Posted on 03/03/2005 6:39:14 PM PST by mdittmar
Cyclopean Squid's original point concerned itself with those who have the right to create legislation v. those who do not. Judicial review exists because there is no one who has the appropriate body parts to stand up and say; "enough!" Soon, if nothing changes, judges will originate bills for the congress, their subserviant branch, to pass for the judges approval, of course.
As I read the Constitution, Congress has been give the power to place their laws outside the judicial review of the SC. Just pass the law with the following section: "In accordance with the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2, the Supreme Court is prohibited from reviewing this law without permission from 1/2 of the members of both the House and the Senate.
You need to read more carefully, then. Start by looking up the distinction between "original" and "appellate" jurisdiction, and note that the recited Congressional control applies only to the latter.
At best, Congress could transfer the ultimate say in a judicial matter to a lesser court (except for the stuff about ambassadors, etc, where the Supreme Court is guaranteed original jurisdiction).
I disagree. The Constitution has also given Congress the authority to establish lesser courts such as the Circuit Courts and other appellate courts. I would argue that the Constituion would NEVER allow that courts could be established that are completely outside the oversight and ability of Congress to be able to limit it's scope. The same powers given to Congress over the SC also apply to any other court they create.
*with one exception: Congress cannot transfer original jurisdiction over certain cases, specifically reserved to the Supreme Court by the Constitution, to any lesser court.
I thought that is what I was saying. Anyway, that is what I meant.
It says the Congress should pass laws regarding equal protection. It gave no rights to the Supreme court to pass laws or enforce them.
Amen!
Impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution all need to be considered.
We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.
I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny. The nebulous references to "growing national consensus" and citations of "international law" are just too much to countenance. What does it take to make 5 of these justices cognizant of the fact that their authority to preside originates in the US CONSTITUTION?
When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?
To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.
Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful. Congress can and should impeach federal judges for blatently unconstitutional rulings that manufacture law.
Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.