Massachusetts v. Viet Nam

The Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to debate the legality of U.S. participation in the Viet Nam War. Three Army privates could not tempt the court with the issue in 1967, when they tried to block their orders for shipment to Viet Nam; last week the court rejected another challenge by the most powerful courtroom protester yetthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Last spring the Massachusetts legislature passed a bill designed to bring a suit before the court challenging Defense Secretary Melvin Laird's right to wage undeclared war. By a 6-3 vote, the Justices brushed aside the effort of Massachusetts to bring the suit directly before them. The court majority apparently was swayed by Government arguments that Massachusetts lacked standing to bring suit on behalf of its citizens and that the issues involved too many potential political repercussions. In a passionate dissent, Justice William Douglas assailed the notion that the question was too political for the court to handle. Said Douglas: "The question of an unconstitutional war is neither academic nor 'political.' "

Second-Guessing. Despite its reluctance to second-guess other branches of Government, the court has often done just that even in sensitive cases. In 1952, it overruled President Truman's unilateral seizure of the strike-threatened steel industry during the Korean War. Last year the court held that Congress had unlawfully excluded Harlem's Adam Clayton Powell Jr. from the Houseand the ruling stuck.

None of this is likely to comfort Massachusetts Attorney General Robert Quinn. Because of last week's turndown, Quinn must now take his case to the federal district court. His chances of success there have not been helped by the Supreme Court's action.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.