FDR

I now propose that we establish by law an assurance against any such ill-balanced court in the future.

If such a law as I propose is regarded as establishing a new precedent, is it not a most desirable precedent?

But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first.

Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it.

But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgment of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.

No amendment which any powerful economic interests or the leaders of any powerful political party have had reason to oppose has ever been ratified within anything like a reasonable time.

And thirteen states which contain only five percent of the voting population can block ratification even though the thirty- five states with ninety-five percent of the population are in favor of it.

I am therefore, going to spend my time, my efforts and my money to block the amendment, although I would be awfully glad to help get some other kind of amendment ratified.

This proposal of mine will not infringe in the slightest upon the civil or religious liberties so dear to every American.

You who know me can have no fear that I would tolerate the destruction by any branch of government of any part of our heritage of freedom.

The present attempt by those opposed to progress to play upon the fears of danger to personal liberty brings again to mind that crude and cruel strategy tried by the same opposition to frighten the workers of America in a pay-envelope…

The people of America will not be fooled by such propaganda now.

Third, because it will provide a series of federal courts willing to enforce the Constitution as written, and unwilling to assert legislative powers by writing into it their own political and economic policies.

During the past half century the balance of power between the three great branches of the federal government, has been tipped out of balance by the courts in direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution.

You who know me will accept my solemn assurance that in a world in which democracy is under attack, I seek to make American democracy succeed.

Those who do not like democracy want to keep legislators at home.

Anyone charged with proposing or judging national policies should have first-hand knowledge of the nation as a whole.

For a President especially it is a duty to think in national terms.

He must think not only of this year but of future years, when someone else will be President.

He must look beyond the average of the prosperity and well-being of the country, for averages easily cover up danger spots of poverty and instability.

He must not let the country be deceived by a merely temporary prosperity which depends on wasteful exploitation of resources which cannot last.

He must think not only of keeping us out of war today, but also of keeping us out of war in generations to come.

And the kind of peace we want is the sound and permanent kind, which is built on the cooperative search for peace by all the nations which want peace.

Five years of fierce discussion and debate--five years of information through the radio and the moving picture--have taken the whole nation to school in the nation's business.

Even those who have most attacked our objectives have, by their very criticism, encouraged the mass of our citizens to think about and understand the issues involved, and, understanding, to approve.