Biblical Principles‎ > ‎Law‎ > ‎

Supreme Court Avtivism

U.S. Supreme CourtGives Itself Authority Over Congress and Citizens

Writtenby Dave Jolly

How often have you heard of a federalcourt declaring a law to be unconstitutional?

Oneexample that comes to mind is when the Arizona state legislature passed SenateBill 70 back in the 2010. Since Barack Obama refused to do anything to protectthe border or American citizens, Arizona took it upon themselves to pass theirown immigration law. However, the very people the law targeted protested andgained the support of Obama’s anti-American Justice Department who joined theeffort to challenge the constitutionality of Arizona’s immigration law and thecase ended up in the US Supreme Court. The high court struck down several keyprovisions in the law, claiming they were unconstitutional. In so doing, theyhandcuffed Arizona law enforcement officers, making it more difficult to serveand protect the citizens of the state.

Morerecently, the US Supreme Court struck down marriage laws and constitutionalamendments of four states. In most of the instances, the majority of the peoplein those states voted to protect marriage and families. When sinful homosexualsprotested, once again the liberal high court ruled the state constitutionalamendments to be unconstitutional. Thus the perverted agendas of 5 members ofthe Supreme Court overruled the majority of citizens in each of the 4 states inquestion.

Sohow did they get the power to overrule the people, state legislatures and evenCongress?

TheSupreme Court was established by Article III of the US Constitution, butcreating the lower federal courts was left to Congress. In 1789, Congresspassed the Judiciary Act of 1789 or more formally known as An Act to Establish the JudicialCourts of the United States. This act created the position of USAttorney General and the structure of the federal court system.

In the last days of John Adams’ presidency, he appointed a number ofFederalists to various courts which became known as the midnight appointments.However, Madison ran out of time in delivering the appointments to everyoneappointed. When Jefferson was sworn in, he quickly decided to not deliver therest of the appointments, thus nullifying the undelivered commission.

Amongthe undelivered commissions was the one for William Marbury to be the newJustice of the Peace for Washington County in the District of Columbia. WhenMarbury learned of the nullification of his appointment, he filed suit and tookhis case to the US Supreme Court. Ironically, Marbury won and lost in thecourt’s decision.

TheSupreme Court issued their ruling on this day, February 24, 1803. Chief JusticeJohn Marshall wrote the unanimous decision saying:

“It is emphaticallythe province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Thosewho apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound andinterpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts mustdecide on the operation of each.”

Marshallconcluded:

“Thus, the particularphraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthensthe principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that alaw repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as otherdepartments, are bound by that instrument.”

Inother words, the high court’s decision gave themselves the authority to nullifyany law passed by Congress and state legislatures and even by the majority voteof the people, if they believe it violates the US Constitution. Thus part ofThe Judiciary Act of 1789 was declared unconstitutional.

In recent years, this ruling by Marshall and the rest of the Supreme Courtjustices in 1803 has been abused more than it has been properly used. Liberalssitting on the high court first redefine the wording of the Constitution orread into it what is not there in order to promote their personal liberalagenda. Then they rule on the constitutionality of laws based upon theirperverted interpretation of the Constitution.

Takingthe example above about the recent ruling on marriage equality, there isnothing in the Constitution that says that states cannot pass their own laws todefine what a legal marriage is. In fact, the 10th Amendment gives states the power andrights over the federal government unless the states so chose to give suchpower to the federal government. In the case of defining marriage as the unionof one man and one woman, the states never gave that power to the federalgovernment. Instead many states passed laws and even amended their ownconstitutions to specify what marriage is and isn’t. Justice Ginsberg shouldhave recused herself from the case since she had presided over some same-sexmarriages prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case, but she knew she neededto be present in order to promote her agenda instead of ruling on what theConstitution really says.

Everytime you hear any court declare a law, ordinance or even amendments to stateconstitutions, as being unconstitutional, it all leads back to the SupremeCourt ruling in the Marbury v. Madison case 213 years ago today.

Sourcesused for the above: Marbury v. Madison establishes judicial review; MARBURYV. MADISON; Marburyv. Madison; Marbury v. Madison (1803); SupremeCourt Stories: Marbury v. Madison; ARIZONA’S IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT LAWS; Supreme Court rules in favor of marriageequality; Judiciary Act of 1789;

http://constitution.com/video-today-1803-u-s-supreme-court-gives-authority-congress-citizens/


Judicial Review

Supreme Court Activism




Marbury vs Madison