Massachusetts Governor Signs Radical Bill Prohibiting Pro-Life Free Speech

thanks so much for that great response.

But if you’ll be kind enough to indulge my curiosity again—What if just to illustrate an analogy to what these guys have done, we take it the nearly opposite direction.

What if say- a court says, for example, Georgia’s state ban on gay marriage is ucnstitutional. Then in response to this the Georgia legislature enacts a law that says no same sex marriage will be recognized by the state, and anyone who gets same sex married has to pay a fine of $50,000. Would the court do anything about this? and if so, what can the court do?

An excellent question, and well asked.

The answer is that any given Legislature can pass any law it likes, subject to the signature of the chief executive of the jurisdiction. As regards passage of a statute, courts have no de se jurisdiction, or, in plain English, they've nothing at all to say until and unless some party brings suit about the statute in question. Instances abound in American history wherein the court says X and the Legislature involved says (effectively), "screw you" and passes a statute saying NOT X.

Then, in your example, some party brings suit on some sort of grounds, arguing that the new law in "unconstitutional". If the same court as ruled originally should hear this case also, likely said court will rule the new statute unconstitutional again.

Assuming such dead-set opposition, what will likely happen at some point is either 1) due to retirement or impeachment, one of the sitting judges on the SC will go, the chief executive will appoint another, and the case will ultimately be resolved, probably in favour of the Legislature, or, 2) the Legislature will pass a different statute limiting or prohibiting the court(s) from deciding such cases as are now in question (you think not? See Art III, Sec 2 of the US Constitution, wherein such power is expressly granted to the Regress, er, Congress. Many states' Constitutions have similar clauses.)

At any rate, the current system DOES provide an ultimate decision procedure between 'warring' powers of the legislative and judicial branches.

As a side note, pls always remember that the Framers put the legislative branch FIRST and the judicial branch THIRD, and with very good reason, having been close students of history, and such "judiciary" outrages of medieval courts as star chambers, trial by ordeal, presumption of attainder and corruption of blood. It is, therefore, the clear intent of the Constitution as written (not as "interpreted" since, of course) that the legislature is supreme over the judiciary when push comes to shove.

Best to you, and, oh yes (sorry!), go Cards!

ugh I hate the cardinals, LOL :)

Thanks again for another great response.

It looks like under the system, the courts and the legislature could just battle back and forth indefinitely till one gives in to the other.

I was just wondering because if the massachusettes governor and legislature are going to disregard the supreme court’s ruling re speech zones, then what’s to stop another more conservative legislature/governer from disobeying a courts “gay marriage is unconstitutional” decision or perhaps defying roe v. wade itself?

then again tho, if that were to happen the media would go after them like rabid dogs, and most likely they’d fold under the pressure.

As far as checks and balances I guess one branch has got to be on top. It seems like marbury vs madison (sort of) settled that by the court jumping in and saying effectively “it’s us”. (looks like a power grab to me)

I can safely say this tho, the ability of just one circuit court judge to nullify a governor plus a legislature, or even a president plus a congress on a whim is absurd. There’s nothing co-equal in that.

Your last paragraph illustrates perfectly why powers such as granted to the Regress, er, Congress in Art III, Sec 2, and in assorted state constitutions are so important...but sadly, so rarely used by legislatures.

The too-rare assertion of these powers is, of course, due to the almost complete gutlessness of legislatures, federal or state.

There were a couple of flaws in the Constitution as drafted, the first observed in 1800 and corrected by the 12th Amendment, but the principal flaw -- still exstant, dammit -- is the Constitution's making of the removal of ANY federal official so difficult. Impeachment and removal by supermajority ONLY?? Faugh!

On the simple and accurate presumption that 5% of people, at minimum, are either corrupt or incompetent, the Constitution should have embodied some sort of provision calling for the culling of such federal officials every year or every other year. The problem here, of course, is how to keep such provision from being "gamed" by the corrupt bastards in DC to, by design, cull the honest and competent folks.

Any ideas?

I'm no constitutional scholar, so is this what you're referring to?

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

It would certainly make sense to make legislatures have the final say since they are made up of elected people instead of appointed (altho if memory serves some bodies weren't elected by the people at the founding) but unlike a president (or governor) where people could make a mistake and put 1 idiot and/or a melovolent in charge (like Obama who is IMO both) with a legislature there are numbers so at least some of them should be competent/decent.

As far as Ideas. term limits has lost it's momentum, but I can say I cannot stand seeing politicians making 40 and 50 year careers out of what should be a temporary job. granted that might get rid of some of the very few good ones. But IMO so be it, nothing is perfect.

I believe Bork had the idea that congress could overturn a supreme court ruling with congressional supermajorities. Seems like a good one, esp if the supermajority is not insurmountably large.

Lastly, one of my own-- one lowly judge, should not be a able to say, for example, gay marriage is unconstitutional and then its just wiped out even if a pres and congress said otherwise. It should at least have to go all the way through the appeals process to the supreme court before any change occurs.

Unfortunately with people being imperfect there will never be a perfect system. A democracy can only be as good as its people and our people are failing (granted a lot of that has to do with the media that is unerinforming/misinforming them, but still they are failing)

Exactly. The clause you cite is the clause granting the Regress the power to overturn judicial fiat decisions with an appropriate statute. Alternately, this clause also appears to grant the Regress the power to BAR courts from ruling on a certain law or in a certain area of law (which, naturally, opens a whole new bag of snakes.)

Note that most such controversies could be resolved without resort to Art. III Sec. 2 by men of generally good will who have respect for the Constitution. Doesn't even require a supermajority in either house of the Regress, just requires a statute. Given that Reid, McConnell, Weepy John and Bela Pelosi now "lead" the Regress, I estimate the chances of my condition above occurrin are, as the mathematicians say, "within epsilon of zero".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.