Thursday, March 28, 2013

Passing Responsibility to the SCOTUS

The intent of the founders to include a Supreme Court Of The United States in the US Constitution was not to become a tyranny by committee, but to simply be a referee if the congress attempted to pass an unconstitutional law - or there was a question regarding the balance of power between the 3 branches of government. They are co-equal in power with each branch having specific responsibilities.

The SCOTUS was actually intended to be the “weakest” branch when you read the discussions around the constitution between the founders. They believed they needed the judicial branch just like a sporting event needs a referee (they didn’t use this argument but it is the easiest way for me to explain). The rules are defined and provide the guidelines for the game. When there are disputes or the players on the team break the rules the referee reviews the action based on the rules of the game. The constitution is the rules of the government and the SCOTUS is the referee.

The SCOTUS has too often become a tool for those that can’t get legislation passed in their favor through the legislative process. The most famous case is Row V Wade. The SCOTUS created a right in the constitution that had never existed before. Instead of allowing the debate about legal abortion to play out in the states, they ruled and created a “law” that has been a divisive issue since. Creating law is not the responsibility of the SCOTUS. Ruling on whether a law is constitutional is.

If a law is not constitutional it is struck down and the legislature can amend and change the law to be constitutional. If it is constitutional the law stands.

The way the SCOTUS is being utilized in modern times is to give 9 unelected, lifetime-tenured judges, the same power as a dictator. It is tyranny by committee. Worshiping the decisions of the SCOTUS is unhealthy and it was never the intent of the founders for the SCOTUS to be so powerful. The reason the founders placed the power to make and change laws in the House because it is closest to the people, and held accountable to elections every two years.

Lawyers love to put faith in the judicial branch because it increases their power and relevance but that is to the detriment of the people…

No comments: