Replies

I fully support your rally! Not every body is sleeping when the Supreme Court has usurped the legislature's role in making laws in the country.

The best way to curb judicial activism is to pass a constitutional amendment limiting the power of the judiciary to declare a law unconstitutional to not more than 30 years. When a statute has been in the books for more than 30 years and the Supreme Court has not decided its unconstitutionality, the Supreme Court will be prohibited from declaring that statute unconstitutional.

A constitutional amendment is not the solution for the practice of judicial activism by the judiciary. A constitutional amendment requires large majorities to effect. Even if such large majorities were mustered, it still does not solve the problem. A constitutional law is difficult to amend. It will take generations of legal experimentation to find the best combination of constitutional principles to check the judiciary's role in not overstepping themselves to become a separate and independent legislative body not subject to the normal check and balances which the two other branches of government are subject to.

What is needed is a simple law passed by the federal legislature placing a period of prescription on the power of the Supreme Court to declare a statute passed by Congress as unconstitutional. This period of prescription is tentatively proposed to be 30 years.

You see, the purpose of giving the Supreme Court power to review the laws passed by Congress is not only to serve as a check on legislative power but also a check on the wisdom of the members in Congress. The only way to know how good a law is through its experience in actual legal cases filed in court with regards to the implementation of such law. Congress may rack its brains to pass the best law, but the test of the efficacy of the law is really on how it fares in the courts. Hence the court is the best agent to decide on this.

However, when a law has been in the books for more than 30 years, it means that all its defects has been fully explored and this defects also includes its relation to the constitutional itself. 30 years is sufficient time to know whether a law is really good or not. If the Supreme Court fails to declare a statute that has been a uncontested law for more than 30 years, as unconstitutional, the power to declare that statute unconstitutional must prescribe. Therefore, after 30 years, only Congress could repeal such law even if the Supreme Court believes such law to be unconstitutional.

If the Supreme Court declares a statute that has remained uncontested for more than 30 years as unconstitutional, this declaration of the Supreme Court will have no legal effect in nullifying the law. After 30 years, the Supreme Court may advise Congress that the law is unconstitutional but it may not impose its will on Congress nor the people.

Congress may decide to listen to the recommendations of the Supreme Court or it may choose not to listen. After 30 years, the responsibility of keeping the statute in accordance with the Constitution lies exclusively with Congress. The Supreme Court may no longer be able to declare the statute unconstitutional.

Why is a statute better than a constitutional amendment to limit the power of the Supreme Court to declare a statute unconstitutional? A statute is much easier to amend than a constitutional law. If a statute is found to be defective, it is much easier to amend the statute by a simple majority or plurality of votes by members of Congress. However, a constitutional law is much more difficult to amend than a statute. If a constitutional amendment is found to be defective, it will take a long time, maybe centuries, before that defective constitutional law is corrected. In the mean time, the people and the government have to bear with that constitutional law's defects.

The possibility of judges to act as judicial activists has long been anticipated by the framers of the American constitution. That is why in order for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional, a three fourths majority vote is required.

Because of this three fourths majority vote required by the Constitution, the possibility of the judiciary acting as a separate and independent legislative body has been diminished. Judicial activism is only a rare phenomenon when it comes to the day to day activities of the Supreme Court.

But when the Supreme Court manages to muster this three fourths majority, the Supreme Court becomes a powerful branch in the government, with the power to unmake any law it pleases. With three fourths majority, the Supreme Court can legalize child pornography and even drugs. With three fourths majority, it can become an uncontrolled tyrant in government.

The only check and balance to counter the Supreme Court's tyranny is a change in the Constitution. But it requires three fourths majority in Congress to effect a constitutional amendment. Three fourths majority in the Supreme Court and only one fourth majority in Congress is all that is needed for the Supreme Court to turn around any law that it does not like.

You can see the tyranny of the Supreme Court in the recent pornography and abortion cases it has decided. The majority of the members of Congress are against the decisions of the Supreme Court when it comes to pornography and abortion, but Congress cannot do anything to check the actions of the Supreme Court since in its decisions on pornography and abortion it mustered the required three fourths majority.

If the Supreme Court should say that child pornography and drugs should be made legal, it only requires the consent of one fourth of the members of Congress to impose its will on the government. Even if there is an uproar in Congress, for as long as one fourth of the members of Congress believe that the actions of the Supreme Court in declaring drugs and child pornography as legal is good for the nation, there is nothing that Congress nor the people could legally do in resisting the will of the Supreme Court.

The Constitution failed to take into account this contingency when the three fourth majority is met by the Supreme Court in declaring a law unconstitutional. The only way to breach this defect in constitutional law is to put a period of prescription in which the Supreme Court may declare a law as unconstitutional. This period of prescription is 30 years. During this period, the courts have ample time to really test the law, not to say its blending with the fundamental law of the land which is the constitution. 30 years is sufficient time for the courts to find any defect in the law, including the possibility that the law may be in conflict with the Constitution.

This period of prescription of 30 years limiting the power of the Supreme Court to declare any law unconstitutional is one way of limiting judicial abuse of power.

During the Congressional debates on abortion, many legislators proposed the right of states argument to limit the power of the Supreme Court to decide on the abortion issue. The fundamental principle of a federal government is the right of the states to enact its own statutes without interference from the federal government. Unless the problem of limiting the power of the Supreme Court in the face of obvious abuse is first tackled, all these state rights theory advanced by some constitutional theoreticians would be difficult to place in practice.

Once the Supreme Court is finally prevented from overthrowing a statute that has remained uncontested for more than 30 years, the issue of state rights will bear substance. When the Supreme Court is finally stopped from interfering in the acts of the legislature, this is where the issue of state rights will come in. What is legal is what the legislature has declared to be legal for as long as such law were not challenged by the Supreme Court for 30 years. The Supreme Court will have to respect the legislative acts of the states for as long as the constitutional period of prescription is met by the various state legislatures. It cannot whimsically impose its will on the member states because it believes otherwise than what the state legislators believes.

The issue of state rights presupposes that the state could make any law without interference from the federal government. But the branch of the federal government interfering with the right of the state to enact laws is not the federal legislature but the federal supreme court.

The controversial decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the areas of abortion, pornography, school prayers, homosexuality, etc. will serve in the future as an impetus for profound constitutional changes in the American constitution. A vociferous segment of the population have openly questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court decisions.

Right now those who are supporting the legalization of abortion, pornography, homosexual marriages are happy with the Supreme Court's decision, but they will certainly become unhappy when the Supreme Court finally reverses itself on these decisions. The mere fact that the Supreme Court has declared these things legal does not mean to say that it would be legal forever. Law is just a reflection of what a person believes to be good for society. Sooner or later, judges will sit in the Supreme Court with the belief that pornography, abortion, homosexual marriages are not good for society and would definitely put down laws that make these things legal. Those who believe that pornography, abortion, homosexual marriages are good for society would definitely be calling these judges as tyrants because their decisions do not please them.