The most entertaining moments of this presidency are watching Robert Gibbs explain the ramblings of Vice President Biden.\u00a0 With a straight face, a feigned sincerity and accompanied by the laughter of the press corps Gibbs says, “I understand what he said and I’m telling you what he meant to say.”\u00a0 He invented a new verb — “gibbsing,” a verb that well describes earlier rulings of the United States Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
In 1803 with a 4-0 ruling in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court used the question before them to expand their powers beyond what the Constitution enumerated.<\/p>\n
In part their ruling said, “To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained.”\u00a0 This is an acknowledgement the Supreme Court understood that the powers of the government are constitutionally limited and the government itself cannot expand those powers.<\/p>\n
Had they stopped there it would have been great, but they did not.\u00a0 Even though they understood the Constitution enumerated the powers of the Supreme Court, including “with such exception, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make,” they added to the ruling, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”<\/p>\n
The problem?\u00a0 It’s not in the Constitution.\u00a0 They understood what the Constitution said, but they decided to tell us what it meant to say.\u00a0 They “gibbsed” it.\u00a0 Moreover, how can Congress pass a law regulating the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court has the authority to declare that law unconstitutional?\u00a0 Is that what the founding fathers intended?<\/p>\n
This 1803 ruling was expanded by the 1936 Supreme Court in United States v. Butler.\u00a0 Remember, the 1803 ruling outlined the limited powers of government.\u00a0 Even though the 1936 court understood that the Constitution does not allow the government to change its constitutional restraints, the justices told us what they knew the founding fathers meant to say.\u00a0 “Gibbsed” again.<\/p>\n
In a 6-3 vote they ruled that the founding fathers meant the clause “for the general welfare of the United States” to be an enumerated power of Congress.<\/p>\n
Six Justices replaced the enumerated powers of Congress with unlimited powers.\u00a0 One branch of the government lifted constitutional restraints on another branch of government.\u00a0 Do you believe that is what the founding fathers intended with the Constitution, intended for the power of the Supreme Court?<\/p>\n
Can the president or any member of the executive branch of government veto the Supreme Court?\u00a0 No.\u00a0 Can Congress override a Supreme Court ruling with a two-thirds vote like they can do with a presidential veto?\u00a0 No.<\/p>\n
The balance of power?\u00a0 The checks and balances?\u00a0 The people?\u00a0 Ten men alone re-wrote the Constitution and did so without our permission, as required by the Constitution.<\/p>\n
The only way to override a decision of the Supreme Court is to follow Article V of the Constitution with an amendment needing approval of two-thirds of each House of Congress and approval of three-fourths of the states.<\/p>\n
Article V was designed for Congress to recommend a constitutional amendment to the people, asking for our approval or disapproval.\u00a0 It was not designed for the people to have to propose a constitutional amendment to undo the changes that the government made to the Constitution without the people’s approval.<\/p>\n
Some will argue that only those who are experts in constitutional law are competent to question the Supreme Court.\u00a0 I prefer Thomas Jefferson’s assessment — “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”\u00a0 It is our job to question the government, the justices.<\/p>\n
Is it time for a constitutional amendment returning the power to the people and returning checks and balances to the government?\u00a0 After all, it’s our government.<\/p>\n
![\"Reblog](\"http:\/\/img.zemanta.com\/reblog_e.png?x-id=08dd301f-aa80-48d0-a331-253ba0b905b2\")
<\/a>