Sunday, June 28, 2015

Lincoln v. SCOTUS

Interesting historical information here, the gist of which is that SCOTUS really isn't all that 'supreme.' 

Neither Andy Jackson nor Abe Lincoln thought so, anyway.  This distinguishes them from Rubio, who has  rolled over on Obergefell, and Walker, who advocates for an Amendment (as though *that* will ever happen.)  Other (R) candidates have mumbled about amendments--they are also blowing foo-foo dust up your southern orifice. 

Better to treat the decision as erroneous and govern accordingly, following Lincoln.

...Jackson expressed what is known as the “departmental theory” of constitutional interpretation: i.e., that all three departments of the national government have an equal power to interpret the Constitution....

...Abraham Lincoln expressed the departmental principle in his first inaugural, denying that the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution in the Dred Scott case was the last word. Lincoln did not dispute that the Court’s decisions in particular cases must be obeyed, and he admitted that such decisions were “entitled to very high respect and consideration, in all parallel cases, by all other departments of the government.” Nevertheless, the political branches and ultimately the people still had a constitutional role to play. “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

To that end, the Lincoln administration and Congress acted as if Dred Scott had been erroneous....

(Which it was, just as was Roe, SCOTUScare, and Obergefell.)

Things sat there, more or less, until Warren showed up.

...Under Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court went on to ever bolder exercises of judicial power....The justices claimed that Marbury v. Madison had “declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in its exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this court and the country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.

Well, neither of those statements is true.  As shown above, Presidents (and Congresses, for that matter) had simply ignored SCOTUS when grave matters were at stake.  As to Marbury:

...In fact, Marbury was quite a modest decision, in which Marshall held that Congress could not extend the jurisdiction of the Court beyond what the Constitution had provided....

So we can infer that Marbury did not void the 10th Amendment, nor the 9th.  And we can further infer that Marbury did NOT authorize the Court to either legislate OR manufacture social policy.

For those who still think that The Supremes are "supreme," which is a legend in their own minds and that of their sycophant camp-followers and groupies,  I remind you of the absolute incoherence of Roberts, who on one day opined that the Court can and should legislate, and on the next day complained that the Court was legislating.   If that's what you consider 'supreme,' well, you'll get what's coming to you.

However, the next President should follow Lincoln.  Be nice, but ignore the stupid stuff.

No comments: