« Wednesday Hero | Main | Stop the Memorial Blogburst: Families Divided »
Ravaging the Republic (Part 3)
By davidjeffers | August 7, 2008
A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government. (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #70)
If Alexander Hamilton and the rest of the Federalists could see our government now they would no doubt shake their heads in disgust. To call most of our elected government executives feeble is almost a compliment.
While President Bush has done an overall great job on keeping our country free from terrorist attacks since 9/11, his message to keep our country on a war-footing has been not only feeble; it has also been anemic.
“I suppose my critics will call that preaching, but I have got such a bully pulpit!”
Those words from Teddy Roosevelt ring hollow today. Very few elected government executives use their bully pulpits in the way TR advocated. I would imagine him thinking of them nothing less than moral cowards, because they are.
We have Governors illegally instituting same-sex marriage by altering state marriage licenses and they claim they were only following judicial mandates. Mitt Romney has been beyond the pale in his executive tyranny.
Is a Governor or President bound by the Constitution to adhere to a Supreme Court ruling? Some would say yes since Marbury vs. Madison, however there is precedence for executives ignoring the judiciary. It is also important to remember that the Marbury ruling merely set the precedence of judicial review through Marbury’s filing a writ of mandamus. Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged that although the court had jurisdiction over Marbury’s petition, it did not however have the power to force the executive branch to act on its findings.
In other words, if the executive branch decided to ignore the Court’s rulings, the Court would be powerless to enforce its wishes. As I said there is historical precedence for the executive branch to ignore judiciary findings. President Abraham Lincoln refused to enforce the Dred Scott decision and for good reason. Another case of judicial malfeasance that should have been ignored by the executive branch is Plessy vs. Ferguson, which legalized racial segregation.
The ruling in Plessy vs. Ferguson was so wrought with racist thinking, unfortunately of sign of those times, that very few clear thinking men saw the lunacy of the decision. One such man was Supreme Court Justice John Marshal Harlan; he wrote:
But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.
How is that only one man out of eight sitting on the highest court could see the constitutional equal protection provided to all men?
When our courts exercise judicial malfeasance through fiat, it is incumbent upon both the executive and legislative branches to reel the court back in to its actual constitutional powers. But that would take moral courage; the kind that will only come from a national demand from America’s citizenry.
More on that next week.
Topics: David Jeffers |
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.