By Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

With the advent of October, comes the start of the Supreme Court’s session. As the Court enters the session with only eight members, there is no tiebreaker. If there is an equal vote, then the lower court’s decision will stand.

And there is no shortage of cases awaiting it.

Weyerhauser Co. v. US Fish and Wildlife questions the Endangered Species Act and the owner’s right to challenge the designation of private land as critical habitat. In Madison v. Alabama, the court is asked whether the Eighth Amendment allows for a state to execute a prisoner who can’t remember his or her capital offense because of mental disability. And Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, asks whether the ruling in Williamson County Regional Commission v. Hamilton Bank requiring that property owners exhaust state court remedies prior to being reviewed in federal court should be overturned.

Overall, there are 20 cases slated for consideration in the October docket. Many of these cases will have a big impact on our rights, our liberties, and upon the future interpretation of our Constitution and statutes.

While most of us enter this latest Supreme Court session with thoughts of the impending judicial nomination, the circus it has become, and the impact these proceedings will have on the Court’s future, the greater question remains unaddressed; namely the role of the Court and the checking of its power.  

In a discussion with Judge Gregory Maggs hosted by the Supreme Court Fellows Program, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke of his conscious effort at checking his own ability to influence the future interpretation of the Constitution by reminding himself that it was someone else’s Constitution he was writing on. Christopher Scalia, the late-Justice Antonin Scalia’s son, related his father’s concerns of how much of what the modern Court does rightfully belongs in the legislature. And Sen. Ben Sasse echoed the sentiment in between circus performances at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Hearing last week.

Once again we enter a Supreme Court session under the effects of the Court’s power grab in Marbury v. Madison. Indeed, Justice John Marshall’s determination that it was up to the Supreme Court to decide what was constitutional and what was not is at odds with the views of many of the Framers.

Join Our Fight For American Values!

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned of the importance of changing the Constitution through the amendment process and not by usurpation as the latter was the “the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” And Thomas Jefferson (who was not a Framer of the Constitution) warned that allowing judges to be the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions “would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy,” and cautioned that such an arrangement would have never been accepted by the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention.  

So, we enter another session with the balance of power skewed in the direction of the judiciary. To a great extent, every law passed by Congress is essentially a trial balloon floated to see if it passes muster before a board of appointed reviewers. Literally, the nature of our liberties hangs at the unchecked hands of the Court, which in today’s environment is able to overturn practically any rule, statute, ordinance, or law at its whim, and when it does so on constitutional grounds, there is nothing the other branches can do about it other than capitulate.

Such a power is at the very least disconcerting and inconsistent with a government that is designed under the construct calling for a balance of powers between three co-equal branches of government.  

And once again, we are faced with the question of what to do about it. Yes, one answer is to get better judges. But hiring great people to work within a certain branch of government is not a check on that branch’s power. The real solution is to create an external impediment on the branch. In this case, it is a step that should have been implemented in the nineteenth century in direct response to Marshall’s opinion.  

The most logical correction is a legislative override amendment.

Like Us On Facebook

Under this provision, a supermajority of the legislature would be able to override an opinion of the Court and keep a statute operational. The override provision has been adopted by Canada, Israel, the European Union, and Australia, among others, and it is one proposed by Madison himself to Thomas Jefferson when the latter penned a draft of the Virginia Constitution.

In a nutshell, once the Court issues an opinion, Congress would have four years to override it through a supermajority vote of about 60%. In such instances, the law would remain operational despite the opinion of the Court. At the very least, such a provision would have a chilling effect on activist judges. It would send legislation back to Congress for consideration and debate, and it would allow a ruling inconsistent with the will of the vast majority of the American people to be nullified.

If there is one thing the Kavanaugh nomination proceedings teach us is that the Supreme Court is as political a body as any other. Knowing this, then why ought it be given full reign on the interpretation of the nation’s governing document?  

The question we must be asking ourselves is, to whom does the Constitution belong?

If the Constitution of the United States belongs to the Supreme Court, then we have no right as citizens to tinker with the Court’s opinion on the document’s interpretation. But if the Constitution belongs to we the people, which I believe it does, then we must demand an instrument by which we may overrule the opinions of errant judiciary, i.e. a legislative override.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

New Supreme Court Session Shows Need For Legislative Override
Liked it? Take a second to support Rod Thomson on Patreon!

Get more stuff like this

Don’t miss a single act of Revolutionary Truth... delivered to your inbox!

5 thoughts on “New Supreme Court Session Shows Need For Legislative Override

  • October 2, 2018 at 6:35 pm
    Permalink

    We don’t need a legislative override since the US Constitution itself, brilliantly & intentionally, never put the Supreme Court over the Congress, over the President, or over the States. The Founders rightly decided that if they had done so, the Supreme Court would become tyrannical. And of course that’s what happened.
    That’s why the Court was given no enforcement authority & that’s why the Judges were given lifetime tenure – their intended role was merely advice, like a corporate inside counsel. They were to have no actual authority.
    The US Constitution is still worded that way & Federal officers have all sworn to uphold & defend the Constitution, including that principle.
    Since the Constitution never gave, & still does not provide, Courts the authority that they simply usurped, the proper remedy is to do what the early Congress & States did & simply ignore the Court’s rulings. If they rule outside the Constitution, then it’s as if they issued a legal opinion on the Moon.
    For that to Constitutional principle to work, though, people have to be consistently reminded of it. Hence this comment.

    Reply
  • October 2, 2018 at 7:55 pm
    Permalink

    Doesn’t the Constitution already have a solution to the problem? Article 3, Section 2 states:

    “In all the other Cases before mentioned, 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.”

    I read this as that Congress can limit the purview of the Supreme Court.

    (Sorry I posted this erroneously as a reply to another article. )

    Reply
  • October 3, 2018 at 1:27 am
    Permalink

    Since when are the branches “co-equal” in the first place?

    If anything, the Constitution places the Congress first (as most responsive to the people), the Executive second, and the Judiciary third, with indeed the Congress given great reign to oversee the Judiciary.

    It’s become vogue on all sides to use this “co-equal” term, but it’s a terrible misnomer, and indeed IMO quite impeding of reigning in the modern State.,

    Reply
  • October 3, 2018 at 11:21 am
    Permalink

    NONE of this matters anymore. If the results go against the Left…they’ll just insist on changing them. Either they demand an appeal, or demand an investigation, or demand an exception, or demand the removal of the judge, or they “occupy” the building.

    The rule of law is becoming a concept that’s more and more foreign to the Left. They have NO interest in fairness or equality as long as the advantage slants to the Left–no matter what kind of lying and maneuvering is required to tip the scales. It’s SHOCKINGLY blatant…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Learn How to
Decode the Media.
Download your free copy now!

3 Keys to Decoding the Media by Rod Thomson