So, apparently the Constitution affirms the right for any two people to apply for and receive a marriage license from the state regardless of little things like whether it is possible for the relationship by nature to produce citizenry (the entire reason for recognizing and privileging marriage in the first place). Thus we have in 11 years turned the entirety of human civilization on its head by saying what is not a marriage is indeed a marriage. Additionally the Supreme Court has determined that the executive branch has the authority to change laws however it wishes.
In National Review [mc_name name=’Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’C001098′ ] takes a shot at putting a check on the supreme court. I had previously mentioned a Congress of Courts where each state supreme court chooses a delegate for a convention with the express purpose of reviewing Supreme Court decisions. However, my suggestion had the drawback of probably not being workable, or of interest to the citizenry. Cruz makes the best suggestion to date by allowing essentially a recall of Supreme Court justices by popular+state vote. Each justice will be up for essentially a recall on an 8 year basis with a popular vote in each state. If the justice fails in both 50%+1 of states and 50%+1 of the popular vote he is removed from office. His suggestion has the following merits:
- It has been proven in our laboratories of democracy (states have implemented this and it is popular)
- It is a slow check (it does not take place immediately after a bad call, but over time)
- It adds no new branch of government
- It does not overly politicize the process (voters do not elect the judiciary, the nomination process remains untouched)
- It appeals to voters by allowing a vote
I do not know whether it is possible for such an effort to come to fruition, but the current court has declared that if the impact of a law is broad enough they will do whatever necessary to uphold the law. The judiciary has at this point ceded to the executive branch not only the power reserved to the states, or the power reserved for the judicial branch, but also the power delegated to the legislative branch. I cannot at this point see any meaningful restraints preventing the executive doing whatever he wishes and tying it to some absurd interpretation of a law, even if the interpretation is the exact opposite of the wording and intent of the law.
The Supreme Court has now decided that we are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of men. Whatever the man in charge decides is the law is in fact the law. This cannot continue. If our form of government is to remain there must be some check on the Executive branch (both the President and the bureaucracy), and that check cannot be entirely removed from the democratic process and only subject to revision at the natural death of a majority of the Supreme Court.
Will the other candidates for president please present their solutions to the current abandonment of the Constitution by those sworn to uphold it?