"logic would dictate it lies within the executive branch's powers."
Actually, that's the last place the framers would have placed such a power. The Executive branch was intentionally made the weakest of the three precisely because they were trying to get away from Crown rule, in which vast power was held by an individual. If we're not to hand that power to the SCOTUS, then the only other logical alternative would be the Congress. That creates a conflict of interest, as it's never going to rule that one of its own laws is unconstitutional.
The nice thing about giving the SCOTUS this power is that it's not subject to the whims of an individual, and there still remains one final check; the power to amend the Constitution. Do I like a lot of the rulings coming from the SCOTUS? Absolutely not - but I think I'd like a corrupt future Executive reinterpreting the second amendment to mean that I'm allowed to have two upper extremities even less.
posted on 07/12/2004 7:04:06 PM PDT
The only problem with that logic is that you can't unelect a Supreme Court justice. A "corrupt executive" or Congress lasts only as long as we let him. We're stuck with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens for life.
posted on 07/12/2004 8:36:44 PM PDT
(If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson