Folks, the Supreme Court was not given the Authority to decide the Constitutionality of any law beyond the Judiciary. Under the Constitution, it is a complete fallacy that the role of the Supreme Court is to decide what is, and is not, Constitutional, for either of the other equal branches.
The Supreme Court claimed that power in Marbury v. Madison - they elevated themselves above the Executive and Legislative. It was a power play and it worked.
Period.
And the Federalists were the first group to use that fallacy as a weapon. Today it is the sine qua non, the nuclear weapon, with which the Enemies of Liberty have gutted the republic. The moment that We the People understand that the limits of the Judiciary extend only to the Judiciary, and can not bind the Executive or Legislative, then the power to enslave Citizens dies instantly.
Until you understand that fundamental fact there can be no forward progress toward Restoration. Scroll through the BlogRoll on the far right column and look at how many of "our" Bloggers buy into the premise that the Framers intended that the Supreme Court could shut down either the Executive or Legislative. It only gets worse as you look into the "NRA-Type" Bloggers who believe it to be Gospel.
My disappointment is profound. If our Community is the most ardent group who intend to support and defend the Constitution, yet we do not understand it at a fundamental level, what's the f'n point?
Such people have permitted the Constitution to be defined for them, rather than simply reading the text and using their own braincase. You were told in elementary school that the branches of Government are equal. You were told that one of the vital "Checks and Balances" between the Branches is that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is, and is not, Constitutional.
Connect those dots and tell me the arithmetic works. It does not.
By the way, those same teachers also told you Lincoln was a great man, and the Constitution is a Living Document.
Consider: Jefferson believed there was a horizontal set of checks and balances, with the three branches checking each other, though only "in their own sphere of action."
The Judiciary could overrule a lower court on a case. It could not, in his opinion, rule on acts of the Legislature or Executive.
The Executive could refuse to implement a law it believed to be unconstitutional.
Jefferson also believed there was a vertical set of checks and balances. States are bound by the Constitution as well, but a state could refuse to comply with a Federal law it considered unconstitutional.
All powers not expressly granted to the Federal government were reserved for the states; states could enact their own laws about matters over which the Federal government has no jurisdiction.
In support of this I offer an excerpt from one letter from Jefferson to Mrs. John Adams regarding the Sedition Acts: You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the Sedition law.
But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them.
The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because the power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to them by the Constitution.
That instrument meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.
But the 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.
No wonder so many people in our community despise the Constitution - they have no idea how it is supposed to work, on the most fundamental level.
When I say that the US Constitution is the finest document ever created by Man as a tool for a People of Liberty to self-govern, I have no doubt. Perhaps those who disagree with me would change their minds if they'd take a few minutes to read and understand the darned document, instead of loving the Supreme Court when they rule in favor of 2A and hating the Court when they rule Against 2A.
You see, folks, the Supreme Court has no business in 2A, or 1A, or HealthCare...not when it comes to nine people telling us what the Constitution means and forcing us to abide their will. If you cheer when SCOTUS crushes ObamaCare, you'd better not grumble when they support the next AWB. See, you've already bought into the premise. It was never set up that way to begin with...no matter what your school teachers, or the Establishment, or the Court may tell you.
If the Framers had wanted an Oligarchy, they'd have written a much shorter document.
Kerodin
III
