As printed in the newspaper column: A Voice In The Mountains, By Alan D. Turner
CHECKS AND BALANCES
This article is a continuation of a discussion of how our Judicial Branch has been allowed to shape law, even though they have no actual lawmaking authority. (Side-note: This article is mainly about our federal Supreme Court, but it also occurs in our lower courts as well, just not on as a grand scale.)
This past week the Senate Judiciary Committee began their process of the appointment of a new U. S. Supreme Court Justice, nominated by the President. During the confirmation hearing the Senators who oppose her appointment, over and over again kept asking for her personal opinion on social issues that may be brought before the Supreme Court for their judicial opinion.
These requests were all met with the same answer by the nominee: That the personal opinion of the Justices has no bearing on their decisions. That they are to make their legal decisions based entirely on the written law. In more particular – for the U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Our written Constitutional Law, as understood within our U.S. Constitution as written and understood by the original writers.
This answer was the correct answer: For our Supreme Court Justices sole duty is to only hear cases that pertain to issues related to the Constitution. Their decisions on all matters (governmental, social, religious, etc.) are to be based solely upon our Constitution. Any and all personal beliefs or ideologies are to be left out of their decision making process.
Whatever the Supreme Court decides based upon their interpretation of our Constitution, and/or its Amendments, or derived Laws; everyone then becomes bound by that precedent ruling. Until the higher court changes the ruling (or the law itself is changed), the binding precedent is authoritative on the meaning of the law. Which is why it is vital that our laws be interpreted as understood by those who originally wrote it, or otherwise you could have an ever changing set of laws, based upon an ever changing set of values and understandings; resulting in no stability of the rule of law of our land.
Because the U. S. Supreme Court is the highest court in our country, and these Supreme Justices’ rulings cannot be appealed by any other courts; it has given them the ability to profoundly shape public policy (in essence – to make or change law).
With that said, this ability to shape policy (or law) is not just a result of these Justices acting upon their authority to interpret law, but it is also the lack of our Congress to act upon their authority to address the reasoning that the Justices used to profoundly change or nullify a law that should have been left alone; or, even worse to make a law that should not have been made at all.
Our Constitution does not give any one of the three branches of our Federal Government (President, Congress, and Judicial) complete and unchallengeable authority over the others. There are within our Constitutional Law a set of checks and balances.
Each branch exercises certain powers that can be checked by the powers given to the other two branches. This balance of power serves as a check on possible abuses of power by the other. This set of checks and balances include that of the authority given to our Supreme Court to interpret our laws, does not give them “the final word” on any and all matters that come before their court to hear.
So, when you hear such things as “The decision by our Supreme Court is settled or established law, or – it is now the law of the land”; it is only because their decision has not been successfully challenged (or addressed) by one of the two other branches, mainly the Congress.
Within our Constitution the following are the checks and balances that exist concerning the Judicial Branch (The U. S. Supreme Court):
Congress can change the law on which a court decision (or order) was based.
Congress can remove Judges through impeachment and conviction (to offset a lifetime appointment).
When a vacancy on a court arises, the President can appoint (with Senate approval) a more favorable judge.
The number, jurisdiction, and composition of federal courts are set and can be changed by the Congress.
The Constitution can be amended through a process involving Congress and the States (*).
(* Such occurred to abolished slavery: Which when slavery was affirmed by the Supreme Court, when they reasoned that black people were not protected by our laws, because though they were actually born in America, they were not listed as being Citizens. So, Congress abolished slavery by amending our Constitution, wherein they confirmed that all those born in America were automatically Citizens, including black people.)
With the ability to challenge the decisions of our Supreme Court, why then have our Congress conceded their rightful place of authority as the only branch of our Government given the responsibility to make our Constitutional Law, which all of our other laws are subject to?
I believe the reasoning for many of those in our Congress relinquishing this responsibility, is because they believe that by default it relinquishes their accountability to us the voters, who voted them into office to make and enforce our laws. In doing so – they have attempted to make the courts (especially the Supreme Court) their escape goal.
This relinquishing is a way of avoiding the hard task of standing up for what you claim to believe in (whether it is a true core belief or just a hollow talking point on the campaign stump).
This belief of relinquishing their accountability by any politicians (be it for those already in office or running for the office of Presidency, Congress, or any other State or local municipal position) must not go without consequences. “We The People”, that these politicians are to represent, must never relinquish our authority over them. If they will not be “our voice”, then we must replace them with someone who will.
The people of America (Christians, in particular) must understand that when you vote for an individual politician (or party); especially for the higher federal political offices, you are accountable for their actions (or lack thereof). As the courts are not our politicians’ escape goals, nor are the politicians yours. We are all accountable to our God for all of our decisions, including on whom (and what) we vote for.
You may disagree with me, but this is THIS ONE MAN’S OPINION. Please continue to read this column, as I continue to discuss subjects that matter to my God, to all of us, to all of our families, and to everyone else.
For comment just respond in the reply section below.
10/18/2020 — adt
Recent Comments