]
the late statesman Sir Winston Churchill who
said. "Democracy is the worst form of government," the British leader
include
said, "except for any other that has ever been tried."
an wer
With a more positive approachy T believe there is a growing
realization that our system is the finest in the history of mankind.
We believe in our Constitution. Those wise men who put it together
almost 200 created an historic document that has milet printh
for 13 pm, struggly colonics years to ago grow t q nation 7 50 states that today is at the pennacle,
industrully agrenttually, melitary and more importantly spirtually
I emphasize at this point. it is politics and politicians that
one
1
have put the breath of life and the blood in the veins of the still
bones of a constitutional system!"
In concluding, I recall a statement made by Benjamin Franklin the
include
day work was completed on our Constitution.
He was asked: "What have we got--- a monarchy or a republic?"
Franklin answered: "A Republic---if you can keep its"
-more-
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
Government
-122-
The responsibility for the American people then...as it is now...
inducl
is to keep our Republican....to keep it strong, progressive,
free. We have in the past; we will with future
To accomplish this goal, we must all remember that a government
onl
big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough
take take from us everything we have!
Thank you.
# #
FORD is LIBRARY GENALD
Address by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
YALE LAW SCHOOL ALUMNI DINNER
April 30, 1965
When Governor Scranton was here last year he said he would talk on a "safe
subject" -- politics! Being a peaceful man myself, and wishing to avoid controversy
whenever possible, I, too, will stick to that safe subject.
But as House Minority Leader in the so-called age of consensus, I do have
some ready views in the matter of differences of opinion and dissent in 1965 America.
Difference of opinion does make for horseraces but for a republic to
survive, something greater is required of its citizens. Our need is for responsible
dissent.
In the Nation's Capital, we of the Republican Party recognize the necessity
of informed and responsible opposition to Johnson Administration programs. And we
mean to fulfill our function as the Party of Opposition in a constructive and
responsible manner.
But briefly let me address my remarks beyond the Capitol Hill scene.
to
For we must all recognize a growing threat posed/our society and the country by
irresponsible expressions of dissent in this time of national crisis.
I refer to the crisis in Southeast Asia. Itshould be sufficient that our
Nation's enemies know that the overwhelming majority of Republicans in Congress,
though opposed to many of the President's domestic programs, support him in the
matter of standing firm against aggression in Viet-Nam. In fact, it is worth
commenting that President Johnson might wish for an equal amount of support for his
Viet-Nam stand from members of his own Democratic Party.
I consider it incredible that a source of such irresponsible modern-day
"know-nothing" dissent based on emotional disregard for the morality and facts of the
case should spring from a few of our university campuses.
And I consider it appalling that much of the leadership for picketing with
anti-American slogans in what at times amounts to irresponsible mob action comes from
a small minority of university professors purporting to carry forward the banner of
free academic inquiry.
Indeed, a central purpose of universities of free inquiry in our society is
to prepare succeeding generations for the assumption of responsibility as citizens.
Whenever our educational institutions fail to inculcate this sense of responsibility
toward community and nation in their students, serious trouble for the republic lies
ahead.
This has been the case throughout history. This century offers tragic proof
of the penalties which societies and nations pay for not meeting this fundamental
requirement for existence.
more
a frunth cornerstone of The Constitution involves the right
to Ship this pricelys pan feb "mith" months protect the night of those who
free speech with its investate many remifications and 2 would do postable
During the reeent Baster week end demonstrations in Washington, some This
with To sperma
placards read: "Why Die for Viet-Nam?"
right
yes, we producty wont the
How many of us remember the similar question raised by irresponsible voices
in Chamberlain's Britain, little over a quarter century ago: "Why Die for the We
desaprement
group
4
Sudetanland?" and "Why Die for Danzig?"
We know now and many did then that these voices were
serving the purposes of Nazi aggression. The placard-bearers cried for peace
desreat
responsible
while the seeds for Buchenwald and Belsen were taking root.
draft card burners + those who blochade skipments . supplies
didogne
educational
Today, our 50 called "teach inc" and "pease" cry for
peace-at-any-price while the seeds of Communist atrocity take root. And yet the
appeasers form speak of morality.
others are concerned with the physical uncleanliness of these irresponsible
protesters. I am not so much conerned with their personal hygiene as with their
moral sterility. For if we condemn public apathy toward victims of street crimes,
what can we say of apathy and disinterest regarding victims of Communist aggression?
It is, of course, an apathy and disinterest shown only by a small, small
minority of American professors and students. The so-called teach-ins which I
That
regret to say may have began at my own University of Michigan are not truly
representative of the Nation's university campuses, However, it remains for
responsible leaders of American higher education to make this fact unmistakably clear
to our people.
The well intentioned but unrealistic placard-carrying marchers who bear no
public responsibilities cannot alter this country's policy in Viet-Nam.
But
danger
extete that they will bring about a damaging Loss of public confidence in the alms
and operation of the country's educational system
In But their words and
actions may lead to a dangerous miscalculation by the enemy of our nation's course of
present and future action. Such miscalculation by the Communists in Peking or
elsewhere could have dire consequences for all mankind to, it behroves those who
make me 9thl night free spuch in america do "nothing to destroy thing socuty
Certainly there must always be a place for responsible dissent and free that mahed
inqiry on our university campuses. But, as President Nabrit of Howard University This proudge
pointed out this past week, there is no place for irresponsible disruption of
The destruction possible
ont
academia pursuits on behalf of forces opposed to our system.
Jameron within withouty from would
Dr. Wilson H. Elkins, president of the University of Maryland, expressed inevitably a
similar idea saying that respect of students for authority and law is essential to destruct
the development of good citizenship and the "insidious erosion and sometimes outright free all others
defiance of authority is a dangerous trend in our society."
LIBRARY
produces The then
GERALD
Dr Elkins added: "It seems clear that if any student or group
is
allowed
You
-3-
to seize power in the name of freedom of speech, then the universities should close
their doors before rigor mortis sets in."
It is not too much to expect university students to understand that along
with free academic inquiry goes responsibility to country and society. And it is
certainly not too much to expect their professors to know and teach that the prime
master of free inquiry in Western society did not walk the streets of Athens
carrying a placard asking "Why Die for Marathon?" when his community was threatened.
Indeed, Socrates knew the answer. He was prepared to do battle and if
necessary die to preserve the freedom of others yet my main thesis tonight is the
need for responsible dissent in the Age of Consensus.
In the years ahead, as never before, we must beware of men with ready
answers.
For we will still have to live-- and find answers --- under moral ground
rules that were set down twenty centuries ago and under political ground rules that
were set down two centuries ago.
Leaving the former to the theologians, I would like to make some comments
on the latter.
The American Constitution was not dévinely created. The Founding Fathers,
after all, were merely mortals -- why four of them were even Yale men! (Harvard
had only three. Though we must admit that nine came from Princeton!)
The important point to stress when discussing the Constitution, I believe,
is not that it has been sanctified by time and tradition. Nor need we dwell on its
immutability -- it can and has been changed from time to time. What is important is
that it works. We have lived successfully and amicably under it. In a society
that has always prided itself on pragmatism this is the ultimate test.
The keystone of our Constitution has been its system of balances -- balances
between leveds of government and balances between branches of government.
Anyone who has ever worked with balances in a scientific laboratory knows
that they are finely attuned instruments. One must be constantly alert to keep them
in kilter; one must make immediate adjustments when there is a malfunction. Our
governmental balances are no different in principle.
The legislative-executive-judicial balance, as established by our Constituion
is a simple, yet ingenious, system of insuring our freedoms
Yet today there are disturbing signs of slow erosion in the power of the
Legislative, build-up of awesome power in the Executive, and regrettable change in
the intended direction of the Judiciary. Each is a threat to freedom.
I think that much of today's criticism of Congress, the legislative branch,
-4-
is a manifestation of our frustrations -- the tensions of a prolonged Cold War, the
anomely of poverty in the midst of plenty, the complexity of highly urbanized living,
the gap between the American Ideal of equality and its realization.
"Let's stop talking and get things done!" we would all like to shout at one
time or another.
But Congress, by design, is a deliberative body --- 435 representatives in the
House and 100 in the Senate who must reach majority decisions.
This criticism -- that congress is too cumbersome, too old-fashioned -- is
basically unwarranted for two reasons.
First, because Congress has repeatedly proved that it can act with dispatch
to meet crisis. You will recall, for example, that in the famous Hundred Days of
1933 some bills were voted into law even before they were printed.
Second, because the advantages of precipitous action are often outweighed by
the safeguards of deliberate slowness.
In the race to the brink of decision one can easily fall over into the
chasm of irresponsibility. It is to prevent this dangerous plunge that the Constitutic
provided checks and balances. It is only proper, when one stops to consider, that
Congress should reach its major decisions after adequate research, thought, and full
discussion.
After all, if the ultimate goal of government were merely speed, we could
institute a dictatorship. What could be faster than one man giving an uncontestable
order?
When the balance in Congress is steeply tilted by an overwhelming majority in
one political party -- as it is today with 294 Democrats and 140 Republicans in the
House --- our system of checks and balances is further endangered.
This is because our two-party system, although not written into the Constitu-
tion, builds into government an additional set of checks and balances. Early in our
history a wise decision was made to follow the pattern of a two-party system. We
avoided the loss of freedom of a one-party government; we avoided the chaos and
confusion of a multi-party government.
Not only does a strong second party provide the electorate with legislative
alternatives but also with a remarkably high level of honesty and frankness.
Without indulging in partisanship, I am sure we can all agree that a strong
two-party system is Democracy's life insurance - protection for our children against
any drift toward authoritarianism. Conversely, a crushing over-balance of strength in
either party for too long will make a mockery of our traditions in government and
weaken the voice of the people.
more
-5-
This threat to the American system becomes even more serious when both
legislative and executive branches are dominated by the same party.
The temptation for the President's majority in Congress to simply rubber-
stamp his proposals can become irresistable. Especially when the President is a
master at the art of arm-twisting -- or as the present incumbent calls it, "reasoning
together!" The recently passed Education Act is a case in point. We had such quick
passage of a bill without Congress really working its will that many conscientious
citizens feel raised more questions than answers. So we now hear talk of correcting
the flaws with additional legislation. But this is hardly an adequate substitute for
well thought out action.
We must also remember that the burgeoning growth of Big Government has given
the Preisdent virtually unlimited resources for working his will. Besides the
increased patronage and the increased leverage of administering massive spending
programs, he now controls a veritable army of experts, researchers and propagandists
whose job it is to present his administration in the best possible light to the
American people.
Great power in a democracy should require great self-restraint. Yet only
two weeks ago we were dramatically reminded that this is not always the case, I am
referring to April 15th -- the day of reckoning for the American taxpayer. An
incalculable number of citizens were then obliged to go into debt as a delayed result
of federal tax legislation with political overtones. What happened was that after the
1964 tax reduction was passed the Administration wished to bask in the sun of voter
gratitude, while muting the politically disagreeable fact that cutting the withholding
tax would leave the taxpayer with a larger cash obligation to the Treasury on April
15th, 1965, than in previous years. The Administration's action -- in allowing a
false impression to exist -- reminded columnist Arthur Krock of a television commercial
that used fake sandpaper in a shaving cream demonstration. But in the case of the
commercial fakery, the Federal Trade Commission ordered the company to cease and
desist. Nobody, however, required the Administration to do likewise.
Today the President is king pin of the branch of government that employs
over five million civilian and military personnel, with a yearly payroll cost of $28
billion, and a total expenditure of over 127 billion tax dollars in fiscal 1966.
This is awesome power, indeed. And if consistently used improperly could
mean the withering away of our tripartite system of government and the eventual death
of the two-party system.
It is also necessary to remember that while the President is chief executive
of all of us, he basically represents the views of only those who voted for him.
more
-6-
(Many times this has meant less than a majority of the people.)
On the other hand, members of Congress, and particularly those in the House
of Representatives, are closer to the Nation's citizens. They are chosen by smaller
segments of the Nation. In the House they are elected every two years. They represen
every section of the country, rural and city, suburbs, blue-collar and white-collar,
every major profession, doctors and lawyers, nearly every national origin, Protestant,
Catholic, Jew, Negro, even American Indian.
This is your strength. It should not be diluted by an over-balance in the
executive and judicial branches of government.
While it is the duty of the legislative branch to enact laws, and the duty
of the executive branch to administer laws, it is the duty of the third branch of
government, the Judiciary, to interpret the laws.
Unfortunately there is evidence that the Judicial branch is now arbitrarily
elbowing its way into new positions of authority, and disregarding the wise suggestion
of judicial restraint made by the lase Justice Frankfurter and others.
When the Supreme Court ordered the states to reapportion on the "one-man,
one vote" concept, Justice Frankfurter, in a dissenting opinion, was critical of an
assumption by the Court of "destructively novel judicial power."
"In this situation, as in others of like nature," Justice Frankfurter said,
"appeal for relief does not belong here. Appeal "must be made to an informed,
civically militant electorate. In a democratic society like ours," he continued,
"relief must come through an aroused public conscience that sears the conscience of
the people's representatives."
Justice Frankfurter emphasized that the Supreme "Court's authority ---
possessed neither of the purse nor the sword -- utlimately rests on sustained public
confidence in its moral sanction."
* * *
It seems to me that the major goals to be sought in the area of government
are two-fold. First: a sensitive balance between executive, legislative and judicial
branches; Second: a strong two-party system.
As the goals are simple and straightforward, so, too, are the means of
reaching them: a renewed sense of citizen participation at all levels of government;
alert, enlightened and unfettered news media; self-restraint by those in positions of
public trust; a general understanding of the workings of the American governmental
system, so as to be able to detect deviations from it; and, above all, constant
vigilance.
#########
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
"Balance in Government: An Analysis of the Legislative Process"
Presented by the Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader
The House of Representatives
Congress of the United States
Southern Methodist University
changes
November 8, 1965
In today's context, an issue of salient significance is whether an excess con-
centration of Federal sovereignty is to destroy state and local government, thus sup-
pressing individual freedom and opportunity.
This examination of the legislative process centers on the three branches of
government, their balance or lack of it, with particular emphasis on the Congress.
A responsible dialogue discussing the legislative process includes the three
cornerstones of our American political society, two of them constitutionally ordained,
the other a tradition of our Democracy.
The first cornerstone is the relationship of the Executive, Legislative, and
Judicial branches of government, best in balance when they guard against mediocrity--
always the danger of a society overly-planned.
These are relationships of paramount importance in government, which most
properly must create a social order permitting every individual to live in dignity,
respect law and receive justice, and exploit endlessly the best in himself.
In granting powers to the Executive Branch, drafters of the Constitution very
wisely decided to carefully delineate the authority establishing a Presidential
position of balanced strength.
Strength, too, was demanded in the Legislative Branch of Federal Government,
giving the Congress a vital role.
A strong judicial system under the United States Supreme Court was written into
the document.
It is most significant that those who authored the Constitution, insisting on
strength in each of the three branches, gave no superiority to any one branch.
The second cornerstone of the Republic is the Constutional provision that each
State shall retain a pluralistic degree of sovereignty in relation to the Federal es-
tablishment.
In their fidelity to detail, the patriots who created the Constitution sepa-
rate the powers and responsibilities of state and national governments.
Not Constitutionally-ordained, the third cornerstone of our Nation is a
strong two-party political system.
GERALD FORD LIBRAR
Dants -Hothest places m hell
morale crows remain michal
who in timof
Early in America's history, out of the political experience of the early
years there developed two major political parties. This system has served the
best interest of the people. As a result, we have avoided the loss of freedom that
exists in one-party government. We have avoided the chaos and confusion that
accompanies multi-party government.
Perhaps the late Sir Winston Churchill best described the functions of the
American Republic when he said: "Democracy is the worst form of government except
for any other that has ever been tried."
Accepting the premise that the Constitution is to be a lasting bulwark
against the concentration of power in any one branch of government, let us examine
our political society in possibly history's most crucial and turbulent era.
The Executive branch increases in power and strength. Its manpower corps
numbers more than five million, approximately half of the personnel in the military
services. With this huge mass of personnel comes a total annual payroll of close to
$30 billion and the right to spend out of the Federal Treasury nearly $127 billion
each year.
The social implications of this awesome power come in disjointed phrases,
incomplete references, and an anachronistic comment.
Executive accomplishments are detailed to the Nation by the device of
"releases" at times distributed in flurries. Federal agencies are directed to pro-
vide information to the White House, which takes unto itself the credit. Often the
timing of disseminating the information to America at large has political overtones
and implications.
Congress, the legislative branch, has great strengths and great weaknesses.
The human equation is paramount in Congressional action and inaction.
It has been said that "Congress is a very human institution, part and parcel
of our American culture." The late Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn used to describe
"those rolling waves of sentiment" that dictate Congressional decisions.
Critics attempt to denigrate the Congress, demanding reform, seeking to
abolish certain prerogatives.
This dichotomy between the Congress and its critics has existed for decades.
FORD
The long estraugment will follow forward into history.
LIBRAR
-3-
It is difficult for anyone to stand between the critics and the Congress for
he faces assault from one side as an apologist for alleged incompetence and from the
other for moralistic philosophastry.
Thus the disagreement prevents a meaningful dialogue between the Congress and
its society of critics.
The lack of responsible debate and dissent is the Nation's loss, for Congress
needs help from outside its own political community in meeting the challenges of the
present and the future.
Certainly, Congress needs the help of the academic, business, industrial,
commercial and cultural worlds.
However, the assistance and advice must be based on an understanding of Con-
gressional experience its depth and width and the psychology and logic of the
Congressional processes.
Too often critics seem more intent on seeking new ways to alter Congress than
to truly learn how it functions. They could turn to the advice of Thomas Huxley,
who said a century ago: "Sit down before facts as a little child, be prepared to give
up every preconceived notion----or you shall learn nothing."
It has been said that Congress is not as bad as many of its critics allege,
nor as good as many of its members believe. Only by a recognition of both its
weaknesses and strengths can we achieve a rational understanding of the Congress.
- more -
-4-
A sensitive description and an accurate appraisal of the Congress should have
as their base a personal and prolonged experience either as a member or as a
dedicated observer.
Those who criticize severely could well assume the responsibility of
ing
seek/public office, winning an election, assuming a legislative role, and trying to
be returned to office on a record of performance.
The neglected aspects of Congressional life demand appraisal, dissecting, and
change, Among them are the operation of lobbyists in the legislative processes,
some out-moded parliamentary procedures, the realities of the seniority system, and
day-to-day routines.
From Congress itself is emerging such a study. A joint bi-partisan committee
currently is conducting research in depth with the major goal of improving the
operations of Congress.
There will never be perfect agreement within or outside of Congress on the
scope of the problems and the methods of solving them. However, the present study
is a bold move toward dissolving much of today's criticism and dissent.
A contemporary examination of balance in the three branches of government
indicates a trend in the judicial system to arbitrarily elbow its way into areas
that were not intended by the authors of the Constitution.
In my opinion the views of the late Justice Felix Frankfurter were sound and
wise. He espoused the philosophy of judicial restraint, a course of action I
believe should be more closely followed by the courts.
Without over-indulgence in political partisanship, I can say that in this age,
an imbalance exists in the relationship of government's three branches.
The political party dominating the Congress by a two-to-one majority has one
of its own in the White House. The accelerated trend in the federal Judiciary is
upsetting well-established practices and taking action which makes new law adds to
the lack of balance.
The role of the minority power in this situation should be greater than that
of traditional "loyal opposition."
With wisdom and foresight, the late President Theodore Roosevelt warned the
party out of power that "mere negation and obstruction and attempts to revive the
dead past spell ruin."
He was correct then and his words are just as correct and meaningful now.
The minority power has an obligation to its supporting electorate and the
entire nation to provide a system of checks and balances as intended in the
Constitution, the blueprint of our Republic.
-5-
In the national interest, the strength of the minority power must have the
necessary volume and substance to not only serve as a counter-weight but to
initiate positive and constructive legislative propesals.
The minority party must be imaginative, dedicated, and alert. If it fails to be
given needed strength and voice by the electorate, the true progress of our nation
is impeded, mis-directed, or stopped short of desirable goals.
Despite the present imbalance in government with an over-abundance of power in
the Executive branch, a steeply-tilted majority in the Congress, and the lack of
judicial restraint in the courts, there are reasons to be optimistic.
I have a strong abiding faith in the good judgment of the American people.
There is a growing realization that our political system is the finest in the history
of mankind.
I see strong indications of the American people seeking to fulfill a wish
expressed by Benjamin Franklin on the day work was completed in framing the
Constitution.
He was asked: "What have we -- a monardy or a republic?"
Franklin answered: "A Republic-- if you can keep it."
Americans by and large are dedicated to keeping our republic in the face of
criticism at home and abroad.
There is a growing realization in Americathat a government big enough to give
us everything we want is big enough to take from us everything we have.
######