Why Obey The Supreme Court?

American Thinker ^ | 7/3/06 | Steven M. Warshawsky

[RepublicanPatriot]

The Hamdan decision is part of a larger pattern whereby elite liberal institutions, e.g., the Supreme Court and the New York Times, increasingly consider themselves to be the supreme arbiters of the national interest, and to be authorized to undermine the policies and decisions made by the elected branches of the federal government. At some point, the federal government and the American people have to stop “enabling” this harmful behavior. That point is now.

[William Tell]

John Valentine said: "It is the Supreme Court in Hamdan that grants Al Qaeda the status of a nation, not conservaties offended by the decision."

You'll have to be more specific at how this is the case.

I know of no prisoner for whom it is claimed the prisoner was detained in a nation called "Al Qaeda". Some in Afghanistan, some in Iraq, others in various nations. We shouldn't confuse ourselves regarding what is happening.

The US has been detaining people captured in various nations, most of them not wearing a military uniform, many not acting under the direct control of the government of the nation in which they have been detained.

I see no indications that Congress is without the power to enact rules which will cause the trials of these people to proceed exactly as Bush would have them proceed. The difference will be that Congress will have to be explicit regarding the process.

Am I mistaken here? Is there some judicial outcome that cannot be accomplished with Congress dictating how this shall be done?

[tpaine]

Tree of Liberty asks:

Where do they [SCOTUS] derive the authority to nullify or amend laws?"

W Tell answers:

From Article III, Section 2:"... the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
The Constitution explicitly permits the Supreme Court to rule on the Law. It is not reasonable to expect that the Constitution will be the supreme law of the land and also expect that any legislation whatever is not in conflict with it.

Exactly. Legislators at every level of government make laws that conflict with our Constitutions protections of life, liberty, or property, -- laws that infringe on due process. -- We have the right to petition lesser courts, and then the USSC for redress.

The amendment process is available whenever Congress desires to modify the Constitution. Otherwise, their legislation must be in accordance with it.
I am no expert in this matter, but even where the Supreme Court is denied appellate power, that does not necessarily imply that lower courts would be denied jurisdiction. Every court has the duty to say what the law is.

And the duty to inform jurors if a law is constitutionally questionable.

If the officers of the court have taken an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution", then I will not find myself surprised if they occasionally find that legislation is not Constitutional. That is their duty.

All government officials at every level are sworn to that same Art VI oath, though we find few who honor it.

The only reason that people don't focus on the "judicial review" of the lower courts is that the Supreme Court typically has the last word and lower courts will often defer to their prior decisions. The Nuremberg trials made quite clear that judges have duties that transend just blindly applying legislation.

The Nuremberg trials made it clear that just following "the law" as written is not enough.. -- Some 'laws' are obviously repugnant to our constitutional principles, -- just as some orders are obviously repugnant to our rules of war, --- and those who blindly obey such orders or laws can be brought to trial themselves.

I fail to see what all the concern is about.
The idea that the President has unchecked power to simply take prisoners and execute them off the battlefield is repugnant. And yet, without the power of Congress to legislate otherwise, the President would have that power.
One of the articles I read contained the surprising assertion that we should be able to treat Al Qaeda as if it were a nation because it had declared war against us. People seem to want to have the outcome they desire with very little logical consistency.

This nation started its life in the midst of a centuries long war against 'Indian' terrorists.
We detained, brought them to trial, and hung a lot of them over the years..
I see no reason to treat Muslim terrorists any different.

[calmseas]

It has been said that "we get the government that we deserve." Never has there been a political adage that rang more true. The problem of government losing touch with the people is as much a symptom of people losing touch with the government as it is a problem in its own right.

This is still a representative democracy. If all of those apathetic voters would get off their rear ends and VOTE, there would be meaningful change in Washington and, with a little more time, among the Supreme Court. We have the capacity to hold our elected and unelected officials responsible. We just need to be involved in the process.

The spectrum of citizens is interesting: On the one end we have the soldier in Iraq who gives his last full measure of life defending our freedoms, including our right to vote; at the other end, we have the beer-guzzling couch potato who has no interest in where this country is going and rarely if ever feels the necessity to vote. What a great country, hey.