Posted on 07/04/2006 8:11:19 AM PDT by RepublicanPatriot
The Hamdan decision is part of a larger pattern whereby elite liberal institutions, e.g., the Supreme Court and the New York Times, increasingly consider themselves to be the supreme arbiters of the national interest, and to be authorized to undermine the policies and decisions made by the elected branches of the federal government. At some point, the federal government and the American people have to stop “enabling” this harmful behavior. That point is now.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
"Yes but their militant MSM wing still has a large arsenal, and is willing to sacrifice American lives to beat America into submission."
They already have, so what's the big deal?
Maybe WE need to enforce our rights and protect this country as our founding fathers did! I would suggest that the present administration enforce their authority; President Bush issue Executive Orders, under military protection, and do what is right. Otherwise, resign and let us deal with the threats.
For a long time this country has been slipping towards a dictatorship of judges - a krytocracy. On lower level we have seen judges make the most demented and outrageous decisions and get away with it. In Arizona, for example, a judge ordered dummy students who had failed to pass the required exams to be given diplomas, made decisions on school budgets, etc. The danger of this is obvious. Yet it is permitted to escalate.
I trust you merely forgot your "/sarcasm" tag on that comment. Surely you jest.
Or are you seriously proposing a dismantling of the Constitution, and on FreeRepublic of all places?
I'm kidding.
"John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."
There are many here (and I count myself among them) who recognize that the Republic was founded on resistance against tyrannical authority, and thus we keep an ever-watchful eye on our leaders. The balance between respectful deference to legitimate authority, and resistance against tyranny, is dynamic and constantly shifting.
I personally believe that dynamic balance is the underlying strength of the Constitution, giving it the ability to withstand challenges from every direction.
The highest secular authority I recognize is the Constitution itself. Any particular instance of our government is merely the best we can do, at that particular time, to come up with something that follows the Constitution.
Above the Constitution, I recognize only divine authority.
Okay. (Whew!)
To Melas: It is not "logical" to conclude that if the Supreme Court acts beyond its authority and so is not entitled to deference, we don't have to pay traffic fines. This kind of slippery slope argument is just dumb. Nothing in the article suggests such a nihilistic attidtude towards law.
To answer your question, we defer to lawful, proper authority because that is what it means to live in a civilized society based on the rule of law. We do not, however, defer to authority per se. That's tyranny.
The Supreme Court is entitled to deference only when it exercises its authority in a proper manner. This means it acts within the scope of its jurisdiction and that its decisions fall within the reasonable realm of legal opinion.
Nevertheless, it may also be given deference, even when it is not entitled to it, for various social, political, and prudential reasons. I agree that we have given the Court deference for decades on many decisions that are widely recognized (by both liberal and conservative legal scholars and historians) as completely outside the bounds of the Constitution. E.g., Roe v. Wade. There may be very good non-legal reasons for doing this. But don't kid yourself, we're still acquiescing in a form of judicial tyranny.
As intended according to the Federalist....where it was
claimed to be the "weakest" of the branches -dependant upon
both the Legislative, and the Executive.But we have allowed it become a despotic branch by granting authority not intended nor recognized by the US COnstitution Article III.
"Why obey any court you don't agree with? Why pay the traffic fine when you're not in agreement? Why cooperate with the police when they serve you with a warrant from county or district court? Why defer to any authority at all?"
Humm, sounds like California today! Maybe the World tomorrow...
I warn you though! This is a most complex area of scholarly investigation and full of many pitfalls. The jist is, no, the Supreme Court is not the final say. You are, I am. We are.
We, the People ...
Ever first and foremost. Let this day be called better "Dependence Day" for without our own and our countrymen's bold re-assertion of our rights -- they are lost to us. We are dependent on our neighbors and countymen.
Very well-stated.
Seem to recall FDR changed the ballance of th eCOurt from
37-41-appointing Black(from the KKK),Reed,Frankfurter(an
ACLU /Commie symp) douglas ,Murphy ,Byrnes,and Jackson.and YES it was a very bad idea- one whose consequesnses we have not recovered from.
I don't follow your argument re life tenure for SC justices.
The purpose of life tenure was to insulate the justices from political pressures so they could make proper, sober legal decisions. It was not to give them license to act beyond the scope of their constitutional authority or to "interpret" the Constitution and federal law according to their personal political preferences. The Framers did not intend for bad decisions to go unchecked for decades, until "better" justices could be appointed to the Court.
The great flaw in the constitutional scheme adopted by the Framers is precisely the lack of any meaningful institutional check on the Supreme Court's behavior. I believe James Madison proposed some sort of council of review, but I'm not sure if I recall that correctly. In any event, we have evolved a system of judicial supremacy that clearly is contrary to what the Framers intended and to what the American people would vote for if given a chance today.
Why claim we are the United States o fAmerica when our Laws
and our government No longer reflect the clear language and
intent of the framers?
This Court has tipted up to overruling ex parte McCardle, and they've got one toe in the water.
The only court I would like to be "harmed" is the 9th and there only by breaking it into at least 2 parts.
His plan to pack the Court failed, but he was in office long enough to have a huge effect. Here's the relevant Wikipedia section:
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court (see Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937); his plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices.Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely believed that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court.
The plan failed in Congress and the court changed course (see the switch in time that saved nine). In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint a large number of Justices.
Try reading the Constitution before you start slinging it around:
Article III, section 2 : "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
This foundational power of Congress was affirmed by ex parte McCardle, and is now teetering on the edge since the Court felt that it could exempt itself from the DTA, which invoked this very power.
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.