From today's NY Times Editorial page:
"Republican leaders have also been chipping away at the Constitution by proposing to deny judges jurisdiction to review selected acts of Congress. The House passed a measure yesterday retaining the Pledge of Allegiance's "under God" phrase and prohibiting any federal court - including, outrageously, the Supreme Court - from judging the law's constitutionality."
Goodness gracious, people! If this doesn't tell you that something is seriously wrong in Washington (i.e., we have a Congress full of people who either don't understand how our government is supposed to work, or don't care), then...well, I just don't even know how to finish this sentence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have no disagreement that there is something seriously wrong in Washington, and that this legislation is horribly misguided. The constitutional basis is not entirely absent, however, given the language of the second sentence of Article III, section 2, clause 2: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." While it is highly unlikely that this bill, if it ever becomes law, would be permitted to stand (particularly since the court itself would make that decision), the basis for the law is not entirely without constitutional foundation.
Also, its not inconceivable that this was how the system of government was supposed to work. Canada has a system like this, where the legislature can essentially disregard the decisions of the Supreme Court through the notwithstanding clause. It is only the moral authority of the court and political pressure that keeps it from doing so in most cases. Similar pressures have prevented this same trick from being used in the US, although it seems we are getting closer to crossing that bridge. For me, this decline in respect for an indpendent judiciary and increased partisanship is what is seriously wrong in Washington.
Sorry for the long comment, but seriously, this is what you get if you tease me with constitutional law discussions : )
JP
No apologies necessary, my friend! In fact, I'm delighted that you were moved to such a lengthty post!
Post a Comment