Out of 16 major American institutions, Congress ranks dead last in the eyes of the American people according to Gallup. Even HMOs are more revered. If Carrot Top and Joey Buttafuoco were elected to Congress, it would improve the legislative branch’s reputation.
The reasons for Congress’ craptacular standing are too long to list here. But some culprits never get blamed, even though they are hiding in plain sight. Chief among them: the U.S. Supreme Court.
Have you ever had a boss who treated you like a child, second-guessed you, reworked whatever you did so that you felt no ownership of the final product? As a result, did you take your job less and less seriously precisely because you knew that whatever you produced wouldn’t really be yours anyway?
Well, the Supreme Court is the boss, and Congress is the Dilbert. There was a time when the U.S. Congress took the Constitution very seriously. Even after Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 case that established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, Congress and the president were still the chief guardians of the Constitution. Indeed, before the Civil War, only two acts of Congress were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
These days, the court seems to find duly enacted laws unconstitutional six days a week and twice on Sunday.
Lawmakers rarely bother their pretty little heads with the Constitution. Rather, they just load as much spit, tar, Vaseline and whatever else they can think of on a legislative fastball and try to get it over Scotus’ plate. If those imperial umpires don’t call a constitutional strike, well, then, voila it must be constitutional.
Presidents are no better. George W. Bush, in his one act that does approach an impeachable offense, signed campaign finance “reform” in 2002 even though he made it clear he thought the law was unconstitutional. At the ceremony, he expressed his “concerns” over the fact that the law — he signed! — “restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election.”
But, have no fear, the super court is here. “I expect,” he explained, “that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.”
No sale. Congressmen, senators and presidents alike swear to protect and defend the same constitution as the Supremes do. In the 19th century, Congress actually debated constitutionality with passion, and if it found a proposed law falling short of that standard, it was fixed or killed, not outsourced to the Supreme Court for retrofitting.
The court, by assuming that responsibility, and the other branches of government, by surrendering it, have permanently damaged the constitutional order. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson believed that a judiciary with final jurisdiction over the constitutionality of presidential and legislative actions “would make the judiciary a despotic branch” of government.
Today, that despot has a name. It’s Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy rules — thanks to his status as the court’s swing vote — as the true King of America.
For example, Congress and the president hammered out a system for treating enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay — at the behest of the court. But that compromise wasn’t to His Majesty’s liking, so it was invalidated anyway in Boumediene v. Bush, which gave members of al-Qaida more rights than captured Nazis in WWII.
Indeed, the whole debate in Congress has been over to what extent the Supreme Court should be running our POW system, not what our POW policy should in fact be.
And just this week, Justice Kennedy issued a diktat in which he quashed Louisiana’s sovereign and popular decision to execute a man for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter in a manner so brutal the details cannot be even hinted at in this space. Why? Not because such executions violate the sensibilities of the public, or the constitutional precedents, or even what Kennedy calls “evolving standards” of decency, but simply because they are at odds with the court’s own sense of lese-majeste.
Supreme Court critic Mark Levin has it right when he says that “every time the Supreme Court meets in secret conference, it sits as a constitutional convention, rewriting the Constitution at will.”
Aside from a legalistic-yet-lawless despotism that makes the meaning of our constitution hinge on how much fiber Justice Kennedy’s diet has on a particular day, the result of this pathetic state of affairs is that the first branch of government doesn't take itself seriously. It is merely a caucus of goodie-givers, sent to Washington to dole out trinkets to whomever it may. At least the president is still charged with life-or-death decisions from time to time. But Congress doesn’t take itself seriously, so who can blame Americans for following its lead?
Contact Goldberg at JonahsColumn@aol.com
amen brother.
I wonder when the Supreme Court is going to hear testimony on steroids in Major League Baseball. Congress has wasted enough time with it...pass it on.
Completely agree. So what do we do about it? There is no candidate on the ballot this November who will even pretend to fix it. Everybody knows how bad Oboy will be, but McClown is every bit as bad. You wouldn't really expect "the Maverick" to appoint judges that would properly understand their job as overturning his landmark repeal of the First Amendment? We have no dog in this hunt, America and the Constitution lose either way for the next four years. How badly the Republican Party will be leaping to the left in four years is the only choice we'll be making this November. If McClown wins, it will be generations before they learn this is the wrong way.
This piece by Goldberg deserves somber reflection. Many today are woefully ignorant of what the constitution says--much less what each Article means. Based on talking heads and writers that support a "progressive" view, the document should be treated as dynamic. This is the stated opinion of our black sheep native son, the former Veep, Al Gore.When one studies the Federalist Papers, along with earlier and later writings by signers, and other well known persons of the time, an appreciation for the battles and struggles that forged the constitution emerges. Never before had such a "near perfect," strictly human document been produced. It was ratified in 1789. Yet, a protection of states rights was soon observed to be missing, or at least not clearly stated. The well known remedy was the "block" of Amendments, i.e. first 10 being ratified effective 12.15.1791. After over 200 years, only 17 additional Amendments have been ratified. This is a remarkable testimony to the foresight exercised/possessed by the framers. Article. V., which provides for Amendments, was doubtlessly designed to preclude ill-advised changes.Article. III. established the judicial powers, including the Supreme Court. Only one Amendment, the 11th, directly impacts the original Article. One with a reasonable, objective reading of the Article would never derive the ABSOLUTE power it now wields.Now, we speak of conservative, liberal, and moderate judges. Such was never the intent. Political leanings likely influenced appointees through even the early years, but we have now reached a point when one of the chief considerations when electing a president is the "type of judges" that will be selected.Our ancestors fled monarchies, and fought to establish independence as a Republic. Now, as aptly pointed at by Goldberg, we have a "King of America," one man who became such de facto, by being the "swing vote."Footnote: Do not expect to learn such information as this in today's public schools. Do they even offer, much less require Civics courses? If so, the revisionists must me busy in that area too.