If they didn't the President wouldn't know whether to appoint or dismiss officers of government, and the Congress would not know to initiate tax bills in the House.
Those are only a few examples.
None of the courts were asked by the litigants to determine the constitutionality of any of the matters before them. Be interesting to see what they'd say about a county judge having authority to execute someone without any of the safeguards now in place to protect convicted criminals.
Determining constitutionality is an extremely tricky thing. Yes, for most day to day issues, a presumption of constitutionality is reasonable. But take such issues as the Nixon tapes and the Clinton refusal to provide documents. It was, in both cases, the courts that made the final determination.
None of the courts were asked by the litigants to determine the constitutionality of any of the matters before them
Therein lies probably the most critical issue. In 2001 attempts to bring the issue to the federal courts were properly met with negative rulings, since there apparently was no 14th Amendment rights violation proved. But later, when the Congress passed a bill to require the federal courts to intervene, of course, they did, but only to the extent of rebuffing federal attempts to make this a federal issue on its face.
Be interesting to see what they'd say about a county judge having authority to execute someone without any of the safeguards now in place to protect convicted criminals.
Well, I'm sure you realize that the issue was not considered execution, but complying with the wishes of a terminally ill brain damaged woman. Right or wrong, and good people disagree on this, that was the issue, plain and simple. But, having said that, I believe that the Schiavo case will probably eventually bring the federal government into the whole area of living wills, death wishes, medical technology, differences between life support and feeding mechanisms, etc. I hope not. But at the same time, I hope the states take a serious look at all of these issues.
Not to keep harping on the 10th Amendment, but it does empower the states with all of those rights not set aside for the federal government. And empowerment is a critical word. If a person is empowered, he is able to do things you may not approve of. If he can only do those things you approve of then of course, there is no empowerment. So it is with the states. Unless specific rights are violated, and so determined through courts of law, then the federal government, IMHO, has no business intervening. We so frequently accuse the courts of trying to legislate, in this case Congress was guilty of interfering with the legal process.