By Selwyn Duke
Are we Americans meant to be governed by the rule of law or the rule of lawyers? For a long time now we’ve been under the latter, with the belief that whatever five unelected judges on the Supreme Court say must go for 320 million citizens. But presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (shown) has now challenged this opinion, siding with no less a figure than Thomas Jefferson, who long ago warned that such an opinion would make our Constitution a “suicide pact.”
Read the rest here.
While President Jefferson’s remark is undoubtedly true, the difficulty with legitimating any president’s authority to ignore “unconstitutional” decisions is simply this: instead of five unelected justices deciding questions of constitutionality, one elected politician is to do it. Congress has the authority to change or limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction per the Constitution. Let them do it, in the open without closed door deals that are entirely too popular these days, and if they cannot pass such a law, the issue is closed without doing violence to the Constitution and without replacing “nine old men” (and women) with one politician.
LikeLike
Dear Ike,
Thank you for responding. What you overlook is that the president would be merely enforcing laws duly passed by Congress; thus, it would not just be the will of one man. The president does, do note, take an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the land.
If a president violates that oath, impeachment is the proper remedy. And if Congress passes unconstitutional laws and won’t alter them, the proper remedy is for the people to oust the offending members from office.
As for impeachment, critics might say it’s unlikely; this may be true, but it’s clearly also unlikely that the Congress will limit courts’ jurisdiction, as this is discussed even less than impeachment. The answer is that the people have to be the ultimate guarantor of constitutionalism, which is why an informed electorate is an imperative.
The courts have their role, but it’s a limited one. And it’s clear that allowing them the gratuitous judicial-review power they’ve long been exercising has led to an imperial and imperious Court, one that has been undermining the nation for decades. They must be brought to heel.
LikeLike
And my point, sir, is that the proper method of curtailing the Supreme Court is that Congress pass a law limiting their jurisdiction in the matter at hand (whatever it may be), using proper legislative processes – that is no secret deals, no “sweetener” in exchange for votes, et cetera – and once the President has signed that law, he enforces it. The difference is that Congress and the President combine as they ought per the Constitution to trim any Supreme Court misconduct, rather than the President alone doing so by executive action without a law being passed by Congress. I understood the position taken as being that the President, alone, might disregard the Supreme Court’s decision(s), if he believed them to be unconstitutional. Rather as Jackson did regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in the cases concerning the removal of the Cherokee from Georgia or as Obama has done with respect to various politically inconvenient provisions of the ACA.
LikeLike
I would disagree, Ike. All powers not enumerated in The Constitution are reserved to The States and/or The People. The States and The people are the ultimate nullifiers of all unconstitutional acts committed by any politician or bureaucrat. South Carolina is advancing a bill to block implementation of the SCOTUS fake marriage ruling, as is their right and duty under The Constitution.
LikeLike
I believe you are mistaken, Mr. Williams, for this reason. That power was already given to the Congress, set out in Article III, Section 2. That Section deals with the original and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and after listing those cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction – in plain language, is the trial court – it says: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” So, first, that power was not reserved and therefore does fall under the provisions of the Tenth Amendment; second, it provides for a method to exclude specific classes of cases from the Supreme Court’s consideration. This is the optimal method because it requires only one law be passed, unlike an Article V Convention of the States, which would require in effect several “laws” be passed and much longer time would pass.
LikeLike
My apologies; I omitted a word changing the meaning of a sentence. The sentence should read: “So, first, that power was not reserved and therefore does not fall under ….” and so forth.
LikeLike
selwynduke.com 
Let us know what you think, dear reader. We value your input!