Well, only if you interpret "the powers given to the courts by the Constitution" to mean "whatever the courts say they can do". http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/CaseSummary.html (Marbury v. Madison) summarizes nicely how this power for the Supreme Court as final arbiter of Constitutionality was invented by... the Supreme Court.
The US has come close a couple times to Constitutional Crises over this, and it wouldn't shock me if we had one in my lifetime. If the President decides not to enforce a Supreme Court judgement, what can the Supremes do? Bang a gavel or something?
I actually think one of the side effects of this "clarification" of the Constitution is really bad: the President and Congress, freed of this responsibility, seem to not have any problem with passing laws that they know violate the restrictions in the Constitution.
Well, do note that of the three branches of government, the one where people HAVE to be judges is the Judicial branch (i imagine the president can nominate whoever he wants, but it seems unlikely that the Senate would confirm someone who isn't a highly respected judge, Clarence Thomas notwithstanding). So i would tend to find their interpretation of the Constitution more trustworthy.
If the President decides to not abide by a SC judgement, i would imagine that the job falls to Congress to "make him". It should make for good drama, at least.
> So i would tend to find their interpretation of the Constitution more trustworthy.
Me too. And that's a reputation the Supremes very much want to keep intact, partly because this special power of theirs is self-appointed, as I mentioned. It's interesting that lately, with the Scalia mini-controversies and the Blackmun's private papers being released, the Court looks more and more like a bunch of normal people who, though they are senior judges, take personal biases and politics and PR into account a lot more than I (and probably many other people) wish they would...
The horked link refers to this self-granted arbiter role. It's the presentation speech for the bill, and cites said ruling as one of the reasons behind the proposed legislation.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The US has come close a couple times to Constitutional Crises over this, and it wouldn't shock me if we had one in my lifetime. If the President decides not to enforce a Supreme Court judgement, what can the Supremes do? Bang a gavel or something?
I actually think one of the side effects of this "clarification" of the Constitution is really bad: the President and Congress, freed of this responsibility, seem to not have any problem with passing laws that they know violate the restrictions in the Constitution.
no subject
If the President decides to not abide by a SC judgement, i would imagine that the job falls to Congress to "make him". It should make for good drama, at least.
no subject
Me too. And that's a reputation the Supremes very much want to keep intact, partly because this special power of theirs is self-appointed, as I mentioned. It's interesting that lately, with the Scalia mini-controversies and the Blackmun's private papers being released, the Court looks more and more like a bunch of normal people who, though they are senior judges, take personal biases and politics and PR into account a lot more than I (and probably many other people) wish they would...
no subject
The other, of course, being RAMPANT GAY MARRIAGE.
Hmm, band name. Or possibly album title.