The
legislative branch has the power to make law because the Constitution grants
it. The executive branch has the power to enforce law because the Constitution
grants it. And the courts exercise judicial supremacy -- where its decisions
constrain not just its own branch but the other two as well, making it not a “co-equal” branch
but a super-legislature/über-executive -- because ____________?
The answer has nothing to do with the
Constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court unilaterally declared the power in the
1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling.
That’s right: Like an upstart seizing the
reins in a palace coup, the Supreme Court assigned the Supreme Court its
oligarchic power, all without the force of arms. It’s a nice con if you can
pull it off.
This isn’t how our system is meant to
work. A governmental branch derives its power from the Constitution -- not from
itself. And how dangerous is this usurpation? Founding Father Thomas
Jefferson warned
in 1819 that judicial supremacy’s acceptance would do nothing less
than make “our constitution a complete felo de se” -- a suicide pact. He
explained:
For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and
independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given,
according to this [judicial supremacy] opinion, to one of them alone, the right
to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which
is unelected by, and independent of the nation.... The constitution, on this
hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they
may twist, and shape into any form they please….
(Full text at link below)
Any president, governor or legislator
worth his salt would do his duty and tell usurpative judges to go pound sand.
Some will say that this would set off a "constitutional
crisis," but newsflash: we’re already experiencing a constitutional
crisis. This occurs not when the Constitution is protected by bringing to heel
those who trample it, but when that trampling is allowed to go unanswered.
By the way, you know who else
apparently questions judicial supremacy? Barack Obama. He has shown willingness
to ignore
the courts; in fact, he has been so dismissive that a federal appeals court
actually ordered
the administration in 2012 to submit a letter stating whether or not
it recognized the judiciary’s “power.”
Of
course, Obama will defy constitutional laws; in contrast, “conservatives,” being conservative (as in reluctant
to take bold action), won’t even ignore unconstitutional rulings. It’s
an old story. Liberal-controlled localities have been nullifying (ignoring)
federal immigration and drug laws for decades. But conservatives consider
nullification -- even in the defense of legitimate freedoms -- some kind of
radical action, despite Jefferson’s calling it the “rightful remedy” for all
federal usurpation. And “conservative” justices tend to feel constrained by “precedent,”
even the unconstitutional variety, yet don’t expect any liberal Scalia
replacement to bat an eye at overturning constitutional precedent that
contradicts the leftist agenda. Is it any wonder conservatives never saw a
cultural or political battle they couldn’t lose?
One might say conservatives fight by
Queensbury rules while liberals operate no-holds-barred, but it’s not even
that. Though conservatives are allowed to throw punches, they prefer to stand
and block and be a punching bag -- while the liberals throw sand in their eyes
and kick off their kneecaps.
Calling the Court a “threat to American
democracy,” Justice Scalia wrote in his Obergefell dissent,
“[I]t is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It
is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree
says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.” We won’t talk the court out
of its power-mad, usurpative bent. Only power negates power. It’s time to stop
acting like impotent fools and start showing the Court how impotent it really
is.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/did_justice_scalia_already_give_us_the_solution_to_the_problem_of_filling_his_seat.html#ixzz40Lnd18yb