« Updated graph on laws on carrying | Main | Update on Mike Vanderboegh's condition »
An interesting idea
Sen. Grassley wants to hold a national dialogue on the role of the Supreme Court. I loosely knew Grassley back 30 years ago, and thought little of him, but maybe we've both grown in that time. I think the idea worthwhile.
I mean, the traditional image of the Court is that which CJ Roberts espoused in his confirmation hearings, just an umpire calling balls and strikes. The reality has become far different. Can we speak of baseball umpires as having liberal and conservative wings? Recent Terms have given us rulings that (1) when the Framers used the term State "legislatures," they meant something other than, you know, legislatures, (2) a statutory provision expressly denominated a "penalty" is not a penalty, but a tax (or was it the other way round? I lose track of these redefinitions) and (3) if it was a tax, it was not a tax for purposes of the statute that says a court cannot enjoin collection of a tax, the taxpayer must pay it under protest and seek its return.
And of course in the field of the right to arms, we've seen a minority of the Court (but within one vote of becoming a majority) do things to the 2nd and 14th Amendments that were unspeakable, for no better reason than that they, personally, think the framers had bad ideas in this arena.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
The Court definitely needs to be reined in. They are as out-of-bounds as the President - who should have been impeached long ago.
I don't think the framers could have foreseen such a mess as we find ourselves in now.
Is a revolution feasible today?
A frustration for sure. Roberts has been a big disappointment as a Constitutional protector.
Why are these things so? IMO, there are NO honorable persons on the courts. IF one's predilections serve to guide one, then one is not honorable and has not reached one of the ultimate goals of education, [meaning true education and not training as is common in most professions]. The ultimate goal of a true education is to reach the point where the data lead thee. This is not the case when the courts read between the lines, usurp interpretive powers that are NOT granted, at least not in the Constitution where I can find it. Fundamental law theory as explained by Hamilton is that the subordinate cannot define the superior. The Constitution is superior to all three branches of government, and thus no branch of government can define, interpret or otherwise decide what the Constitution means. The People, through their states, created the Constitution and through that instrument the government. Thus the People AND their States are superior to the Constitution and hold the sole authority to determine what any term or clause means. Will this result in some disagreements? Yeah but that is probably good. There is no logic that can be stated that would transfer interpretive powers from the creators to the created.
I know that Congress has failed and the President has failed in the majority of instances to abide by the limitations of the Constitution. Yes, it really means that if some power is not explicitly granted, the feds don't have it. Of the three branches the courts have done the most damage and destroyed more of the Constitution than the other two branches combined. Why? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I'm suspicious of any calls for 'dialogue' since so many calls for dialogue on e.g. the Second Amendment turn out to be scoldings instead.
Who would participate in this dialogue, and whom would it bind?
I don't really see this court suddenly being swayed by public opinion, their personal biases seem to be working just fine...and has a "national dialog" ever accomplished anything?