Category Archives: Article III
Essays on Article III of the Constitution
It is almost an Article of faith among Conservative Right political folk – the Courts are stacked with liberal activist Judges who will always overturn the will of the Voters. Don’t believe me? Well… this week the Godfather of conservative Talk Radio said pretty much exactly that.
The problem is, of course, that Articles of Faith are usually – okay, always – based in confirmation bias. That is to say that they are based only upon things that tend to support the statement. events or things that tend to disprove the Article of Faith are generally ignored or dismissed.
When it comes to the Constitution, this is especially true. Conservatives believe that Activist Judges are upending the whole thing, while Progressives believe that the Judges aren’t activist enough. Which more or less means that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Since I am on the political Right, I prefer to look at things that challenge my own position and thinking. When it comes to the perception of Judges destroying America, there’s no place better to start than the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco.
So let’s go there and take up the case of a Roseville Police Officer who managed to get herself terminated, for having sex, with a fellow Officer…
On Monday, Judge Leonie Brinckema, a Federal Appeals Judge in Virginia, issued an injunction against President Trumps Immigration Executive Orders on the basis that they are in fact, a Muslim Ban.
The Government has argued that the doctrine of Plenary Powers over National Security and Immigration should make the Orders unreviewable. But can such power be given under the Constitution? If the answer is no, then can statements made outside of the Orders by the President and his advisers be taken into account as to the intent of the orders?
If the answer is yes, are we prepared to accept a country where he sitting President has unchecked power which neither the Courts nor Congress can counterbalance?
It’s a Valentines day Tuesday episode of Constitution Thursday!
Say the words, “Judicial Review” to most Talk Radio Show Hosts and you get to watch them go ballistic as they explain why judicial activists are ruining the country. In recent days we have seen a whole lot of this argument, as the 9th Circuit Court upheld a stay against the Immigration Executive Orders of President Obama.
Whether or not you support the Orders or oppose them, there is a basic misunderstanding as to exactly what the argument was last week – and it wasn’t whether or not Immigrants from seven Islamic ruled nations should be admitted or not to the country. In fact, it was the same basic argument that the Supreme Court first heard in 1796, when Alexander Hamilton himself argued that a tax on Carriages was Constitutional.
The Court agreed that it was in fact, not a direct tax and therefore Constitutional. More than that however, they made it clear that because they agreed, there was no need for “Judicial review.”
But it wouldn’t be long before they would see the need for it…