Supreme Court undermines itself
In this excellent column, George Neumayr of the American Spectator raises a question which I have pondered for many years:
I have fooled around with the idea of a novel based on conflict between a president who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and is charged with national security locked in a struggle with a Supreme Court which has taken for itself the role of deciding how the nation can defend itself against terrorists. I believe that the day is coming where some president or governor is going to stand fast against an egregious decision by the Court which extends far beyond the Court's perogative.
How many armies does the Court have?
If Anthony Kennedy isn't bound by the framers' words, why are the people bound by his?
I have fooled around with the idea of a novel based on conflict between a president who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and is charged with national security locked in a struggle with a Supreme Court which has taken for itself the role of deciding how the nation can defend itself against terrorists. I believe that the day is coming where some president or governor is going to stand fast against an egregious decision by the Court which extends far beyond the Court's perogative.
How many armies does the Court have?
posted by Stan at 7:25 PM
1 Comments:
Didn't Andrew Jackson address this issue with his famous "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it" quote?
I definitely agree that the Supreme Court understands the "Supreme" part of their name but has lost the sense associated with being a "Court."
--Scott
Post a Comment
<< Home