Ah, That Quaint Notion Of "Checks And Balances"...

[filkertom]

Or "separation of powers". Or "law". Or "honor". Or, apparently, the ability to read the Constitution.

"When the courts make unconstitutional decisions, we should not enforce them. Federal courts have no army or navy… The court can opine, decide, talk about, sing, whatever it wants to do. We're not saying they can't do that. At the end of the day, we're saying the court can't enforce its opinions."

Care to guess who said that, and where, and when? I'll make it easy for you. It was last month, at a special legislative briefing of the Christian Coalition.

The speaker was... ready?... a US Congressman.

To be specific, Rep. John Hostettler, R-Indiana. If the name sounds familiar, that's because he was caught carrying a loaded pistol onto a plane in his carry-on luggage.

Your moral leaders, ladies and gentlemen.

Comments

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

When you want to move over here to Blighty, just tell them you're Albanian with no papers and they'll sign you right in, Sir....

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

It isn't even original. Andrew Jackson was considerably more concise about it.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Indeed, and the political blogs have picked up on this point as well.

For those who don't know, Jackson was an opponent of the Supreme Court ruling that declared the Indian Removal Act of 1830 unconstitutional. The money quote: "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" This led to the infamous Trail of Tears.

You can read more about it at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Indian_Removal_Act_of_1830).

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Or "separation of powers". Or "law". Or "honor". Or, apparently, the ability to read the Constitution.

Um, Tom, watch that. The power of judicial review is not written in law, or in the Constitution. It is an assumed power, first taken on by the Court in Marbury vs Madison, in 1803.

Hower, you can rest comfortable in something - statements like that are incredibly short-minded. Let's say the current Congress chooses to ignore something from the Court. Times change, and so do Congresses. Eventually, the pendulum swings. And any arch-conservative Bush judiciary appointees will be stuck with a precedent for being ignored!

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with you, but (not having looked up that case yet, and admittedly not being a Constitutional scholar) I wonder if Article 6, Clause 2 has anything to do with that:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Because that would sure sound like the courts determine the laws of the land, and the law enforcement agencies would apply them -- ergo, the courts may not have an army or a navy, but they've got a police force. Thoughts? Interpretations? Am I completely off the beam here?

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Thoughts? Interpretations? Am I completely off the beam here?

Well, clearly the courts don't determine the law - that power is explicitly given to the Legislative branch.

That passage seems to say that the Constitution, Laws, and Treaties made legally by the US are the law of the land, and the courts are bound by that law, no matter what documents might otherwise seem to say. Which to me says that courts are bound to the law, no matter what. Specifically, the judges of the States, rather than the Supreme Court.

This, of course, invites the question - what if a legal document says that, in some way, the courts are not bound to the law? What becomes the status of that document? And, is the order of precedence seen here intentional - Constitution, then Laws, then Treaties, in that order? If so, given that the Court is bound to the Constitution first, what is the status of any Law that is made in conflict with that prime document...?

It brings up the question, but the answer is not explicitly given. It is known that the Founding Fathers discussed judicial review, but it is not known why it isn't in there explicitly. It may be that they felt that it was a "no brainer", so that they didn't feel any need to state it. Not that original intent is necessarily a guide anyway. Some folks like to go by the best understood original intent. Others like strict readings, others loose...

Surely, judicial review is not inconsistent with the language of the Constitution. But nowhere does it say, "The Supreme court shall have the power to declare a Law void if it violates the Constitution." The courts are bound to the law, but nobody says exactly what happens or should be done if the laws of the land are in conflict.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...of course, the good Congressman's words serve to remind me of what other branch of government lacks the power to enforce the laws. Come on, three guesses...begins with an "L"...

I mean, suppose they write what they want us to do, on those cute pieces of paper of theirs, and we ignore them? What are they going to do, take us to court?

[catlin.livejournal.com]

Please tell me said congressman was at least detained, if not arrested? Not like the current republicans obviously care if their men do things blatently illegal.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

When you lose the primacy of the law, you have lost all reason to believe in government. Government lives and breathes by the power of the law. The wise remember this; the foolish die by it.

[arensb.livejournal.com]

This, of course, invites the question

Just as an aside, thank you for not misusing the phrase "begs the question".

[umbran.livejournal.com]

You're welcome.

Sometimes I wonder which should take precedence - traditional definition or colloquial useage. One who does not work with formal logic (meaning almost anyone on the street) probably won't learn the original use of the phrase. And that original use is somewhat contrary to the current definitions of the words. The misuse, "begs (for) the question," is not unreasonable if nobody ever tells you otherwise.

[arensb.livejournal.com]

There was a posting in grammarpolice that said that correcting someone's grammar, spelling, or punctuation should be like pointing out that that person's fly is open. Ideally, people should see it as a way to improve themselves, not as a personal attack by a pedant who should get a life.

In this case, since most people don't know what "begging the question" means in logic, I think you can reasonably correct people when they misuse it, at least the first time.

Or maybe not. Maybe they'll still regard you as an insufferable know-it-all. *Shrug*

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not so much worried about the social aspects of correcting grammar. I'm thinking about the definition of useage.

Yes, a bunch of hoary old professors tend to use the phrase one way. But the rest of the population uses it in another way, without causing confustion to anyone but the hoary old professors. When nigh 300 million people use it one way, and a handful use it another, why are the handful right and the masses incorrect?

Is not the logical useage essentially jargon, which can and should be ignored by the population who don't use that jargon?

I don't know the answer, which is part of the reason I dodged the issue by using a different phrase :)

[arensb.livejournal.com]

When nigh 300 million people use it one way, and a handful use it another, why are the handful right and the masses incorrect?

I see you've stumbled onto the ancient battle between descriptivists and prescriptivists. Back away now, before you get hit by the shrapnel.

(In case you don't know: (AIUI, ICBW, and other disclaimers) a descriptivist dictionary is one that documents how words are used, regardless of how they've been used in the past. A prescriptivist one, on the other hand, takes the more conservative view that if a word means X, but 300M people use it to use Y, well then the people are wrong and that's that.)

Personally, I tend to be rather conservative. I once even considered correcting people who use "nice" to mean "good" rather than "precise", but that's a bit too reactionary even for me. So I'm all in favor of correcting people who say "begs the question" instead of "brings up" or "prompts the question". But I agree that if you're not familiar with the phrase's history, then "begs the question" does sound like an acceptable synonym.

In other words, I have no good advice to give you.