David Thomas Lewis

“ The Court stated: "Twice Congress has been tendered proposals to legalize rate-fixing combinations. But it has not adopted them. In view of this history we can only conclude that they have no immunity from the anti-trust laws." The same [p16] types of explicit, unsuccessful attempts to legislatively repeal section 3 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act are present in this case.
The Supreme Court has consistently stated that judicial interpretation is disfavored as a means of establishing a repeal of legislation. In one case only has repeal by implication been upheld. ”

“ Congress has not failed to amend or repeal the subject legislation through inadvertence. Eight different bills have been presented to the United States Congress during the past thirteen years in an attempt to amend the limiting language found in sections 1 and 3 of the Act. [5] Senator Moss has introduced six bills, all identical in nature, to amend section 3 by deleting "it is the intention of Congress that no dam or reservoir constructed under the authorization of the Act shall be within any national park or monument." ”

“ Current events in other unrelated fields indicate that more problems are created than solved by a softening of the basic concept of a firm and strict application of the doctrine of separation of powers. ”