Posted on 07/09/2005 3:15:41 PM PDT by 1stFreedom
Lost in all the hoopla over potential nominees and "strict constructionists" is the battle over Judicial Review.
Judicial review was "created" in Marbury v. Madison. Nowhere in the constitution are the Federal Courts granted Judicial Review. They simply assumed that power in Marbury v. Madison.
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld a lower court decision that threw out a federal ban on partial birth abortions since it did not provide a "health" exception.
The problem is, the US Court of Appeals doesn't have the constitutional power to override Congress, yet it did.
A "strict constructionist" who adheres to Marbury v. Madison and the flawed principle of stare decisis (doctrine of precedent/settled law) won't do any good for the nation. It doesn't matter if George Bush were to fill the court with nine "strict constructionists" if they accepted stare decisis and Marbury V. Madison.
If you want to take the courts back from judicial tyrants, it's time to call for justices who won't be bound by terrible precedent and who recognize the authority of Congress and the inability of the court to rule on congressional legislation.
It's time to call for nominees who refuse to be bound by illicit precedents and illicit power grabs. Now is the window of opportunity to fix the courts, and it will take much more than nominees whose only qualification is that they are a "strict constructionist."
It's essential that you call your Senators and the White House Monday to demand nomination and approval of nominess who reject both Marbury V. Madison and "stare decisis".
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
And the post modern Court has taken form Marbury only what it wanted -and has ignored the nasty little bit about the framers intending the Constitution to be a rule for the government of the Court as well as of the legislature.
I can't help but wonde r how swift their reaction should
"we the people" actually unite and say-in enough numbers
that the Court has lost it's nut-and has made an unconstitutional decision. They seem to beginning to notice
some are getting restless.
And what if it clearly isn't Constitutional?
Absolutely. No system can give us complete protection from sins and stupidity. But our system has worked better than all others. Mess with its bedrock at your peril.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
*bump*
You, the framers, I, and probably close to a million others "get it."
Nothing in law is clear.
And who decides if it exceeds its lawful authority?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I pick Constitution. In a dispute between the branches, I choose paper/scissors/rock.
No, it doesn't. But MvM should never have been decided the way it was. It was a sheer usurpation of power by John Marshall. The correct response, as I said, should have been a recommendation from the Supreme Court laying out the existence of a Constitutional conflict (or lack of authority), and let the Congress correct the situation via. the amendment process.
Oh? I don't see any of your enumerations listed in the Constitution. The Constitution says, "all cases in law and equity arising under this Consttution." All is used w/o exception. Also, it refers to the SCOTUS explicitly.
"In the Constitution, to the contrary, it is Congress alone that creates inferior courts, appropriates money to run them, and determines their jurisdiction and the sort of cases they hear. "
The SCOTUS is created explicitly and the powers are for, "all cases in law and equity arising under this COnstitution."
Congress makes the law. Why would they change it? ANd who picks "proper limits?" By your argument, Congress does. Therefore, there is never an excursion beyond proper limits.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
>>Judicial Review was given to the SCOTUS in the Constitution.
Do your homework. It was never given..
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Uh, go back and re-read the Constitution. The amendment process requires the accession of both Congress AND three-quarters of the state legislatures--that hardly makes them "irrelevant". And in fact, the state legislatures have the specific power to bypass the Congress completely, by issuing a call for a new Constitutional Convention. Power never before used, but definitely available to those "irrelevant" state leigslatures.
And yes, amending the Constituion "does" make the point of the specific judicial review moot---but it DOES fix the problem in a Constitutionally correct fashion. NOT by have the Supreme Court judges legislate from the bench, as is currently the case.
I ernestly believe that liberals are messing with the bedrock. The principles that Blackstone summarized are lost in this generation, or before.
Never trust a lawyer to solve this problem...
They can't think outside of the box...
The Constitution of the United States of America does not enshrine parliamentary supremacy.
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.