Posted on 04/26/2005 1:01:34 PM PDT by antonia
Alan Keyes on the G. Gordon Liddy Show
March 30, 2005
>snip<
... the root of the problem is a misunderstanding of what ought to properly be called constitutional review. It's misnamed judicial review.
>snip<
Judicial review actually results from an argument--that is to say, a line of reasoning--that was first presented by Hamilton in Federalist 78, and then reiterated by Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Marshall, in Marbury vs. Madison , and it's very simple. Very simple line of reasoning. It goes like this: if I am a judge, I am sworn to uphold the Constitution. If a law comes before me that conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution, since the Constitution is the higher, more authoritative expression of the will of the people, I must follow the Constitution. I cannot follow elements of law that contradict it. So, in doing my duty under my oath, as a judge, I have got to follow the Constitution, because I am sworn to uphold it.
>snip<
KEYES: If the judges have the power--say, this judge in Florida--if this judge has the power to say no to Jeb Bush, in terms of what he believes is necessary to do his constitutional duty, if he has that power, then he becomes the executive.
LIDDY: Well, he is arrogating that power to himself.
KEYES: And in Florida, by the way, in case people don't realize it, the Florida constitution is actually clearer on this point, to a certain degree, than the U.S. Constitution. The Florida constitution says the supreme executive power in Florida shall be vested in a governor. The word supreme, as we all know, means "highest."
LIDDY: Right.
KEYES: There is no higher authority, no higher control over the executive power, no higher decision-maker as to what to do with it, than the governor of the state of Florida. And that's direct from the constitution.
No judge, and no combination of judge and law--because the judges themselves say, if a law conflicts with the Constitution, it is no law. So, if that is true, then no combination of judge and law can establish a higher executive authority than the governor.
So, if the sheriff in Pinellas County is there, and the governor says to get out of the way, the sheriff is obliged to obey him, because the governor is the highest executive authority in the state.
And this is something people have forgotten. Jeb Bush, for instance, is under an obligation, a sworn obligation, to support, protect, and defend the constitution of Florida. If he looks at a situation, like the Terri Schiavo situation, and sees that the constitution is being attacked, damaged, undermined, it is his sworn obligation to defend it. And he says that that is what is going on in the Schiavo case. He has said openly, "Injustice is being done, her rights are being violated." If that's the case, he is obliged to act to stop the injustice.
And if a judge says, "No, you've got to let it continue," that doesn't change his sworn obligation. He is under the same obligation, because he is a separate branch of government, and he has responsibility for the use of his power that no judge can take from him.
And that's where the misunderstanding lies. The judges are running riot because we are supposed to have checks and balances. But if the other branches can't say no, there is no check on the judiciary.
>snip< see the whole transcript here.
Keyes bump
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.