The Supreme Court and The Constitution

We’re really bashing the Supreme Court today. Mr. Lytle’s post discussed the Supreme Court’s decision to ban the death penalty for minors. In his post, he mentioned that the Texian Party is officially opposed to the death penalty. We are, but we are not celebrating this decision. While we would like to see an end to capital punishment, we believe that such an end should come about through a democratic process. The Supreme Court is certainly not democratic, another wrong we would like to fix. The Platform Committee of the Texas Heritage Party has recently added a plank to our platform calling for the democratization of the Supreme Court of the United States.

But an undemocratic Court is not the problem here. The problem is the Court’s unique power to declare a law void when it violates the Constitution.

We agree with the Court’s decision in Marbury vs. Madison that it is the “duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is.” The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, any law that conflicts with the Constitution is void, and it is the Court’s job to declare it such. That’s where Marbury vs. Madison stops. We go further. The Texian Party believes that it is not only the Court’s job to declare an act unconstitutional, but every branch’s job.

Under our current system, the power of judicial review is...well...judicial, and only judicial. This gives the Court an extraordinary and, most importantly, unchecked power. In the very intricate system of checks and balances that the Framers created, judicial review is a bulldozer. There must be some kind of check on that power. The President has a check, he can appoint the Justices. Congress has a little say-so in that appointment. The Congress also has the power to propose amendments to the Constitution. But those checks have proven to be inadequate. Especially the latter, it takes two-thirds of both Houses to propose an amendment and three-fourths of the States to ratify it. It only takes five Supreme Court Justices to cause the problem in the first place. So the question arises: who can declare a decision of the Court unconstitutional and void?

The Texian Party believes the Constitution should be amended so that Congress would have the power to overrule a Supreme Court decision by a two-thirds vote, the same super-majority required to override a veto. Such an amendment would restore the balance of power among the branches of the Federal Government.

We also believe that such a power should be wielded by the States. If three-fourths of the States agree that the Supreme Court, or any branch of the Federal Government, violated the Constitution by one of its acts, then that act will be void. Remember that just as the State governments were established to serve the people, the Federal Government was established to serve the States. The States have all agreed to enter the Union with the trust that they and their people would be protected by the Constitution of the United States. If one of the branches of the Federal Government violates the Constitution, and the crime is not quickly resolved, then that trust has also been violated. That would be reason enough for a State to declare that the Union is not protecting the Rights of the State and the State would be better off on its own.

The Texian Party believes that the Federal Government should be made much more democratic and much more respectful of the Rights of the States. We believe this nation is headed down a dangerous path that will turn the Federal Government from a benevolent institution that has kept the Union together for over 200 years and has skillfully used the combined power of the States to spread Freedom and democracy around the world, to a tyranny that will tear our proud and powerful nation apart. This must not be allowed to happen.

–J.E. Heath
Impressed by my wisdom? Get more at per-fidem.org.
Comments? Email us.

Texian Weblog © Copyright 2005, Jason E. Heath