Regardless of your opinion of the bioethics involved in the Terri Schiavo case, there is a very important legal issue arising from this case that will most certainly affect us all. Several members of Congress have taken this case as an opportunity to increase congressional control over the courts by punishing courts that make decisions not in line with their way of thinking.
Our constitution creates only one court, The Supreme Court, and delegates the power to create all "inferior courts" to Congress and because congress controls these courts, it does have the power to cut funds, strip jurisdiction or eliminate certain courts altogether if it can organize a majority that supports such measures. Representative Steve King of Iowa's 5th district and his flock, "The working group on judicial accountability," believe our courts no longer represent the people and should be brought back in line by punishing judges they believe are "legislating from the bench."
King says of our courts, "What we have today is a judicial branch that's totally out of control, a judicial branch that rejects the constitution itself, and it rejected federal law, so it's time for congress to assert its rightful constitutional authority over the courts." King believes Congress has the duty to impose its will, as the directly elected branch of the people, on the courts and keep their rulings in line with popular thinking.
The problem with King's line of thought is the obvious obliteration of checks and balances this type of action would cause. Legally speaking, King is correct: Congress could impose these sanctions and limitations on federal courts; however, to do so would surely undermine the courts' ability to keep their check on congress. Imagine a scenario where congress passes a law, a court rules it unconstitutional and because that court ruled against them, Congress then either eliminates the court or strips away the court's ability to hear cases relevant to that issue. Scary.
Although congress is elected by the people, it only reflects the current will of the majority. It has long been accepted that the courts are not the voice of the majority, but the voice of law. Countless laws have been passed that tread on citizens rights, but these laws went on the books because they were the will of the majority.
It has been the role of the courts to determine if this law is in line with our Constitution and should be allowed to stand. To simply allow the law and nature of our country to change based on a simple majority in one session of Congress and to allow them to strip courts of the power to invoke the Constitution and overturn the sometimes-oppressive voice of the people would mean an end to our government as we know it. The majority would always "win" because courts would be beholden to the party controlling Congress, not to the Constitution that supposedly governs us all.
The group previously referenced who seeks congressional control of our courts includes: Todd Akin of Missouri, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, John Carter of Texas, John Culberson of Texas, Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Tom DeLay of Texas, Tom Feeney of Florida, Walter Jones of North Carolina, Rep. Steve King of Iowa, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado and Joe Wilson of South Carolina.
Call Mike Pence. Tell him you love America and respect our Constitution and system of checks and balances. Tell him you demand that courts maintain their ability to stand up to the gerrymandered majority that now rules our Congress.
Write to Robb at
robb614@aol.com
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
