Yesterday in the Times Review Section, recognizing the new horrifying dangers of Newt Gingrich, the editors attacked Gingrich for trying to undo the supreme court, apparently for the purposes of the re-subjugation of Americans who happen to be black.
This editorial should be read.
No big deal, right?
They claim that the idea of Judicial Review of the constitutionality of any law, which was claimed in Marbury vs Madison near the outset of our constitutional govt is actually IT. The end. Cannot be disputed.
In Cooper vs Aaron in 1958, a SCOTUS decision over desegregation in which state law enforcing segregation was properly overturned all 9 SCOTUS judges created a 1st by signing this decision, which from a point of view of law stated that if state laws, contravening the constitution and other states’ laws were allowed to stand, chaos would result. Never mind the the actual argument of the case which was about keeping certain people, not white, in their place, and ITS MERIT before the constitution.
Well I certainly see what they are saying. They are saying they wrote the Quran.
That is precisely how the founders viewed govt. Each branch would seek power and limit the others because of human nature. SCOTUS was saying we are the final word. That’s what John Marshall did in 1803 with Marbury vs Madison.
That’s what the Times says now, among the arguments over AZ and AL passing laws concerning their right, in the vacuum of federal failures, to govern themselves with their own laws. YOU CAN BE SURE.
But there’s just one problem with this entire line of thought. It’s not legal. It’s’ about the nature of govt, human nature and society.
Scott vs Sandford …blacks are property and cannot be citizens
Roger Taney vs Abe Lincoln … the Constitution vs the needs of the president in civil war over moral issues
Plessy vs Ferguson… separate but equal as law must be enforced, ie, SEGREGATION IS CONSTITUTIONAL and mandatory by law.
These are just off the top of my head.
Let me quote Charles Dickens on the these 3 issues, ‘The law, sir, is an ass’.
Sometimes the court under Marbury vs Madison can simply make compulsory what seemed like a good idea at the time.
Is the idea of a war which kills 1,000,000 people out of 31,000,000 the right response to Dredd Scott? Because of Marbury vs Madison? That’s like 12,000,00 today people.
Can anyone argue that the final word of SCOTUS is a correct thing in Plessy vs Ferguson? Is it right to WAIT 1896-1954 to get correction? Can we argue that it is the hallmark of civilized western society to have wasted the lives of HOW MANY MILLIONS because of their color during that interval?
Or maybe as Mr Gingrich argues, should we have SOME WAY to remove the Quranic final word from SCOTUS by SOME process so that no repetition of Dredd Scott is so simple as 5 guys with what seemed like a good idea at the time.
Judicial revue as a final word came from the mind of John Marshall.
He had a good idea, but every idea has consequences.
I have NO DOUBT that a possible outcome of every state making up their own law is chaos. Some kind of criterion must be defined. But order is not the end point of the american idea. Someone wrote ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ were ‘unalienable rights’, presumably this means from SCOTUS as well.
The Constitution is a tool to achieve this end. It is NOT THE END.
Scotus makes decisions on some very key social ISSUES OF THE DAY. This is what can make the result ‘what seemed like a good idea at the time’.
Mr. Gingrich is seeking to leaven that with some idea. SOME WAY TO LIMIT THE IMPACT OF ‘FINAL SOLUTION’. That end is just as important today as it might have been in 1896 when SCOTUS made segregation mandatory EVERYWHERE.
The New York Times’ reaction to this is nothing short of disgusting by it’s sly reference to and incitement as Gingrich’s idea being for some sneaky racial reasons.
This issue deserves thought and debate.
Not because of race, or the illegal immigration laws of several states, but because a Quranic final word from SCOTUS which will be enforced by an ever encroaching government, ever more expensive, ever more extensive, ever more intrusive is THE SOCIAL ISSUE OF THE DAY.
Once we get enough people back to work.
1 comment:
In effect, SCOTUS has become a law unto itself and is legislating from the bench. The balance of power and the separation of powers has been turned over like an apple cart.
a Quranic final word from SCOTUS which will be enforced by an ever encroaching government, ever more expensive, ever more extensive, ever more intrusive
Somehow, I cannot imagine that the intention of our Constitution has even been that!
Marbury vs Madison has nearly given tyrannic power to SCOTUS as the latter is the final word and immune to any overturning -- although SCOTUS has been known to overturn its own previous rulings.
Now, much good has come from Marbury vs Madison. But in the hands of this administration (If BHO is re-elected, how many more justices will he appoint?), SCOTUS will be like the Furies from hell if SCOTUS so chooses for itself.
Good post, Epa.
Post a Comment