The real issue here is not whether Scalia’s successor will abide by the Constitution.Moreover -- and this is something most persons will resist knowing ... even when it is directly pointed to in the Constitution ... for is it contrary to the indoctrination they received when they were ignorant teens -- the US Constitution creates the federal courts, including the supreme Court, as creatures of Congress, rather than as a "co-equal" (and therefore, somehow, Supreme) branch of government.
It’s whether we will.
Consider: in a representative republic of 320 million people, we’re all now talking about how one appointment of one unelected lawyer can radically change the face of American law, rights, and freedoms. Anything wrong with this picture?
This isn’t to say that a civilization’s fate being radically altered by one man’s death and another’s ascendancy hasn’t been humanity’s norm. Autocracy has been humanity’s norm. The king would pass on and people might lament, “You mean Aylwin, that kid who drools on his cloak, is next in line? How shall we be ruled?” But does this sound like a concern in a land of, by and for the people? The fact is that a government cannot be stable if one man’s fancies and fortunes can have such a great impact on it and the wider society. Did the Founding Fathers -- who were most concerned about avoiding the aggregation of power by any one entity -- really devise such a flawed system?
...
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. ...
Thursday, February 18, 2016
"Supreme Court" vs "supreme Court"
Selwyn Duke at American Thinker: Did Justice Scalia Already Give Us the Solution to the Problem of Filling His Seat?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Precisely why it is annoying when conservatives talk about "judicial usurpation". The Constitution is supposed to provide against an overreach by a branch, be it executive, legislative or judicial. So, the branches have colluded in bringing on the objectionable state of affairs.
They talk about usurpation of state rights. But had any state complained that its rights were being usurped?
If anything, I would say that judiciary follows the social trends, and does not create them.
You have to understand, we were all born into a situation that had been developing since long before any of us were born. We all were "educated" into a set of false pieties intended to blind us to what the Constitution really says and really intends. It's hard to free your mind from that sort of thing.
Moreover, nearly everyone's immediate self-interest is negatively impacted in one or more ways the more the nation were to return to true Constitutional principles and governance.
Take Social Security, for instance -- not only is it totally unconstitutional in all its aspects, but it's also unsustainable, and we all know that it is unsustainable. But, its collapse is "in the future", and our whole politics is organized around kicking as many cans down the road as we can for as long as we can (*). But to begin to dismantle the SSA would affect people right now.
(*) And, by the way, *that* has been true since at least 1787. That horrible "Civil War" we had was a direct result of kicking a particular can down the road, starting at the Constitutional Convention.
OT: But you should be immensely entertained by VD's post titled "A pernicious influence"
Well, Nate, that post is Same old same old for VD -- dishonestly conflating "free trade and the free movement of peoples"
"... have yet to grasp is that classical liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, free trade, constitutionalism, and a whole host of other 18th century concepts that were largely theoretical as well as being near and dear to our hearts have fundamentally failed."
This is what the "Progressive" have been preaching for over a century -- "the world is so different now from when the Constitution (the poor dear) was written; we can't continue to let the limits it places on government prevent us doing what we need (i.e. *want*) to do" -- and the reason the world is falling apart is precisely *because* the Progressives got their way.
It seems that VD's "answer" isn't to roll-back the damage Progressivism has done, but rather to double down.
TO anyone who may be interested, here is the link to VD's post: A pernicious influence
That the post immediately following is:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/02/i-find-this-view-unacceptable.html
Kind of piles on the irony.
Rotten Chestnuts had a worthwhile post on the matter.
Thanks for the rotten link (ha!) Due to its length, I won't be able to read it until after work, but it looks interesting.
Day 2 from the man who believes the constitution is no longer relevant, but free speech is totes important.
That's a good way to put it.
Post a Comment