Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hope

As this article points out, the idea of reflecting national standards of decency and morality is absurd, as to do so would mean a rejection of both abortion on demand and any attempt to impose gay marriage/civil unions, as both are overwhelmingly opposed by voters.

Really, it would be great if the President and Congress were to pick one of these crazy decisions and publically declare it to be beyond the Constitutional authority of the Court and simply refuse to enforce it, and in the process shatter forever the notion that the Sup Court can serve as a superlegislature that orders the other branches around.


8 posted on 03/02/2005 9:36:13 PM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Aetius; seamole
Really, it would be great if the President and Congress were to pick one of these crazy decisions and publically declare it to be beyond the Constitutional authority of the Court and simply refuse to enforce it

You're on the right track.

But this case and this "decision" don't involve the President, or Congress (yet).

The Constitutionally correct thing to do is for the executive of one of the impacted States to issue a warrant of execution for one of the "children" covered by this decision, and then to see that it is carried out. If two or more States would act in concert, it would be better.

I agree that all USSC "decisions" which are without warrant in the Constitution are void, but if the People do not treat them as such, they will continue to metastasize throughout the body politic.

It is obviously illegitimate for this Court, or any court, to cite public opinion or emerging public consensus as the basis for rulings, when the public has a legitimate and fully functioning mechanism (electing representatives) for expressing such opinions and forming such consensus.

27 posted on 03/03/2005 3:40:11 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Aetius
"Really, it would be great if the President and Congress were to pick one of these crazy decisions and publically declare it to be beyond the Constitutional authority of the Court and simply refuse to enforce it, and in the process shatter forever the notion that the Sup Court can serve as a superlegislature that orders the other branches around."

I beleive Congress has the power to ask that the Supreme not rule on certain un-constitutional items....But, that would require a Republican with some backbone.

37 posted on 03/03/2005 6:13:24 AM PST by hope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Aetius

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.



53 posted on 03/03/2005 6:53:41 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson