Presidents for life
The American model of government enshrined in our Constitution consists of three branches of government, each of which exercises “checks and balances” on the other two branches. It has long been lauded as a model of perfection: No one branch can control the others.
Turns out, that isn’t true. The Supreme Court has the last word. And the Supreme Court is an arm of the Republican Party — the party of Trump.
For centuries, the Supreme Court was assumed to be non-partisan, making decisions without bending to the will of any political party. That changed when Donald Trump managed to add three justices who claimed, under oath, tthey would not reverse Roe v. Wade — something they in fact did two years later.
Clarence Thomas has said the court should reflect “what is just, not what is popular.” “Popular” means the will of the people; “just” means whatever he and the other conservative justices say is just. What a perfect weapon to crush the dreams of the majority of American voters.
The philosophy of the six conservative justices is called “originalism” — the theory jurisprudence is frozen in time. Originalism rejects the idea of the Constitution as a living and evolving document, and instead demands we interpret its provisions exactly as the framers wrote them. Under this doctrine, the court never adapts to changing views. It has no obligation to respond to democratic pressures, but only to conserve the status quo. So according to their theory, they’re right and we’re wrong. Well la-dee-frickin’-da.
Willful ignorance means never having to defend your side because you have no idea there IS another side. Only ignorance of the original purpose of the Constitution allows a myopic notion like originalism to exist. The Second Amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2006 to mean individuals could own assault rifles; in fact, it was passed in response to Shay’s Rebellion in order to arm state militias against redneck revolts (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ research-reports/dispelling-myth-second-amendment). Google “strict constructionism,” “textualism” and “the doctrine of absurdity” for more information.
The Supreme Court can veto anything a President does, and laws our elected representatives enact. And they don’t have to do it in order to be just; they can do it because the voters of the political party they answer to want it that way. That’s what we now have. And we have it for as long as they live. Isn’t that special?
Here’s what POLITICO, an online magazine, says on the subject:
“There is ample reason to disagree with originalism as a legal philosophy. Should a 21st century society really interpret its Constitution by the standards of 1787 — an era before the introduction of semi-automatic weaponry, steam power, penicillin, automobiles, trains, electric lights and indoor plumbing? In some ways, though, that’s a pointless debate at the moment. With originalists holding six of the Supreme Court’s nine seats, we’re all living in an originalist world.”
We need to clarify the Second Amendment was included SPECIFICALLY to authorize state militias. We need to remove that whole three-fifths of a person business. We need to clarify imprecise language that’s often used to intentionally misinterpret its language, and make things absolutely clear. I don’t want to give people who can’t think too well the opportunity to think about things they aren’t capable of understanding.
So how do we fix it? Article V of the Constitution provides a means for amending the Constitution, and it generally requires either two-thirds of both houses of Congress, or two-thirds of state legislatures to propose an amendment, and threequarters of state legislatures to ratify (approve) it. Clear enough.
But what if we want to start over? Perhaps the best we can do is to follow the suggestion of Martha Beck, who said “the Supreme Court only has the authority over us that we give it.” Don’t let these people win; our country deserves better.