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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526071
label
Russell Sage College Convocation, December 5, 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526071
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Russell Sage College Convocation, December 5, 1967
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Civil disobedience
Executive departments
Freedom of speech
Legislative branch
Political parties
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
War protests
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526071
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-12-31
month
12
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-12-01
month
12
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
805636bf057d2185
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D23, folder "Russell Sage College Convocation,
December 5, 1967" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH,, AT-RESSBAL SAGE-COLLEGE, TROY , NEW
1967
/
DECS,
YOU AND I ARE LIVING IN THE MOST TROUBLED OF TIMES.
America IS Redly SHAKEN BYADEEP our DIVISIONS over NATIONAL POLICY the GREAT DEBATE O VER
VIETNAM, THE CONTINUING CIVIL RIGHTS REVOLUTION AND ITS CONCOMITANT BLACK POWER MOVEMENT, THE ROLE OF THE
UNITED STATES IN A WORLD CRACKLING WITH SOCIAL UPHEAVAL IN EMERGING NATIONS, AND THE UNCEASING EXPANSIONIST
EFFORTS OF WORLD COMMUNISM,
are witnessing a large
IN
WE M
SED-#: VARIETY OF PROTEST MOVEMENTS IN THIS COUNTRY
A
AS AMERICANS am REGISTER THEIRL DISAGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY AND REBELLION AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT.
but Ifeel we
SAY AT_THE OUTSET THA
I BELIEVE FIRMLY IN THE RIGHT OF
DISSENT
TESTIMONIAL TO THE STRENGTH OF A F REE AMBRICA
must CURRENTLE distinguish ARE TN between THIS COUNTRY responsible DECARE OF DISSENT FROM dissentand GOVERNMENT POLICY motestwhick WHICH 40 UNPRECEDENTED produces
violence and anarchy.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Digitized from Box D23 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
2
Now
IT IS TRULY ALARMING THAT PEACEFUL DISSENT IN THIS COUNTRY/IS MOVING RAPIDLY INTO THE AREA OF
VIOLENCE AND DISRUPTION OF ORDERLY PROCEDURES --- ON OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES AND ON PROPERTY NEAR GOVERNMENT
BUILDINGS. I_ DO NOT VIOR SHOULD BE TOEBRATED
TS EXTRENCE THAT THE RATING ORGANIZED AND IED THE MASSIVE ANSTRICT - TION AT
THIS PRVIAGON LAST CODE 20. ORGANIZERS OF THE DEMONSTRATION: MADE AT TEADI TWO TRIPS TO HANOI WHILE PLANNING
FOR INSTANCE, Hosetalery part in anti-war demonotration Octizo, 1967,
(
SOME OF MOMONSURATORS SHOWEREDUBOTH PHYSICAL AND VERBAL ABUSE ON THE U.S. TROOPS CALLED
IN TO KEEP ORDER. THE DEMONSTRATION COST THE TAXPAYERS MORE THAN $1 MILLION WHEN ALL THE EXPENSES
WERE ADDED UP.
IN THE FUTURE, FEDERAL OFFICIALS WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO GRANT A PERMIT FOR SUCH
DEMONSTRA TONS ON THE GROUND IT IS VIRTUALLY CERTAIN VIOLENCE WOULD RESULTS
demonstrations
WHAT OF CAMPUS PROPESTS AGAINST THE VIETNAM WAR? THEY HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY MILITANT AND
11
the manufacturer
DISRUPTIVE LIE-INS IN PROTEST AGAINST RECRUITMENT BY THE MILITARY, THE CIA, AND
of NAPALM USED IN VIETNAM.
LIBRARY
4
3
SUCH LIE-INS VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. I THINK NY STUDENT WHO WISHES TO BE INTERVIEWED BY
company
THE MILITARY RECRUITERS, THE CIA, OR
CHEMICAL OFFIC IALS SHOULD BE FREE TO DO so WITHOUT
INTERFERENCE
FROM OTHER 1/3mm
I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, WHICH RECENTLY CONDEMNED
DISRUPTIVE STUDENT BEHAVIOR ON CAMPUSES ACROSS THE NATION. LIKE THE ASSOCIATION, I BELIEVE STRONGLY IN
SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE
STUDENT DEMOCRACY BUT DISRUPTIVE STUDENT ACTIONS INTERFERE WITH THE PURSUIT OF AND
THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
IN A RECENT STATEMENT, THE ASSOCIATION SAID: "TO OBSTRUCT OR RESTRAIN OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
ACADEMIC COMMUNITY AND CAMPUS VISITORS BY PHYSICAL FORCE IS DESTRUCTIVE OF THE PURSUIT OF LEARNING AND OF
A FREE SOCIETY."
VITAL
all americans recognize the needfor
IT IS X
THAT
GOVERNMENT BY
LAW AS WELL AS THE SANCTITY OF DISSENT. IT IS ONLY WITH RESPECT FOR LAW AND ADHERENCE TO A GOVERNMENT OF
LAWS THAT YOUNG AMERICANS CAN PROPERLY ISSUME THE POSITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY WHICH AWAIT THEM.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
4
DESCOUNG MEN IS THEIR STRENGTH.
BUT THAT STRENGTH IS GLORTOUS ONLY IF IT IS EMPLOYED IN A n GREAT CAUSE, NOT DASHED ACAINSI THE
ROCKS OF ALTENATION IN REDELLION FOR REBELLION'S CAKE
is
THE STRENGTH OF AMERICANS VILL BE GREAT ONLY IF THEY COUPLE IT WITH DISCIPLINE, DIRECT IT
TO WORTHY GOALS AND BIND THEMSELVES TO PURPOSES THAT ARE LARGER THAN ANY ONE PERSON'S EGO AND NOBLER THAN
THE COMMON OBJECTIVES OF MEN.
TO REALIZE GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS, A
PERSON MUST PROPERLY ASSESS HIS
OR HER OWN VALUE,
ASSUME FULL RESPONSEBILITY FOR ALL OF HIS OR HER ACTIONS, AND so LIVE THAT HIS OR HER CONDUCT REFLECTS
LOVE AND RESPECT FOR OTHERS.
I WANT TO SEE AMERICANS FIGHT FOR THEIR IDEALS AND HELP CLOTHE WITH TRUTH THE PRONOUNCEMENT
THAT "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL." MAY THEY BEAT
INJUSTICE TO EARTH -- I them BUT DO SO IN REASONED DEFENSE
OF LIBERTY
AND NOT IN EMPTY-MINIED DEFIANCE OF LAW AND ORDER.
IF WE ARE TO HAVE GENU INE PROGRESS IN AMERICA, WE MUST RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW AND BUILD A GOOD
SOCIETY. WE MUST QUIT MAKING EXCUSES FOR LAWLESS BEHAVIOR. WE MUST SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS
REGARDLESS OF COLOR. WE MUST ENFORCE OUR LAWS AGAINST THE MOB AND AGAINST THE CRIMINAL AND SUBVERSIVE
5
ELEMENTS OPERATING BEHIND A CLOAK OF CIVIL RIGHTS. WE MUST ATTACK AND VANQUISH
THE MISERY THAT
FLOURISHES IN THE GHETTO AND FEEDS THE FIRES OF DISORDER.
W should THIS IS R THE TO BUILD NOT AMERICA, SEEK TO TEAR HER DOWN Thisis A TIME
FOR INSPIRED LEADERSHIP FROM AMERICANS
OF ALL AGES, AND ESPECIALLY
THE YOUNG.
..A TIME FOR US TO FASHION A
GOOD SOCIETY IN WHICH
ALL AMERICANS CAN LIVE IN DECENCY AND DIGNITY.
Churchill
#####
Franklin
printed matter.
Pick up
IRONICALLY, HOWEVER, THE PRECIOUS RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH IS BEING THREATENED BY THE DISSENTERS THEMSELVES.
THE JUDGMENT, OF SOME AMERICANS CAUGHT UP IN VIETNAM WAR
PROTESTS AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IS BEING BADLY IMPAIRED
BY THE PASSION OF THEIR BELIEFS.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE JUDGMENT OF CERTAIN AMERICANS WHO
RESENT THE ACTIONS AND VIEWS OF THE ANTI-WAR AND CIVIL RIGHTS
ADVOCATES ALSO IS CLOUDED BY EMOTION.
THIS NATION THEREFORE IS TORN BY ATTEMPTS AT SUPPRESSION
BOTH BY THE REPRESSIVE RIGHT/AND THE IRRESPONSIBLE LEFT.
THIS IS A TIME OF DEEP CRISIS FOR OUR NATION. WE ARE
RIPPED BY RACIAL STRIFE, AND WE ARE EMBROILED IN A STRANGE
KIND OF WAR THAT IS TESTING THE WILL AND DETERMINATION OF
AMERICANS AS NEVER BEFORE.
impose
FORD
LI
CERTAINLY THIS IS A TIME WHEN AMERICANS MUST SET A CHECK
REIN ON THEIR EMOTIONS, MUST EXAMINE THE NATION'S PROBLEMS
RATIONALLY AND MUST EMPLOY THE MOST CAREFUL JUDGMENT.
THEREFORE/ AM DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ACTIONS OF
SOME AMERICANS antahs end result both for mature the industral partrapants + the nation as answle
IS IT THE WAY OF A THINKING AMERICAN TO SHUT THE OTHER
SIDE UP TO PREVENT A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL FROM SPEAKING AT A
UNIVERSITY OR TO ASSAULT PERSONS WITH PACIFIST VIEWS. I REFER
FIRST TO THE GROUP OF HOWARD UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WHO RECENTLY
DROVE DRAFT DIRECTOR LEWIS B. HERSHEY FROM THE STAGE OF THE
UNIVERSITY. IN THE LATTER CASE, I SPEAK OF THE HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS WHO BEAT UP SEVEN ANTI-WAR YOUTHS IN BOSTON LAST YEAR.
physically harmed
mature
IS IT THE WAY OF A THINKING AMERICAN TO ROUGH UP THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AS A GROUP OF HARVARD STUDENTS DID
RECENTEY
BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH U. S. POLICY ON VIETNAM
IS IT THE WAY OF A THINKING AMERICAN TO PLANT AND SET
OFF A BOMB AT THE BERKLEY, CALIFORNIA, HEADQUARTERS OF THE
ANTI-WAR VIETNAM DAY COMMITTEE, AS OCCURRED LAST YEAR?
IS IT THE WAY OF A THINKING AMERICAN TO HECKLE AND
THREATEN A FORMER GOVERNOR WHEN HE SPEAKS ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS
Jone our 50 states
I REFER NOW TO THE INCIDENT LAST MAY 3 AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
WHEN FORMER ALABAMA GOVERNOR GEORGE WALLACE WAS HARASSED DURING
HIS SPEECH, AND HIS CAR DAMAGED AND NEARLY OVERTURNED BY
STUDENTS INCENSED BY HIS PRESENCE AND HIS VIEWS.
Regardlyng SUCH your BEHAVIOR personal openions, IS
DESTRUCTIVE OF OUR LIBERTIES-WHETHER
ENGAGED IN BY KNOW-NOTHINGS WHO PELT DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING
WITH ROCKS OR BY COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO TRY TO TURN OFF THOSE
WITH WHOM THEY DISAGREE.
11
IF YOURS IS A TURNED-ON GENERATION, THEN IT SHOULD BE
RESPONSIBLY
TURNED ON IN DEFENSE OF THE RIGHT TO DISSENT/NO MATTER WHOSE
VOICE IS RAISED.
RESPONSIBLE
ATTACKS ON THE RIGHT OF/DISSENT--WHETHER FROM THE RIGHT
OR THE LEFT--TEND TO ERODE THE FREEDOMS FOR WHICH AMERICANS
FOUGHT AND GAVE THEIR LIVES WHEN THIS NATION WAS BORN.
7
PERSONAL
WHEN VIOLENCE AND FEAR IMPAIR THE FREEDOM OF ANY
LAW-ABIDING
AMERICAN TO SPEAK OUT OR OTHERWISE EXPRESS-HIS VIEWS IN IN A A A
LAWFUL MANNER ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC POLICY,
THEN THE FREEDOM
OF ALL AMERICANS IS THREATENED.
WE MUST RESIST SUCH INCURSIONS ON FREEDOM OF
SPEECH
BOTH
FROM THE REPRESSIVE RIGHT AND THE IRRESPONSIBLE LEFT.
WE MUST BE EVER MINDFUL OF THE WORDS OF JUDGE LEARNED
HAND, WHO SAID, "THAT COMMUNITY IS ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF
DISSOLUTION WHERE
ORTHODOXY CHOKES FREEDOM OF DISSENT;
WHERE FAITH IN THE EVENTUAL SUPREMACY OF REASON HAS BECOME
SO TIMID THAT WE DARE NOT ENTER OUR CONVICTIONS IN THE OPEN
LISTS AND WIN."
IF WE LOVE AMERICA, LET US NOT ENGAGE IN EXCESSES THAT
CRIPPLE OR DESTROY FREEDOM OF DISSENT OR SEEK TO DENY IT TO ORD
OTHERS WHILE RESERVING IT TO OURSELVES.
GERALD LIBRARY
IN THIS TIME OF CRISIS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS NATION
honorably
UNITED IN PURPOSE, AS NEARLY OF ONE MIND AS POSSIBLE IN MEET-
ING THE THREAT OF AGGRESSION IN THE WORLD.
AT LEAST
IF UNITY ELUDES US, LET US = COOPERATE IN PRESERVING
FREEDOM AT HOME WHILE OUR NATION DEFENDS IT ABROAD.
IT WAS THE GREAT FRENCH LIBERAL, JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU,
WHO SAID:
"WHERE IS THE MAN WHO OWES NOTHING TO THE LAND IN WHICH
HE LIVES? WHATEVER THE LAND MAY BE, HE OWES TO IT THE MOST
PRECIOUS THING POSSESSED BY MAN, THE MORALITY OF HIS ACTIONS
AND THE LOVE OF VIRTUE."
DO THE AMERICAN DRAFT DODGERS WHO FLEE TO CANADA OWE
NOTHING TO THEIR NATIVE LAND?
WHAT DO YOUNG AMERICANS WHO SEEK TO DISRUPT THE AMERICAN
WAR EFFORT OWE TO THEIR COUNTRY?
ASK YOURSELF WHETHER YOU ADMIRE THE POEM WRITTEN BY A
LIBRARY
22-YEAR-OLD VERMONTER BEFORE HE WAS ARRESTED WITH 12 OTHERS
#9-
FOR LYING DOWN IN PENTAGON DOORWAYS. HE WROTE:
"THIS IS THE PENTAGON / YOU ARE THROWING YOUR SOUL
AGAINST IT. // IT REALLY DOES BLOW YOUR MIND SOMETIMES. / WHAT
A GROOVY THING TO BE DOING. / WHAT A VITALLY IMPORTANT, GROOVY
THING TO BE DONE.
of some obviously do
ALTHOUGH WE MAY DISAGREE WITH GOVERNMENT POLICY, LET US
,as some have done,
NOT GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY OR PRAY FOR THE DEFEAT
OF OUR COUNTRY.
a young American
IF
DISAGREES WITH THOSE IN
ON ITS MERITS, EMPLOY THE COOL LIGHT OF REASON AND NOT THE
HOT WINDS OF VIOLENCE.
EVERY RIGHT CARRIES WITH IT A RESPONSIBILITY. WHEN
STOKELY CARMICHAEL SPEAKS OUT ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS AND VIETNAM
ISSUES, FOR INSTANCE, HE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH NOT TO
URGE NEGROES TO SHOOT POLICEMEN INSTEAD OF CARRYING A GUN IN
LIBRAR)
VIETNAM. WHEN A NEGRO POLICEMAN SHOOTS ANOTHER NEGRO IN SELF-
DEFENSE, NO RESPONSIBLE NEGRO LEADER SHOULD TELL ALL NEGROES
TO BUY GUNS ON THE PRETEXT OF PROTECTING THEMSELVES.
IT IS SIGNIFICANT, I THINK, THAT NEGRO SINGER EARTHA
KITT RECENTLY REMARKED THAT STOKELY CARMICHAEL "DOESN'T REALLY
HAVE MUCH TO SAY." I WOULD ADD MY OWN COMMENT THAT, BY CON-
maturity & -judgment
TRAST, THERE IS MUCH WISDOM IN A NEGRO LEADER LIKE ROY WILKINS.
THERE IS IN MOST YOUNG PEOPLE A FERMENT--A FERMENT OF
IDEAS AND IDEALS. OFTEN THIS EVIDENCES ITSELF IN A CRUSADE
TO MAKE RIGHT EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD OR TO
CHALLENGE ALL OLDER PERSONS AND THEIR VIEWS.
THIS FERMENT CAN BE PRODUCTIVE, AS IN THE CASE OF THE
PEACE CORPS--OR IT CAN BE DESTRUCTIVE, AS IN THE CASE OF THE
"NEW LEFT" AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
THE POWER THAT YOUNG PEOPLE WIELD IS TREMENDOUS--AND WITH
IT COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY.
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
IT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS THAT "THE GLORY
Delivered at Russell Sage Collego Convecation
Dec. 5, 1967
BALANCE IN GOVERNMENT: AN ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
An address by The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Representative from the Fifth District of Michigan
and Republican Minority Leader.
Ladies and gentlemen:
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 government,
or the division 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 lated privileges and
responsibilities.
Each of these four cornerstones have contributed significantly to America's
freedom and progress. All but one are onstitutionally 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 or in parts of it, must not destroy any one
of them.
The first cornerstone was built by the wise drafters of our federal consti-
tution under the theory of separation of powers. In those deliberations 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 any one of the others. 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
(more) GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
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 had to 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,
they made certain that in the document there were 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 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 Senators and 435
Representatives, with a comparatively small number of employees representing
the American voters in each of the 50 states. The 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 responsive to the views, the opinions of those "back home" they
represent.
In contrast, the Executive branch today has nearly 3 million civilian
employees with an annual payroll of approximately $22 billion. In addition,
there are about 3 million 300 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 $17.5 billion. The net
result-about 6 million 300 thousand employees under the Chief Executive-- a
12-month payroll of nearly $40 billion and a total federal budget to be spent
by them for this year of $136 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
(more)
-3-
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 of 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 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 an
unfortunate extent arbitrarily elbowing its way into spheres not intended at
the time the Constitution was drafted.
I subscribe to the views of the late Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter
who so convincingly espoused the philosophy of "judicial restraint." I believe
he also soundly raised an arm of caution to the courts and suggested 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 those 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 relationship
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
(more)
-4-
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 influence of the federal
establishments. 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 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 undoubtedly
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 legislation in 1965
thirty-seven Governors objected strenuously to the elimination of a provision in
the law that gave to our Governors some 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 mine, can stem the drive to federalize com-
pletely the republic.
(more)
-5-
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 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 neither
the tradition nor 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 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 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
(more)
-6-
"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, however, responsible dissent and an educational
dialogue between those with varying viewpoints.
The placards of some demonstrators read: "Why Die for Viet-Nam?"
How many of us remember the similar questions raised by irresponsible
voices in Chamberlain's Britain, little 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 of
Buchenwald and Belsen were 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.
You and I are living in the most troubled of times.
America is badly shaken by our deep divisions over national policy--the
great debate over Vietnam, the continuing civil rights revolution and its
concomitant black power movement, the role of the United States in a world
crackling with social upheaval in emerging nations, and the unceasing expansion-
ist efforts of world communism.
We are witnessing a large variety of protest movements in this country as
Americans register their disagreement with public policy and rebellion against
the establishment.
I believe firmly in the right of dissent--but I feel we must distinguish
between responsible dissent and protest which produces violence and anarchy.
It is truly alarming that peaceful dissent in this country now is moving
rapidly into the area of violence and disruption of orderly procedures--on our
college campuses and on property near government buildings.
For instance, some of those taking part in the massive anti-war demonstration
October 20, 1967, at the Pentagon showered both physical and verbal abuse on
the U.S. troops called in to keep order. The demonstration cost the taxpayers
more than $1 million when all the expenses were added up.
What of campus demonstrations against the Vietnam War? They have become
increasingly militant and disruptive--"lie-ins" in protest against recruitment
(more)
-7-
by the military, the CIA, and the manufacturer of napalm used in Vietnam.
Such "lie-ins" clearly violate the rights of others. Any student who
wishes to be interviewed by the military recruiters, the CIA, or chemical
company officials should be free to do so without interference from others.
I agree completely with the American Association of University Professors,
which recently condemned disruptive student behavior on campuses across the
Nation. Like the Association, I believe strongly in student democracy. But
disruptive student actions interfere with the search for knowledge and the
personal rights of others.
In a recent statement, the Association said: "To obstruct or restrain
other members of the academic community and campus visitors by physical force
is destructive of the pursuit of learning and of a free society."
It is vital that all Americans recognize the need for government by law
as well as the sanctity of dissent. It is only with respect for law and adherence
to a government of laws that young Americans can properly assume the positions
of responsibility which await them.
The strength of Americans is great only if they couple it with discipline,
direct it to worthy goals and bind themselves to purposes that are larger than
any one person's ego and nobler than the common objectives of men.
To realize great achievements, a person must properly assess his or her own
value, assume full responsibility for all of his or her actions, and so live
that his or her conduct reflects love and respect for others.
I want to see Americans fight for their ideals and help clothe with truth
the pronouncement that "all men are created equal." May they beat injustice
to earth--but let them do so in reasoned defense of liberty and not in empty-
minded defiance of law and order.
If we are to have genuine progress in America, we must restore the rule of
law and build a good society. We must quit making excuses for lawless behavior.
We must safeguard the rights of all Americans regardless of color. We must
enforce our laws against the mob and against the criminal and subversive elements
operating behind a cloak of civil rights. We must attack and vanquish the misery
that flourishes in the ghetto and feeds the fires of disorder.
We should join hands to build America, not seek to tear her down. This is a
time for inspired leadership from Americans of all ages, and especially the
(more)
-8-
young
a time for us to fashion a good society in which all Americans can
live in decency and dignity.
I have talked as though I am fearful, apprehensive, and pessimistic. 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 all
those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
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 a historic document that has made it
possible for 13 poor, struggling colonies to grow to a Nation of 50 states that
today is at the pinacle 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 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.
###
BALANCE IN GOVERNMENT: AN ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
An address by The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Representative from the Fifth District of Michigan
and Republican Minority Leader.
Ladies and gentlemen:
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 government,
or the division 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.
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 or in parts of it, must not destroy any one
of them.
The first cornerstone was built by the wise drafters of our federal consti-
tution under the theory of separation of powers. In those deliberations 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 any one of the others. 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
(more)
-2-
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 had to 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,
they made certain that in the document there were 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 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 Senators and 435
Representatives, with a comparatively small number of employees--representing
the American voters in each of the 50 states. The 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 responsive to the views, the opinions of those "back home" they
represent.
In contrast, the Executive branch today has nearly 3 million civilian
employees with an annual payroll of approximately $22 billion. In addition,
there are about 3 million 300 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 $17.5 billion. The net
result--about 6 million 300 thousand employees under the Chief Executive-- a
12-month payroll of nearly $40 billion and a total federal budget to be spent
by them for this year of $136 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
(more)
-3-
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 of 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 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 an
unfortunate extent arbitrarily elbowing its way into spheres not intended at
the time the Constitution was drafted.
I subscribe to the views of the late Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter
who so convincingly espoused the philosophy of "judicial restraint." I believe
he also soundly raised an arm of caution to the courts and suggested 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 those 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 relationship
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
(more)
-4-
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 influence of the federal
establishments. 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 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 undoubtedly
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 legislation in 1965
thirty-seven Governors objected strenuously to the elimination of a provision in
the law that gave to our Governors some 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 mine, can stem the drive to federalize com-
pletely the republic.
(more)
-5-
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 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 neither
the tradition nor 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 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 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
(more)
-6-
"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, however, responsible dissent and an educational
dialogue between those with varying viewpoints.
The placards of some demonstrators read: "Why Die for Viet-Nam?"
How many of us remember the similar questions raised by irresponsible
voices in Chamberlain's Britain, little 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 of
Buchenwald and Belsen were 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.
You and I are living in the most troubled of times.
America is badly shaken by our deep divisions over national policy--the
great debate over Vietnam, the continuing civil rights revolution and its
concomitant black power movement, the role of the United States in a world
crackling with social upheaval in emerging nations, and the unceasing expansion-
ist efforts of world communism.
We are witnessing a large variety of protest movements in this country as
Americans register their disagreement with public policy and rebellion against
the establishment.
I believe firmly in the right of dissent--but I feel we must distinguish
between responsible dissent and protest which produces violence and anarchy.
It is truly alarming that peaceful dissent in this country now is moving
rapidly into the area of violence and disruption of orderly procedures--on our
college campuses and on property near government buildings.
For instance, some of those taking part in the massive anti-war demonstration
October 20, 1967, at the Pentagon showered both physical and verbal abuse on
the U.S. troops called in to keep order. The demonstration cost the taxpayers
more than $1 million when all the expenses were added up.
What of campus demonstrations against the Vietnam War? They have become
increasingly militant and disruptive--"lie-ins" in protest against recruitment
(more)
-7-
by the military, the CIA, and the manufacturer of napalm used in Vietnam.
Such "lie-ins" clearly violate the rights of others. Any student who
wishes to be interviewed by the military recruiters, the CIA, or chemical
company officials should be free to do so without interference from others.
I agree completely with the American Association of University Professors,
which recently condemned disruptive student behavior on campuses across the
Nation. Like the Association, I believe strongly in student democracy. But
disruptive student actions interfere with the search for knowledge and the
personal rights of others.
In a recent statement, the Association said: "To obstruct or restrain
other members of the academic community and campus visitors by physical force
is destructive of the pursuit of learning and of a free society."
It is vital that all Americans recognize the need for government by law
as well as the sanctity of dissent. It is only with respect for law and adherence
to a government of laws that young Americans can properly assume the positions
of responsibility which await them.
The strength of Americans is great only if they couple it with discipline,
direct it to worthy goals and bind themselves to purposes that are larger than
any one person's ego and nobler than the common objectives of men.
To realize great achievements, a person must properly assess his or her own
value, assume full responsibility for all of his or her actions, and so live
that his or her conduct reflects love and respect for others.
I want to see Americans fight for their ideals and help clothe with truth
the pronouncement that "all men are created equal." May they beat injustice
to earth--but let them do so in reasoned defense of liberty and not in empty-
minded defiance of law and order.
If we are to have genuine progress in America, we must restore the rule of
law and build a good society. We must quit making excuses for lawless behavior.
We must safeguard the rights of all Americans regardless of color. We must
enforce our laws against the mob and against the criminal and subversive elements
operating behind a cloak of civil rights. We must attack and vanquish the misery
that flourishes in the ghetto and feeds the fires of disorder.
We should join hands to build America, not seek to tear her down. This is a
time for inspired leadership from Americans of all ages, and especially the
(more)
-8-
young
a time for us to fashion a good society in which all Americans can
live in decency and dignity.
I have talked as though I am fearful, apprehensive, and pessimistic. 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 all
those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
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 a historic document that has made it
possible for 13 poor, struggling colonies to grow to a Nation of 50 states that
today is at the pinacle 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 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.
# # #