A very disturbing trend has reached its height this week as the Supreme Court has decided to release the prisoners in Getmo. The reason I find this disturbing is not because of the actual decision (which I am totally against), but more because the Supreme Court has made it. Article II section 2 of the US Constitution says:
"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;--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."
No where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the right to pass laws, but yet time and again that is what the Supreme Court is doing. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution says: All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. In other words, just as every 5th grader learns, it is congresses job, and congress only to make the laws. Not even the President has the power to make a law, but yet the courts seem to think they can. And the problem is there is no check on their power. What ever the court says is final, there is no appeal.
Since the Supreme Court is assigned for life, they are not accountable to anyone. They can make any decision they want with no recourse. I understand why that is important, their opinions should be based on law and not the current popular political leans of the day. But the fact that 12 people alone can make such an important decision as releasing prisoners, does not seem correct. The founding fathers set up a government with checks on all three branches to guarantee no one branch became to strong, but the checks on the courts has fallen short. The only check on the judges is that the president appoints them and the congress approves them. Under this system, all radicals should be weeded out and only fair judges should be positioned. Under this system the theory has gone, if you want different kinds of judges (party allegiance) than elect a president from that party. Yet the man who made the decision to release the prisoners is Kennedy, who was appointed by Bush. Yet since he has taken office he seems more concerned about seeing himself on TV than doing his job. Kennedy is completely in love with his own mind, and wants everyone to bask in his glory.
The only option left for getting around a judges opinion is to make a Constitutional amendment. Once it is in the Constitution, then it cannot be declared Unconstitutional. This is the case with gay marriages. States have passed laws that will only allow marriage to be between a man and a woman. Yet courts have stepped in and changed the laws. Forget that the elected people from a state passed a law, a couple men and women sitting on a bench decided on their own to change the law. If states or the Federal Government pass an amendment, then the courts have no power. The problem is that the Constitution was set up to make new amendment very difficult to get. The Founder did not want to see major changes to their document every time a new party came to power. But the Founders could never have foreseen the power of the courts.
I always hate people who just complain, don’t complain give solutions. Yet the problem is I have no idea what the answer is. I do not believe the courts should cave to the will of the people, but at the same time the people’s will should not be ignored either. I do not believe this trend will stop soon. It makes this presidential election all that more important, it will be the next president who will appoint the next judges, even though with the case of Kennedy that does not mean anything anymore. There needs to be some check on the decisions of the courts, but what.
On last note about the gay marriage situation and the courts. The group that I am guessing is cheering the courts decision to allow gays to marry is the polygamists. If the government does not have the right to say marriage is between a man and a women, then why do they have the right to say that a man can not marry two women if they are of legal age and consent. It is a slippery slope the Supreme Court is playing with.
"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;--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."
No where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the right to pass laws, but yet time and again that is what the Supreme Court is doing. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution says: All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. In other words, just as every 5th grader learns, it is congresses job, and congress only to make the laws. Not even the President has the power to make a law, but yet the courts seem to think they can. And the problem is there is no check on their power. What ever the court says is final, there is no appeal.
Since the Supreme Court is assigned for life, they are not accountable to anyone. They can make any decision they want with no recourse. I understand why that is important, their opinions should be based on law and not the current popular political leans of the day. But the fact that 12 people alone can make such an important decision as releasing prisoners, does not seem correct. The founding fathers set up a government with checks on all three branches to guarantee no one branch became to strong, but the checks on the courts has fallen short. The only check on the judges is that the president appoints them and the congress approves them. Under this system, all radicals should be weeded out and only fair judges should be positioned. Under this system the theory has gone, if you want different kinds of judges (party allegiance) than elect a president from that party. Yet the man who made the decision to release the prisoners is Kennedy, who was appointed by Bush. Yet since he has taken office he seems more concerned about seeing himself on TV than doing his job. Kennedy is completely in love with his own mind, and wants everyone to bask in his glory.
The only option left for getting around a judges opinion is to make a Constitutional amendment. Once it is in the Constitution, then it cannot be declared Unconstitutional. This is the case with gay marriages. States have passed laws that will only allow marriage to be between a man and a woman. Yet courts have stepped in and changed the laws. Forget that the elected people from a state passed a law, a couple men and women sitting on a bench decided on their own to change the law. If states or the Federal Government pass an amendment, then the courts have no power. The problem is that the Constitution was set up to make new amendment very difficult to get. The Founder did not want to see major changes to their document every time a new party came to power. But the Founders could never have foreseen the power of the courts.
I always hate people who just complain, don’t complain give solutions. Yet the problem is I have no idea what the answer is. I do not believe the courts should cave to the will of the people, but at the same time the people’s will should not be ignored either. I do not believe this trend will stop soon. It makes this presidential election all that more important, it will be the next president who will appoint the next judges, even though with the case of Kennedy that does not mean anything anymore. There needs to be some check on the decisions of the courts, but what.
On last note about the gay marriage situation and the courts. The group that I am guessing is cheering the courts decision to allow gays to marry is the polygamists. If the government does not have the right to say marriage is between a man and a women, then why do they have the right to say that a man can not marry two women if they are of legal age and consent. It is a slippery slope the Supreme Court is playing with.
3 comments:
It is amazing or saddening at the same time to see how quickly unrighteous dominion can lead a people to destruction. Everything in government seems topsy turvy without a solution in sight. Though it doesn't apply to judges, I wish we would also have term limits on all political offices. Some of political lifers need to go! My mind is still racing on this and words can't seem to express how overwhelmed I feel about the whole thing!
I think Joseph Smith might have differed with you on the habeas writ. It got him out of many a tight spot.
I actually think that the administration is to blame on this one. They had an opportunity to do something that passed constitution muster with the military tribunals but never actually followed through and used them. Whatever you think about the people we are holding at Gitmo (and I think we could have killed them on the battle field) I don't believe you can just hold them forever with no due process. Many have been there six years with no process at all. The tribunals might have worked had that been attempted. Keep in mind too that we have purposely not labeled them as soldiers so that we could avoid giving them any rights under the Geneva conventions, so I think if we are going to hold them there has to be some process. Just another example to me of a good idea that was not executed properly or at all.
On the gay marriage issue, my anti-federalist tendencies control and I think that if California wants it and thinks its constitution guarantees them, good for them. Just as long as Virginia doesn't have to recognize it. What about full faith and credit? I think that we will one day need a constitutional amendment. I think by the time we get there though gay marriages will have so permeated society that no one will care. Not that I think they are a good thing, but neither is gambling or booze and somehow we muddle along.
Also, 9 justices.
One of my favorite things about you James is that you make me feel like I'm not really that conservative. :-)
I agree that Bush has dropped the ball, I was more commenting on the courts than the prisoners. We needed a military tribunal a while ago and convicted them, then this would not be an issue. And yes I alread realized there are 9 judges, I meant back in the 30s when FDR moved it to 12. I am a historian. Does anyone by that?
Post a Comment