December 12
Chief Justice Roberts “warned Friday that the Supreme Court risks losing its own authority if it allows the existence of a law like Texas’ near-total abortion ban, which attempts to circumvent the courts...he wrote, “that the Constitution is the ‘fundamental and paramount law of the nation,’ and ‘[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’” He cited as proof the landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison case, which established the principle of judicial review, allowing the court to nullify laws that violate the Constitution.”
Well, not exactly.
The Constitution retains the sole authority on “what the law is”. And, the Texas law seeks to uphold a principle upon which our nation was founded, the Natural (God-given) Right to Life.
The problem is a long-standing issue from the outset of our constitutional republic. Judges assume they can create law when a law is in dispute. The simplicity of the Constitution underscores the wisdom of our God-inspired founding fathers who authored the Constitution. By the way, Thomas Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with its constructs; he was in Europe at the time.
Article VI simply and succinctly defines the supreme law of the land: the Constitution, ” the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof”, and the treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate. That clause— made in Pursuance thereof—equally and indisputably applies to treaties. Treaties and laws that are not ” in Pursuance” of the Constitution are unlawful.
The fundamental role of all courts is to resolve disputes, whether civil or criminal matters, not to make law.
The false teaching of law colleges and universities on “case law” is actually trial precedence. The findings, the opinions, of courts do not qualify as the Supreme Law of the Land, as per the Constitution.
Roberts cites Marbury v. Madison as the foundation of his ignorant, twisted worldview. He does not, however, mention unconstitutional Supreme Court findings in cases after Marbury v. Madison. Over two hundred so-called ‘rulings’ have been reversed by later court hearings, most notably Plessy v. Ferguson that ruled in 1896 a slave is personal property and not a person; this faulty judgment was overruled in 1983.
Any Act of Congress in pursuance of the Constitution can reverse a Supreme Court ‘ruling’. I point to the so-called ‘rulings’ that the court, itself, titles “Opinion of the Court”. They do not rule over anything beyond the SCOTUS staff. Opinions of the Court are just that: opinions and not the Supreme Law of the Land.
I refer you to the Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions published on the congressional website constitution.congress.gov
Roberts ignorantly opined that the ObamaCare fine was a tax. Fines are punishments for not obeying laws. Although taxes can be a punishing experience for a taxpayer, taxes are the way we fund governments.
In conclusion, an opinion of the Supreme Court can be overturned by a later opinion of a simple majority of sitting Supreme Court Justices.
John White
Rockwall, Texas
John N. White 