Written April 15, 2018
Confusion about the role of the Supreme Court is surprisingly widespread, even though their role is very simple to understand.
In sports, like baseball, basketball, football, and hockey there is a rule making body. They determine the rules of the game. The rule making committee equates to the Federal legislative branch of government - the House of Representatives and the Senate).
In sports, the rules created by the above rule making body determine what can and can’t be done and who can and can’t do things on the field of play. These rules equate to federal laws - these include the U.S. Constitution and all the federal laws passed over the past 200+ years.
In sports, the rules are enforced by the umpires and referees. Umpires and referees do one thing - they enforce the rules passed by the rule making committee. An umpire can’t decide 6 balls qualify as a walk or 1 strike is a strikeout. A football referee cannot decide a touchdown is worth 34 points. In the same way, the Supreme Court is supposed to use the U.S. Constitution and federal law to decide constitutional cases.
Simple enough?
Supreme Court justices are not to decide cases based on their feelings or their personal preferences.
Let me give you two examples to drive home my point - gun control and abortion - but first, you need to know the role of the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is a document that establishes the role of our Federal government - the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches. It clearly describes what each branch can do. If the Constitution does not assign a specific responsibility to the federal government - the federal government DOES NOT have jurisdiction. This is key! To make this FACT crystal clear, the Bill of Rights was passed.
The Bill of Rights simply reemphasizes that the federal government has been assigned specific responsibilities and it cannot pass laws outside those assigned to them. It says, I don’t care how much you want to - you cannot pass anything related to speech, the press, assembly, guns, religion, etc.
If that isn’t clear enough - we have the 10th amendment that says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Wow! The 10th Amendment is powerful!
How much clearer does our Constitution need to be. If case you missed this, it says that if the Constitution doesn’t delegate powers to the federal government - they don’t get to pass laws on those issues. It is none of their business.
So, let’s think about how this applies to guns. The federal government cannot pass laws about guns - end of conversation.
The federal government has absolutely no role to play regarding gun ownership within a state.
Now, can a state pass laws regarding gun ownership?
To answer this, you need to reference the constitutions of each individual state. If a state constitution does not protect the right to keep and bear arms, then yes, a state’s legislature can pass gun control measures within the state’s jurisdiction. The Bill of Rights does NOT create the right to keep and bear arms - it simply says the federal government cannot pass gun laws.
What about abortion? There is no mention of abortion in the U.S. Constitution. So what does this mean? It means our federal government cannot pass laws regarding abortion. The federal government cannot protect the life of unborn babies, and they cannot create a right of a woman to abort an unborn baby. There is no such thing as a “penumbra”.
Now, can a state pass laws regarding abortion? Again, you need to reference the constitutions of each individual state. If a state constitution does not address abortion (which most don’t), it becomes a state legislative issue. The citizens in the states, through their representatives, decide whether it is legal.
I just described how our Republican form of government was intended to work. It is a BRILLIANT form of government!
But of course, our liberal friends don’t like our form of government. How can I say liberals don’t like our form of government? Do you promise to fundamentally change something you love? I don’t believe so. Anyway, back to my point. Liberals want judges and justices to decide cases based on their personal opinions - provided the judges and justices are liberal. We call these types of judges - activists.
Our activists justices are Ruth Bader Ginsburg (when she’s awake), Stephen Bryer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagen. They make decisions based on identity politics and liberal dogma - not on law. This is very dangerous to a Republic. Republics mean the people and their representatives decide the laws we live under - not 5 of 9 elitists in black robes.
Our conservative friends want judges and justices to decide cases based on the U.S. Constitution and our federal laws. We call these types of justices - judges. Liberals call them conservatives as a pejorative.
Our justices who generally decide cases based on law are Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.
Donald Trump has an opportunity to appoint another justice who will judge based on the U.S. Constitution and the law - not on his/her personal whim. Let’s hope he chooses well, like he did with Neil Gorsuch.
Viva la Trump!
No comments:
Post a Comment