Thoughts from Jonah Goldberg, on the ridiculous notion that the left has that only the courts can or should assess constitutionality:
Newsweek’s Ben Adler was aghast at the clause in the GOP’s Pledge to America that Republicans will provide a “citation of constitutional authority” for every proposed piece of legislation. “We have a mechanism for assessing the constitutionality of legislation, which is the independent judiciary,” Adler wrote. “An extraconstitutional attempt to limit the powers of Congress is dangerous even as a mere suggestion, and it constitutes an encroachment on the judiciary.”
A progressive blogger, meanwhile, writes in U.S. News & World Report that such talk of requiring constitutionality is “just wacky.”
Before we get to the historical niceties, a question.
Does anyone, anywhere, think legislators should vote for legislation they think is unconstitutional? Anyone? Anyone?
How about presidents? Should they sign such legislation into law?
Yet, according to this creepy logic, there’s no reason for congressmen to pass, obey, or even consider the supreme law of the land. Reimpose slavery? Sure! Let’s see if we can catch the Supreme Court asleep at the switch. Nationalize the TV stations? Establish a king? Kill every first-born child? Why not? It ain’t unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so!
And of course, that means the president can’t veto legislation because it’s unconstitutional, because that’s apparently not his job. Wouldn’t want to “encroach” on the judiciary!
Of course, reasonable people understand how absurd all of this is.
Sadly, the country is not run by (nor is the media staffed with) reasonable people.
The constitution (nor any amendment thereto) did not give the courts jurisdiction to decide on the constitutionality of laws properly enacted. The Supreme Court seized that power and claimed it as their own in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The first of many reasons I spit when anybody references “stare decisis”.
The USG requires virtually all employees to take an oath to defend the Constitution. How can one defend something when one has been declared incapable of knowing what one is supposed to defend?
One of my Senators voted against a bill (child molester leg-bomb or some such) back in the early 00s for this very reason. When election time came around and his challenger tried to use it against him “Oh the horror! Bernie Sanders is FOR child molestation!” he calmly explained that the bill was unconstitutional and Vermonters did not send him to Washington to vote for crap like that, also noting the time and money that would be wasted overturning the foul legislation.
We need more lawmakers who will refuse to support the “popular but unconstitutional” bills that are clearly nothing more than posturing and propaganda.
The constitution (nor any amendment thereto) did not give the courts jurisdiction to decide on the constitutionality of laws properly enacted. The Supreme Court seized that power and claimed it as their own in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The first of many reasons I spit when anybody references “stare decisis”.
Nonsense. Here’s the relevant part of the Constitution:
Note what I highlighted. That part grants the Supreme Court the authority to decide matters of constitutionality for laws enacted by Congress. They “seized” that power, and kept it for two centuries, because society agreed.
My view here is that the Supreme Court has the final legal say in matters of constitutionality (note that a Supreme Court Justice can be removed for not maintaining “good behavior” so this power is not unlimited), but they aren’t the only group that has say or responsibility for determining the constitutionality of an action.
In addition to what MfK added, and even more damning IMHO, the constitution states that the oath shall require “support” for the constitution. And the President’s oath, specified explicitly, requires him/her to “preserve, protect and defend”. Under those rules, one could not vote for or sign something one knows or believes is unconstitutional.
Putting Kagan on the court should itself be an impeachable offense. She will not protect the constitution and they know it. It’s just words, right?
I find no good cause that the supreme court should not have the power to find a law unconstitutional. But to suggest that congress or the president do not have the duty or power to consider the constitution regarding legislation before them could only come from a moron or an enemy of this country.