School SafeRides program stalls due to religion

[FScouter]

"The whole system of Checks and Balances was built based on each group respecting each other. If that respect is gone, then we are sunk as a society."

 

We're doomed.

[TheScout]

It is a shame that most people forget the most important check is that each branch of the government must judge the constitutionality of the acts of the others.

 

Or can the Supreme Court do no constitutional wrong?

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

So if the Supreme Court does something that I feel is unconstitutional, then my recourse is to contact my Congressman and Senators to start impeachment proceddings against the Justices that voted in opposition to my beliefs?

 

So, the next time the Supreme Court makes a decision that I disagree with, I should contact my Congressman and Senators and ask that they begin impeachment proceedings against the Justices that decided contrary to my beliefs. Then after the offending Justices are removed and replaced with more right thinking individuals they make a decision that Merlyn disagrees with and he gets his Congressman and Senators to start impeachment procedings.

 

It is said that the Emporeror Nero played his fiddle while Rome burned. In the case of the US, it may be written that we were litigating while our world burned

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout: what, in your view, should happen if congress passes a law that the supreme court considers unconstitutional? I think the law becomes null & void, by the way.

[TheScout]

OGE,

 

Your recourse to impeachment is problematic. The Constitutional Convention considered allowing impeachment for inability but instead decided on the current wording which applies only to criminal behavior.

 

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

 

Hence I would say a judge could not be removed for faulty rulings. The logical result would then be members of Congress removed for voting on unconstitutional measures I presume. That would be quite absurd.

 

Merlyn,

 

When the Court strikes down a resolution of Congress it becomes null and void. Just like when Congress or the President determine the Court acts wrongly, its decisions become null and void.

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

So if a Supreme Court Justice or the entire Court does something which I feel is unconstitutional, I have no recourse which may be just as well as there will most likely be some who feel that a wrong has been righted. This living in a civil society isnt as easy as its cracked up to be

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout, what happens if:

1) the SC says law X is unconstitutional

2) congress and/or the president think it is constitutional

Is (2) a case where congress and/or the president think the SC has acted unconstitutionally? If so, does that mean congress and/or the president can decide that the SC acted unconstitutionally in declaring law X unconstitutional, and thus proceed as if the SC said law X was constitutional?

 

If (2) is not such a case, could you give an example of an action of the supreme court that you consider unconstitutional.

[TheScout]

I think Brown vs. Board of Education was unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment says all must treated equal. If there is an equal white school next to an equal black school, that passes muster. Seperate is not inherently unequal.

 

I would have just ignored the decision like many Southern schools did at the time.

 

So Merlyn, what if the SCOTUS stated in a decision tomorrow that the First Amendment did not apply anymore. What should Congress and the President do? I would hope they would say the Courts actions are unconstitutional and not enforce the effects of such a decision.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout, your position makes no sense; if congress and the president can simply ignore what the supreme court decides, why should the supreme court bother to do anything? What does it *mean* if every SC decision can just be ignored?

 

I find it very unlikely that the SC would declare that the first amendment didn't apply any more, but when the court DOES make a ruling that a lot of people disagree with, usually congress tries to pass laws that the SC will find constitutional. For example, the RFRA after the peyote decision, or when the court ruled that cities could take your home using eminent domain if it increased tax revenue.

[TheScout]

Meryln,

 

Your position that the Supreme Court can never act in an unconstitutional manner doesn't make sense either. Someone above pointed out that checks and balances depend on mutual respect.

 

The Supreme Court, more than any other branch depends on this. It can only gain this by well reasoned decisions based on the text and the intent of the federal constitution within the proper zone of its authority.

 

The reasons why their are so many criticisms of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary today is that they have long this respect over the last half century. The SCOTUS has acted in a manner to ignore the text and intent of the constitution and impose by judicial fiat social and moral changes upon the people of this country.

 

Roe v. Wade comes to mind. It is probably the most controversial decision today, and the Court never should have got involved in this moral issue. The case is more responsible for the Court losing its respect than any other.

 

The question remains, if the Supreme Court invalidates the 1st Amendment tomorrow, what should Congress and the President do? I would hope they would ignore the decision. Do you propose they are bound to follow it?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The supreme court has ruled many times that the first amendment doesn't apply in certain situations, and yes, I expect congress and the president to follow those rulings and not ignore them.

 

You didn't really answer my previous question; if supreme court rulings can simply be ignored, why make them? What use are they? Are they like movie reviews, something totally optional?

 

And why, in your imaginary legal system, does the supreme court have less power than the other two branches?

 

1) executive branch enforces laws & makes gov't appointments, PLUS decides what laws are constitutional

2) legislative branch passes laws PLUS decides what laws are constitutional

3) judicial branch decides what laws are constitutional(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Oak Tree]

TheScout proposed an interesting hypothetical question - what if the SCOTUS issued a ruling that was clearly incorrect? That is, what stops the court from just wildly ruling as it sees fit? Could it make absolutely any ruling it wanted to, with no fear of being overturned?

 

Well, no.

 

In practice, as Merlyn says, the President and Congress have to defer to court rulings on what the law means. But that will work only so long as the country in general ascribes such power to the court. The court itself is very conscious of this fact, and is careful to make rulings only in areas where it is perceived to have the authority to do so. So I don't think we're in any danger of having the court declare the first amendment to be null and void, or to declare that the Constitution grants the Supreme Court emergency martial law authority. The system is just constructed in a way that won't allow that to happen.

 

But why not? What would happen if it did? What if five members of the court became partly senile and started issuing bizarre rulings?

 

They would be impeached. Now, as TheScout notes, impeachment is supposed to be for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". But in practice, the Congress has sole authority in this matter, and as Gerald Ford said in 1960, "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

 

Not everyone who has been impeached has been guilty of a crime.

 

The Supreme Court itself has ruled that impeachment cannot be appealed to the courts.

 

Our system, in the end, provides more power to the legislative branch than to the other two branches. And that's appropriate. It is a far broader base, and its decisions cannot easily be swayed just by changing a few minds. If two-thirds of the Senate agree on something, it's a good bet that it's popular with the rest of the country. They hardly get that kind of agreement on any substantial political issue.

 

Congress can make the laws. It can override the President's veto. It can impeach the President or the Supreme Court. The final ultimate power actually rests with the state legislatures, which have the ability to amend the Constitution. But even here, in practice, the Congress has most of the authority to do the amending.

 

So yes, you might think that the Supreme Court has stepped slightly outside its bounds. But if it stepped way outside its bounds, it would get slapped down.

 

Oak Tree(This message has been edited by Oak Tree)

[TheScout]

Merlyn, you didn't answer my question either. I asked what should the President and Congress do if the SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment does not apply any more in any cases. If they completly invalidate it.

 

The Supreme Court does not have less power then the other branches. It has the same. All branches have the duty to judge the constitutionality of any measure. You try to raise the Supreme Court up as a super branch which can audit the rest of the government with no appeal. That was not the intent of the constitution.

 

Recall Mr. Jefferson wrote,

 

"[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

 

And where exactly does the Constitution say the Supreme Court has the power to strike down laws?

 

Oak Tree,

 

You present interesting analysis and for the most part I agree.

 

I am though not aware of any impeachment for incompetence, I thought they were all for criminal actions. Impeachment is not like a vote of no confidence.

 

Nonetheless, if the SCOTUS does issue a bizzare ruling, I am sure you do not believe the President is bound to enforce it until Congress gets around to impeachment and removal. They might no even be in session.

 

 

Lastly some more insight from Mr. Jefferson,

 

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

[TheScout]

Merlyn, you didn't answer my question either. I asked what should the President and Congress do if the SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment does not apply any more in any cases. If they completly invalidate it.

 

The Supreme Court does not have less power then the other branches. It has the same. All branches have the duty to judge the constitutionality of any measure. You try to raise the Supreme Court up as a super branch which can audit the rest of the government with no appeal. That was not the intent of the constitution.

 

Recall Mr. Jefferson wrote,

 

"[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

 

And where exactly does the Constitution say the Supreme Court has the power to strike down laws?

 

Oak Tree,

 

You present interesting analysis and for the most part I agree.

 

I am though not aware of any impeachment for incompetence, I thought they were all for criminal actions. Impeachment is not like a vote of no confidence.

 

Nonetheless, if the SCOTUS does issue a bizzare ruling, I am sure you do not believe the President is bound to enforce it until Congress gets around to impeachment and removal. They might no even be in session.

 

 

Lastly some more insight from Mr. Jefferson,

 

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout, I *did* answer your question; the SC has said in a number of cases that the first amendment doesn't apply. If the SC (for no apparent reason) decided the first amendment doesn't apply anywhere, I don't much care what the other branches of government do, And no, that isn't a flippant answer.

 

Now, would you answer my question? Why does the SC issue rulings if, in your view, they can be ignored? Are they like movie reviewers? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)