I submit that the fix needs to go farther than just a new Pres and a conservative majority in both houses. Once those elements are in place, what is needed is some amendments to the Constitution to close some of the most egregiously-abused loopholes the Supreme Court has been able to 'find' (invent) with clearer language that restores things to the way they were intended to be.
Stop the abuse of the Commerce Clause to mean all things based on any rationale at all, and the 'promote the general welfare' clause to be infinitely expansive, among other things. The Supreme Court cannot claim a Constitutional Amendment is unconstitutional. We just have to remove the wriggle room.
As comforting as that may feel, now is not the time to give up and tune out. The assault is not over. It will continue until we have achieved a conservative majority in at least one house of Congress. And the abuses may get worse. We must be vigilant and active, because there is still much more that can be lost in what may turn out to be a very long and grueling 7 months.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The Power to Choose Members of SCOTUS is Important
What do you think is the single most enduring impact our choice for president can have on our country?
I mean as a general principle, what is the most far-reaching thing a president is empowered to do?
I have believed for awhile that it is his (or her) authority to select federal court judges, and supreme court justices. I was shocked to learn just how quickly the judiciary started taking this country down the wrong path, and how persistent it has been on that path as an institution, worshiping at the altar of "precedent".
The authority to appoint judges and justices "for life", with no recourse for their bad decisions and attacks on the constitution they swore to defend except impeachment, which has been used way too little anyway, has led to disastrous consequences that have far outlived the presidents who made the appointments, or even the judges/justices who made the decisions.
I have begun to think this is the single most important thing to consider when choosing a president.
His policy leanings can be largely checked by a resistant Congress (hopefully starting in January for this case). But if he puts in place a judiciary, from which there is no appeal except by amending the constitution, a judiciary that will turn its head and refuse to defend the constitution, that can change things for generations.
A new congress can repeal Obamacare (the purported "benefits" of which won't even begin to take effect until 2014) and replace it with something reasonable. If Obama won't sign that, then his replacement can in 2013, if we choose wisely. A really strong opposition congress can even begin to refuse to allocate the money for it sooner than that, even if it means shutting down the federal government to call his bluff - (and maybe save some $ along the way???).
My greatest fear right now is whether, and how many, federal judiciary appointments, and particularly how many Supreme Court appointments, Obama may have the opportunity to fill in the remainder of his lame duck presidency.
To learn more about what an out-of-control judiciary, which is not effectively 'checked and balanced' by either of the other two branches of government, can mean, I commend to you another book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution".
I mean as a general principle, what is the most far-reaching thing a president is empowered to do?
I have believed for awhile that it is his (or her) authority to select federal court judges, and supreme court justices. I was shocked to learn just how quickly the judiciary started taking this country down the wrong path, and how persistent it has been on that path as an institution, worshiping at the altar of "precedent".
The authority to appoint judges and justices "for life", with no recourse for their bad decisions and attacks on the constitution they swore to defend except impeachment, which has been used way too little anyway, has led to disastrous consequences that have far outlived the presidents who made the appointments, or even the judges/justices who made the decisions.
I have begun to think this is the single most important thing to consider when choosing a president.
His policy leanings can be largely checked by a resistant Congress (hopefully starting in January for this case). But if he puts in place a judiciary, from which there is no appeal except by amending the constitution, a judiciary that will turn its head and refuse to defend the constitution, that can change things for generations.
A new congress can repeal Obamacare (the purported "benefits" of which won't even begin to take effect until 2014) and replace it with something reasonable. If Obama won't sign that, then his replacement can in 2013, if we choose wisely. A really strong opposition congress can even begin to refuse to allocate the money for it sooner than that, even if it means shutting down the federal government to call his bluff - (and maybe save some $ along the way???).
My greatest fear right now is whether, and how many, federal judiciary appointments, and particularly how many Supreme Court appointments, Obama may have the opportunity to fill in the remainder of his lame duck presidency.
To learn more about what an out-of-control judiciary, which is not effectively 'checked and balanced' by either of the other two branches of government, can mean, I commend to you another book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)