The Constitution says not a word about the Supreme Court determining whether or not something is Constitutional. That idea came about with the Marbury vs. Madison decision. That used to be taught in every HS civics class in the country; isn't it taught anymore?
The President swears an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. How does signing a blatantly unconstitutional law do that?
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects
The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. Its existence is provided for in Article III of the Constitution, although Congress is given the power to determine the size of the Court. The size of the court is set by Congress and currently consists of a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.
Members of the Supreme Court are appointed for life by the President. They may be removed only by death, resignation or impeachment. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. It may declare acts of Congress or of state governments unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The Supreme Court decides cases by a majority vote and its decisions are final.
Franklin D. Roosevelt came into conflict with the Supreme Court during his period in office. The chief justice, Charles Hughes, had been the Republican Party presidential candidate in 1916. Herbert Hoover appointed Hughes in 1930 and had led the court's opposition to some of the proposed New Deal legislation. This included the ruling against the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and ten other New Deal laws.
On 2nd February, 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt made a speech attacking the Supreme Court for its actions over New Deal legislation. He pointed out that seven of the nine judges (Charles Hughes, Willis Van Devanter, George Sutherland, Harlan Stone, Owen Roberts, Benjamin Cardozo and Pierce Butler) had been appointed by Republican presidents. Roosevelt had just won re-election by 10,000,000 votes and resented the fact that the justices could veto legislation that clearly had the support of the vast majority of the public.
The Constitution is deliberately inefficient.
The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers is also known as "Checks and Balances."
Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, composed of the House and Senate, is set up in Article 1. The Executive, composed of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments, is set up in Article 2. The Judicial, composed of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, is set up in Article 3.
Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited by another branch.
For example, the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution.
All of these checks and balances, however, are inefficient. But that's by design rather than by accident. By forcing the various branches to be accountable to the others, no one branch can usurp enough power to become dominant.
The following are the powers of the Executive: veto power over all bills; appointment of judges and other officials; makes treaties; ensures all laws are carried out; commander in chief of the military; pardon power. The checks: The Legislative branch can override vetoes; can refuse to confirm appointments and reject treaties; can declare war; can impeach the President. The Judicial branch can declare Executive acts as unconstitutional.
The following are the powers of the Legislature: Passes all federal laws; establishes all lower federal courts; can override a Presidential veto; can impeach the President. The checks: The Executive can veto any bill and can call the Congress into session. The Judicial branch can declare laws unconstitutional. In addition, the two houses of Congress must agree on legislation, providing an internal check.
The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional. The checks: The Executive appoints members. The Legislative can impeach judges and has approval power over Presidential appointments; it can also propose amendments to overturn judicial decisions.
Historically, the concept of Separation of Powers dates back as far as ancient Greece. The concepts were refined by contemporaries of the Framers, and those refinements influenced the establishment of the three branches in the Constitution.
History of the Veto
Tracing the veto back to the Roman Republic, Spitzer states that the veto was used by tribunes to protect plebeian interests from those of the patricians. And, as a result of their conquests, the concept of the veto was spread throughout Europe, eventually coming to be one of the last vestiges of power the British monarchs had over the law-making process.
From there the veto made its way to America. But due to the experiences the colonies had had with the veto, they initially made it unavailable to those in power. However, by the time the founders met in Philadelphia, the question was not whether or not to include the veto – or as it was known at the time, the negative – in the Constitution, but whether it should be absolute or qualified.
It should be noted, though, that the founders intended the veto not just as a block to bad legislation, but as a revisionary tool whereby the president and Congress could come to an agreement on a proposed bill. This revisionary intent is an aspect of the veto that has all but disappeared over the years.
40 posted on 3/26/02 5:52 PM Pacific by Texasforever [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Thank you Texasforever for this very useful bit of information. :o)
Why do the good guys have to escape by the skin of their teeth!!!
Folks, this bill HAS to go to the Supreme Court NOW while we still have enough Justices on it who value the Constitution, and settle this issue for the future.
Bush had to make a decision to keep himself in a position where he could fight for a majority Senate for the second half of his term, a position that will allow him to appoint the appellate judges and Supreme Court Justices that will better be able to defend the Constitution from all sorts of assaults. Needless to say getting a majority will be very hard as the tradition is for the President to lose seats in the off year elections.
If we don't get a majority Senate, the Democrats will block all his best appointments to the courts, using a religious test. Currently HALF of appellate judges are Clinton appointments. How well do you think they are doing in defending the Constitution?
Like the Vietnam War, this was a damned if you do, damned if you don't decision in terms of consequences. The President made a tough call, one a lot of people aren't happy with, and time will tell if the strategery will work the way he is praying.