Courts Overstep Bounds As Usual

8--26--1998

As usual, the other branches of government cower before the courts. This misunderstanding has been going on for nearly two hundred years, and as much as you may dislike (or possibly like) Clinton and his degrading actions, even he should have resisted court challenges to his elected office. Some national commentators have suggested that he has done irreparable harm to the presidency. If only they understood how right they are, but for different reasons than they suspect.

The three branches are supposed to be independent, and that means a president is not bound by judicial rulings - even from the Supreme Court - with which he disagrees. This likewise applies to Congress. The infamous John Marshall court's Marbury v. Madison decision (where the Supreme Court unilaterally declared itself the ultimate and supreme power and arbiter of constitutionality) unfortunately advanced a dangerous precedent. President Thomas Jefferson wouldn't buy it and was wise enough to overrule the principle when, as the nation's supreme executive, he knew better. But over the two intervening centuries the common citizens and other branches of government have knuckled under to the absurd lawyer/judge-supposition of allowing the courts, especially the Supreme Court, to become the ultimate ruling power in the nation. This was never intended by the Founding Fathers and certainly has no constitutional basis.

It is high time that the nation awoke and overruled the tyranny of the courts. The presidential and congressional branches should lead the way. Just because the courts say it's so doesn't mean that the other branches have to agree OR that they have to bow and scrape to their robed imperial majesties on the benches. Worship of the courts pushes us towards totalitarianism and is a danger to the republic.