A Proposal for a Jeffersonian Supreme Court

Leave a comment

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Mr. Trump’s executive order on immigration will be going to the U. S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has claimed, ever since Chief Justice John Marshall’s Marbury v. Madison ruling of 1803, that it is the final arbiter on the constitutionality of a given law. This was, in effect, an illegal seizure of power by the judicial branch of the government from the legislative branch. Thomas Jefferson feared that such a power-play would happen and thus was skeptical of the very existence of a supreme court. He suggested that the Court should play an advisory role on the constitutionality of laws rather than a coercive role. Yet critics may ask, “How can this practically work?” Below, I offer a suggestion.

Suppose there is a question concerning the constitutionality of a law passed by the U. S. Congress or by a state legislature, and the case reaches the Supreme Court. Suppose the court rules the law constitutional. Then it would remain law without further review. But if the court rules, that in the opinion of the majority, it is unconstitutional, then the law would be sent back to the legislative body that passed it for reconsideration based on possible unconstitutionality. If, after such reconsideration, the legislative body decides to rescind the law then the law is repealed. But if, after further review, the legislative body affirms the constitutionality of the law, then it remains law. In that way, the Supreme Court’s ruling is taken seriously, but remains only advisory. A flowchart is below:

supreme-court-reviews-law-for-constitutionality

Advertisements

The Supreme Court Abuses Power Yet Again

Leave a comment

English: The United States Supreme Court, the ...

English: The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, in 2009. Top row (left to right): Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Bottom row (left to right): Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Antonin G. Scalia, and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Although I can understand why the Supreme Court would invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act (marriage has been traditionally a state, rather than a federal, matter), I do not understand its voiding of California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. That act was passed by the majority of the people of the state of California–yet the majority of the Supreme Court (with Justice Kennedy getting up on the left side of bed this time) once again imposed its radical view of morality onto the American people.This ruling is a clear violation of state’s rights (if the term has any meaning left after being gutted by the federal courts). With the 14th Amendment imposing de facto slavery on the states to federal decrees, any other state that tries to ban same sex marriage will probably not be able to do so without its law being overturned by dictatorial decree. Any attempt to defy federal law via nullification will result in a stiff monetary–or worse–penalty by the overarching federal government onto the states. The United States is, in effect, a dictatorship in which the majority of people have been overwhelmed by elitist academics, Hollywood radicals, and their supporters in government. The federal government has the long arm of power enforced by tax policy, by federal law enforcement agencies, and by perhaps one of the greatest threats to American freedom, a large standing army.

The Supreme Court ruling affirmed a lower court ruling that described moral views on marriage as private matters not to be imposed on all people. To call marriage, a fundamental institution of all human societies, a private matter and not a matter of public policy is absurd. The radical individualism ensconced in the Enlightenment has finally come home to roost.

Traditionalists of all religions and ideologies who oppose this ruling may find themselves subject to persecution in the future. In academia, such persecution is already in place in some colleges, universities, and in the public school system. The radicals who, since 1969, have been pushing a homosexual lifestyle down the American people’s throats (pun intended), have won politically. They should focus on changing the culture, and if persecuted, pray and live virtuous lives, as the ancient Christians in the Roman Empire attempted to do. At least Christians know that evil–whether it be the evil of federal abuse of power or of radicals finishing off the destruction of traditional marriage that had already begun with easing divorce laws in the nineteenth century–will not finally triumph over good.

In a fallen world, even the best of intentions for good government go wrong over time. The United States has outspent its time as a republic, and with the virtue of people falling and the family failing, the end of the nation as those of my age has known it is only a matter of time (and a short time, I believe). May God strengthen those who have not bowed their knees to Baal.