The Supreme Court has few enumerated limitations. Federal judges are expected to adjudicate criminal law and civil statutes – and exercise very little authority beyond those narrow limits.
The Supreme court, however, has carved out a much broader definition for its scope of work. It has gone far afield to redefine the precepts of the Founding Fathers.
Roe v. Wade was a decision made without a basis in the Constitution. The internment of Japanese in World War II occurred without due process simply because of the Supreme Court’s assumption that Japanese Americans might be subversive. Because of a Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, separate but equal became the law of the land.
Many more decisions showed that bias by Supreme Court Judges swayed their interpretation of the Constitution or a deliberate mis-interpretation of the Constitution was made to achieve a political end. Failure of Congress to deal with several issues opened the door for the Supreme Court to introduce these biases.
Presidents offer candidates for justices based on the President’s biases, so judges tend to mimic the biases favorable to the President’s agenda. Justices make interpretations of Constitutional words that benefit their views of how they believe the world should work.
The problem is: that is not their job. Their job is to make judgements based on the relevance of the Constitution to the cases they judge. By re-interpreting the meaning of words, the Supreme Court has opened doors to ever broadening influence.
The Federalist Papers were published to give some meaning and background to the Constitution. Without a recorded definition to words, however, some people believe they can just redefine the words and make a judgement out of fake cloth. If the Supreme Court makes a ruling, who or which branch of government provides a check and balance? The Supreme Court enjoys a benefit that the other two branches of government do not have, namely, a veto-proof decision.
It is time to right the wrong or apply limitations and reviews to the Supreme Court decisions. How do you do that? Mark Levin, in his book The Liberty Amendments, has proposed a potential solution.
He submits that any decision of the Supreme Court be subject to recall by a three fifths majority of Congress or of states and provides a time limit for that action. Mark, however, does not provide a similar solution to the lower courts. The lower courts could take up cases that have just as much bias and create just as bad an opinion - all because Congress fails to do its job or because of personal bias of the judges(s).
One of the goals of the Convention of States is to limit this kind of bias. Limiting bias of the Supreme Court, however, will not limit the bias imposed by the lower courts. What checks and balances do the lower courts have? Should we not also address that issue?
Theoretically, precedence set by the Supreme Court should set guidelines for the lower courts. New York City, however, flaunts the decision of D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago and makes it nearly impossible to license a firearm for self-defense.
States are also a bit wimpy. By the failure of state legislatures to avoid sensitive issues, states have failed to address critical issues in their state. The federal government then feels it has to step in and solve the problem. As we know, whenever the federal government steps in with their one size fits all solution, few people win and most people are unhappy.
States need to step up and tackle problems in their state. If the federal government sues the state, states can elevate the decision to the Supreme Court where they can then have a veto power – if most states agree.
The Constitution enumerates the powers assigned to the three branches of government and places limits on those powers. Of course, the viewpoint of the Constitution was 1776 and reflects the Founders views at that time. They were concerned, however, that one branch of government could gain inordinate influence over the other branches. None could have foreseen the shenanigans that have been promoted to get around the limitations as set forth in the Constitution.
It is time for a Convention of States to update those limitations and bring government back into control of, for, and by the people. Article V of the Constitution allows the states to call a Convention of States to propose amendments when necessary. It is now necessary and time is of the essence. Call your state representatives today, and request that they back a Convention of States.
