Is the Supreme Court Really Supreme?: Lincoln and Judicial Activism

Breakpoint with Charles Colson ^ | February 13, 2006 | Charles Colson

[DMZFrank]

Alan Keyes said EXACTLY the same thing. When it comes to a proper understanding of the constitution, there is no one better.

[BubbaTheRocketScientist]

When it comes to a proper understanding of the constitution, there is no one better.

Unfortunately, changing popular perception will require statesmen who are willing to go to the brink of Constitutional crisis, and beyond. We don't have any of those; our elected representatives are mere politicians.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Lincoln saw himself following in the footsteps of another president. Thomas Jefferson also believed that the president and Congress were in no way inferior to the Court. Jefferson told a friend the Constitution “has wisely made all the departments coequal and co-sovereign within themselves.” In so doing, the founders took into account fallen human nature. Both Jefferson and Lincoln believed courts were capable of violating the Constitution and undermining constitutional government. Ultimately, of course, as we know, Lincoln proposed that the Constitution be amended to outlaw slavery—and it was, with the Thirteenth Amendment.

Well said.

[Mr. Silverback]

Since the Court has no executive authority of its own, if the Chief Executive chose to defy it, to whom would it turn for enforcement?

The closest the Supremes could get to enforcement would be to ask the Congress to impeach the POTUS.

[Mr. Silverback]

Mr. Colson proposes that the Executive arbitrarily ignore Supreme Court decisions with which it disagrees. He has said some pretty dumb things, but this ranks way up there.

There's a hole in your argument that I can drive a truck through, and that hole was made by the use of the word "arbitrary." You act as if Colson is saying the president may reject a SCOTUS ruling if they say toe-may-toe and he says toe-mah-toe. But "arbitrary" is hardly the issue.

For example, Lincoln defied the SCOTUS because they had overridden the clear intent of Congress on a very thorny issue that had been passed after decades of debate. Moreover, the Congress had passed the Missouri Compromise in an effort to save the Union, and the SCOTUS was undermining that just to make sure dipstick slave owners didn't have to worry about losing their "property."

You seem to be missing that we're talking about a situation where the SCOTUS defies the Constitution and the clear will of the people, and does so in a way that endangers the Republic. That's hardly an "arbitrary" situation, and it is a situation where the POTUS and Congress must act to preserve good order and separation of powers.

[edsheppa]

I considered using a different word but finally came back to arbitrary which means subject to individual discretion or preference. If Colson's proposal were the custom, I think the President's constitutional reasoning would be no better that the Court's for which arbitrary is a good description. They adhere to principle only when convenient for their desired result. When it's not we get penumbras and emanations and reversed decade old precedents. Presidents would do no better, in fact they'd probably be worse, being subject as they are to influential lobbies and passing political pressures.

[Tarkin]

Generally I don't really think that it's a wise policy (to ignore courts that is), vide Orval Faubus and Little Rock or Janet Reno and Elian. The person who ignores the courts will always think that HE is right and that the ruling was wrong/unconstitutional/meaningless etc. Unfortunately such reasoning and ignoring the courts would easily lead to anarchy.

[Tarkin]

Problems start when all three branches of government decide to ignore the Constitution - like in Maryland v. Craig, when the SCOTUS sided with them and concluded that the Confrontation Clause does not require confrontation, because the interest of the state "outweighs" constitutional text (it would be actually funny if not scary)...