Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 35,378
- 20,137
- 1,915
With regard to his majority opinion on the Affordable Healthcare Act, the Chief Justice wrote that It is not our job to protect the people from the consequence of their actions.
I found such a comment coming from a Supreme Court Justice remarkable given that the SCOTUS has bitterly held within the power grab that occurred in Marbury v Madison. Since that ruling, it has been the purpose of the Supreme Court to act as a check against the abuses of the other two branches of government.
I have been wondering how it is then, that the Chief Justice can reconcile his position?
Consider the structure of our country. We are not a democracy, and though we use a democratic process to elect our Representatives, we are still a Representative Republic. This means that with no exceptions, we elect people to perform duties for society as outlined by our Constitution and established laws. With very few exceptions, there is little option on removing an elected official from office short of waiting for his or her term to end. This means that they hold some extraordinary power. This power can be easily corrupted. Enter the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch. Both these branches of the government act as a check to curb corruption and power grabs by the Congress. In light of this information, the Chief justices written opinion begins to approach absurdity.
If a Congress were elected that decided to repeal the 13th amendment to the Constitution, would it be the job of the Supreme Court to allow this to happen; because it is not their job to protect the people from the consequences of their actions?
If Congress decided to pass a law that invalidated Brown vs. The Board of Education, the Supreme Court would, and then have nothing say the matter; they cannot protect the people from the consequences of electing leaders who will write legislation to negate the ruling.
In Marbury vs. Madison, the Supreme Court took the reins of judicial review as its power against the Congress.
Original jurisdiction -- the power to bring cases directly to the Supreme Court -- was the only jurisdictional matter dealt with by the Constitution itself. According to Article III, it applied only to cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls" and to cases "in which the state shall be party." By extending the Court's original jurisdiction to include cases like Marbury's, Congress had exceeded it authority. And when an act of Congress is in conflict with the Constitution, it is, Marshall said, the obligation of the Court to uphold the Constitution because, by Article VI, it is the "supreme law of the land." (THE SUPREME COURT, 2006)
Since it is universally agreed upon that the Supreme Court does indeed have the authority to act in protection of the Constitution, Chief Justice Roberts assertion can only be interpreted as wrong.
I realize that there are a number of people on the Conservative side trying to put as positive a spin as possible on this ruling, but the facts cannot be denied. The Chief Justice was incorrect in his assertion that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to protect the people from a power hungry, abusive Congress. His correct assessment that the mandate is un-Constitutional because the Commerce Clause does not give the Congress power to penalize economic inactivity, and this legislation is clearly an abuse of power by the Congress. Furthermore, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to rewrite the law so that it can pass the smell test of Constitutionality. At best, the most that they could have done was send it back to Congress and tell them to rewrite it.
Do not allow the possibility that there is now a solid political point that can be used against the President to cloud your judgment on this. The Chief Justice is clearly wrong and showed a level of incompetence, if not outright activism, in his ruling.
THE SUPREME COURT. (2006). Landmark Cases. The Supreme Court . The Court and Democracy . Landmark Cases . Marbury v. Madison (1803) | PBS
I found such a comment coming from a Supreme Court Justice remarkable given that the SCOTUS has bitterly held within the power grab that occurred in Marbury v Madison. Since that ruling, it has been the purpose of the Supreme Court to act as a check against the abuses of the other two branches of government.
I have been wondering how it is then, that the Chief Justice can reconcile his position?
Consider the structure of our country. We are not a democracy, and though we use a democratic process to elect our Representatives, we are still a Representative Republic. This means that with no exceptions, we elect people to perform duties for society as outlined by our Constitution and established laws. With very few exceptions, there is little option on removing an elected official from office short of waiting for his or her term to end. This means that they hold some extraordinary power. This power can be easily corrupted. Enter the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch. Both these branches of the government act as a check to curb corruption and power grabs by the Congress. In light of this information, the Chief justices written opinion begins to approach absurdity.
If a Congress were elected that decided to repeal the 13th amendment to the Constitution, would it be the job of the Supreme Court to allow this to happen; because it is not their job to protect the people from the consequences of their actions?
If Congress decided to pass a law that invalidated Brown vs. The Board of Education, the Supreme Court would, and then have nothing say the matter; they cannot protect the people from the consequences of electing leaders who will write legislation to negate the ruling.
In Marbury vs. Madison, the Supreme Court took the reins of judicial review as its power against the Congress.
Original jurisdiction -- the power to bring cases directly to the Supreme Court -- was the only jurisdictional matter dealt with by the Constitution itself. According to Article III, it applied only to cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls" and to cases "in which the state shall be party." By extending the Court's original jurisdiction to include cases like Marbury's, Congress had exceeded it authority. And when an act of Congress is in conflict with the Constitution, it is, Marshall said, the obligation of the Court to uphold the Constitution because, by Article VI, it is the "supreme law of the land." (THE SUPREME COURT, 2006)
Since it is universally agreed upon that the Supreme Court does indeed have the authority to act in protection of the Constitution, Chief Justice Roberts assertion can only be interpreted as wrong.
I realize that there are a number of people on the Conservative side trying to put as positive a spin as possible on this ruling, but the facts cannot be denied. The Chief Justice was incorrect in his assertion that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to protect the people from a power hungry, abusive Congress. His correct assessment that the mandate is un-Constitutional because the Commerce Clause does not give the Congress power to penalize economic inactivity, and this legislation is clearly an abuse of power by the Congress. Furthermore, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to rewrite the law so that it can pass the smell test of Constitutionality. At best, the most that they could have done was send it back to Congress and tell them to rewrite it.
Do not allow the possibility that there is now a solid political point that can be used against the President to cloud your judgment on this. The Chief Justice is clearly wrong and showed a level of incompetence, if not outright activism, in his ruling.
THE SUPREME COURT. (2006). Landmark Cases. The Supreme Court . The Court and Democracy . Landmark Cases . Marbury v. Madison (1803) | PBS