Thursday, March 24, 2005
A Constitutional Republic No More
Can we be honest? America jumped the shark yesterday. Oh, we're not done yet. And maybe there is hope for the future. But the recent Schiavo case has shown that we are no longer a constitutional republic. I am completely serious.
And it has nothing to do with the facts of the Schiavo case. I believe it is morally and ethically wrong to kill her. However, I am not referring to that. You can disagree about Congress getting involved. I am not referring to that, although those who invoke states rights (see previous post) disturb me.
I am referring to the fact that the judiciary rules by an unchecked fiat. So much so, that judges, not laws, are the highest authority. There have always been poor rulings. And since Marbury vs. Madison, we've generally recognized the right of the judiciary to knock down unconstitutional laws. But it has now gotten to a dangerous point.
Congress passed a law within their Constitutional rights to require a de novo by the federal courts of the Schiavo case. (Remember, just because you may disagree about the Schiavo case, don't miss my larger point about the judiciary. Replace "Schiavo case" with "Taco Bell lawsuit" if it works for you.) The federal courts have ignored it. The law required a new trial. The original language of the bill had language about putting the feeding tube back in. According to Sen. Santorum, they thought the language was superfluous. Why? Common freaking sense. A new trial requires her to be alive.
Someone on the radio said it best. This is a stunning act of arrogance.
This case has seen state courts ignore and overturn Florida laws.
So I ask: are we still a nation ruled by laws? Do we have a balance of power?
There are historic reasons for this, and I am in no mood to pull punches. The governmental strategy of the left is "by any means necessary." If you can legislate, fine. If you can't, referendum. If you can't do that, use the courts. Ignore the Constitution.
That's why liberals are afraid of conservative judges. They view judges as policy makers. We view them as interpreters of law. Many on the left assume we want to put right-wing counterparts to liberal judges. No. No more judicial fiat decisions. I could care less if the judge is a socialist if they would simply interpret the law as it was meant to be interpreted.
Hugh Hewitt details how the Schiavo case is a constitutional travesty.
Ann Coulter says pretty much the same thing with more sarcasm, although she has a great idea. Make judges wear green leisure suits instead of black robes.
Bill Bennet and Brian Kennedy argue that Jeb Bush should send in the National Guard. Why? In 2003 (I think) Florida passed a law saving Terri which was summarily overturned by the judiciary citing separation of powers. In other words, we'll legislate just fine thanks.
Can we be honest? America jumped the shark yesterday. Oh, we're not done yet. And maybe there is hope for the future. But the recent Schiavo case has shown that we are no longer a constitutional republic. I am completely serious.
And it has nothing to do with the facts of the Schiavo case. I believe it is morally and ethically wrong to kill her. However, I am not referring to that. You can disagree about Congress getting involved. I am not referring to that, although those who invoke states rights (see previous post) disturb me.
I am referring to the fact that the judiciary rules by an unchecked fiat. So much so, that judges, not laws, are the highest authority. There have always been poor rulings. And since Marbury vs. Madison, we've generally recognized the right of the judiciary to knock down unconstitutional laws. But it has now gotten to a dangerous point.
Congress passed a law within their Constitutional rights to require a de novo by the federal courts of the Schiavo case. (Remember, just because you may disagree about the Schiavo case, don't miss my larger point about the judiciary. Replace "Schiavo case" with "Taco Bell lawsuit" if it works for you.) The federal courts have ignored it. The law required a new trial. The original language of the bill had language about putting the feeding tube back in. According to Sen. Santorum, they thought the language was superfluous. Why? Common freaking sense. A new trial requires her to be alive.
Someone on the radio said it best. This is a stunning act of arrogance.
This case has seen state courts ignore and overturn Florida laws.
So I ask: are we still a nation ruled by laws? Do we have a balance of power?
There are historic reasons for this, and I am in no mood to pull punches. The governmental strategy of the left is "by any means necessary." If you can legislate, fine. If you can't, referendum. If you can't do that, use the courts. Ignore the Constitution.
That's why liberals are afraid of conservative judges. They view judges as policy makers. We view them as interpreters of law. Many on the left assume we want to put right-wing counterparts to liberal judges. No. No more judicial fiat decisions. I could care less if the judge is a socialist if they would simply interpret the law as it was meant to be interpreted.
Hugh Hewitt details how the Schiavo case is a constitutional travesty.
Ann Coulter says pretty much the same thing with more sarcasm, although she has a great idea. Make judges wear green leisure suits instead of black robes.
Bill Bennet and Brian Kennedy argue that Jeb Bush should send in the National Guard. Why? In 2003 (I think) Florida passed a law saving Terri which was summarily overturned by the judiciary citing separation of powers. In other words, we'll legislate just fine thanks.
