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

To: Huck
Therefore, what an individual thinks is constitutional is irrelevant. It's what the system says is constitutional that counts.

And that right there is what's wrong with American government right now. That's how we got Wickard v Filburn, Roe v Wade, Bowers v Harwick, and Kelo v City of New London. All bad law, all obviously unconstitutional, but all forced on us by the judiciary. It is very much incumbent on all three branches, and the American people, to decide what's Constitutional.

19 posted on 04/12/2011 8:36:59 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: backwoods-engineer
It is very much incumbent on all three branches, and the American people, to decide what's Constitutional.

I think it's a fundamental flaw in our government. Yes, all three branches are at liberty to decide for themselves if something is constitutional or not, but they can't decide for the other branches.

So, for example, a president can veto a bill and explain that he did so because he finds it unconstitutional. Then the Congress can override the veto and say they think it is constitutional. The president can't stop them. The legislature may find the president exercising powers they find to be unconstitutional. What can they do about it?

And the court? They have the most awesome power of all! Not only can the other branches NOT overrule them, their decisions become law in a way that is much more likely to become fixed and permanent than anything the legislature or the president may do. When it comes to law, legislators legislate, executives execute, but the judges rule (no pun intended.)

It seems to me, this was by design. I believe Alexander Hamilton knew exactly what he was doing, and got what he wanted--a supreme court with a general tendency toward amassing national power at the expense of the states and/or the people.

The tendency of our scheme of three "co-equal' branches is not that no one gets away with extra-constitutional powers, but rather, that they all do. In fact it's a misnomer to call them extra-constitutional, since to me, the setup itself ensures just the kind of results we've gotten. The design is bad.

22 posted on 04/12/2011 8:51:40 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | 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