Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In another thread now closed, a poster suggested that some Supreme Court decisions violated the Constitution and that it should be disbanded until it (SCOTUS) is "fixed". This evolved from a discussion about SCOTUS decisions that supported the permit process in States and local communities and supported when an assembly (like the OWS) can be deemed "unlawful." As we all know, the Founding Fathers wanted a system of checks and balances so that no one branch of government got too powerful, and the Supreme Court's role was to be one of those checks and balances. From Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com :
Quote:
The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.
It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution.
It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom.
To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.
The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.
Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.
...In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions
My questions are: which decisions violated what part of the Constitution? How do we "fix" SCOTUS? How long would that take? And should we allow mob rule in the meantime? Wouldn't what Madison argued here: "If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit," happen? Knowing the importance of the Supreme Court as a check on the power of the government as noted above, how can we go without it, even temporarily? If we did, what would we do in the meantime? (I think some of these questions are redundant, but I just got off my normal 10-hour shift and am tired!)
In another thread now closed, a poster suggested that some Supreme Court decisions violated the Constitution and that it should be disbanded until it (SCOTUS) is "fixed". This evolved from a discussion about SCOTUS decisions that supported the permit process in States and local communities and supported when an assembly (like the OWS) can be deemed "unlawful." As we all know, the Founding Fathers wanted a system of checks and balances so that no one branch of government got too powerful, and the Supreme Court's role was to be one of those checks and balances. From Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com :
My questions are: which decisions violated what part of the Constitution? How do we "fix" SCOTUS? How long would that take? And should we allow mob rule in the meantime? Wouldn't what Madison argued here: "If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit," happen? Knowing the importance of the Supreme Court as a check on the power of the government as noted above, how can we go without it, even temporarily? If we did, what would we do in the meantime? (I think some of these questions are redundant, but I just got off my normal 10-hour shift and am tired!)
It's weird idea, given that the USSC decides what is Constitutional...
Or that they simply don't like some of the Court's decisions.
Also true. As a pro-lifer, neither do I. But I don't want to disband it, even if only temporarily, and I'm not sure what they mean by "fixing" it? Put in judges that only make decisions they like?
Also true. As a pro-lifer, neither do I. But I don't want to disband it, even if only temporarily, and I'm not sure what they mean by "fixing" it? Put in judges that only make decisions they like?
I have a feeling that, eventually, the judges would make a decision that they didn't like even if they initially thought they'd agree with them on everything. I guess they'd want to "disband" and "fix" the court again then, right?
True. I guess they mean that the USSC is not interpreting the Constitution correctly or is at worse ignoring it when they make certain decisions.
True ... though it should be obvious to anyone that words and phrases such as "cruel and unusual", "unreasonable", "general welfare", "inability", "speech", "speedy", "excessive" ... just to name a few ... are vague and open to honest interpretation.
It's a sad case of narcissism when someone thinks they know better than all others what the Constitution must mean! Even the bases for interpretation are open to debate.
Then there's Robert Bork, who wants Congress to be able to overrule the Supreme Court ...
Most people who bring up complaints about the SCOTUS complain they they are activist and legislate from the bench.
However, we are under a Common Law legal system. Legal precedent is binding on all lower courts. This creates a system of case law that must be followed as though it were written by the legislature. The only way to overrule case law, is to amend the constitution.
Then there's Robert Bork, who wants Congress to be able to overrule the Supreme Court ...
Well, Congress can overrule the Supreme Court. If they have a 2/3rds majority and 3/4 of the States also agree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
