How can politicians and Supreme Court Justices justify stepping beyond?

Question

the powers enumerated to them by the constitution?

For the last 70 years the legislative and executive branches have been turning over what is intended to be thier exclusive duty of enacting legislation over to government agencies (such as head start) and have formed departments that deal with issues that are outside of their enumerated powers (such as the department of education).

The Supreme court has spent the last 60 years (particularly in the 60's and 70') legislating rather than interpreting law. Legislation is suppossed to be done entirely by the Congress.

precedent and "stare decisis" only took root in the justice system in the twentieth century. The problem is that with such traditions prevent the overturning of bad decisions.

Answer 1

This problem started back during the first term of the F.D.R. Administration. F.D.R. was attempting to push through his "New Deal" legislation and the Supreme Court was striking down pieces of legislation left and right because they were not within the enumerated powers of the federal goverment.

F.D.R.'s solution to this little problem was to threaten to pack the court with justices who would vote the way he wanted. Back then there was no constitutionally stipulated maximum to the number of justices that could be put on the court so long as the president nominated them and the Senate gave their consent.

With this very real threat in place, the High Court backed down, and ever since we have essentially had no limit on the powers of the federal government.

This is the single greatest threat to our country. If we don't get a handle on it soon, the great experiment in self government started by our founding fathers is going to be a distant memory.

Answer 2

I think Congress has been exceeding their authority. But they have been doing so legally based on current interpretations of Constitutional Law, specifically that the 10th Amendment is a truism not a limitation, and that the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I Section 8 really means "anything rationally related".

The Article I Section 8 problem goes back over 200 years, so that's been a problem since the very beginning. The 10th Amendment problem is just the past 60-80 years.

As far as regulatory agencies, there is nothing to say that Congress cannot delegate legislative power, as long as the subject matter is within its bounds to start with. That's also part of the broad (almost unlimited) sweep of the "necessary and proper" clause.


As to the Supreme Court, your statement is only literally correct, but your interpretation is not. The Supreme Court does not legislate. They do not impose any prospective general purpose laws, since that is the province of Congress.

However, the Supreme Court does interpret the Constitution. And since the beginning, courts have have the job of interpreting laws and ruling on specific issues.

Why do those rulings have any effect on later cases? Because of the doctrines of precedent and "stare decisis" (literally, "let the decision stand"). The rulings of courts have value in later cases to ensure that the same set of facts achieves the same outcome. That's why cases have precedent value. And that's really the only way the legal system can work. Can you imagine what the legal system would be like if every judge was completely free to interpret the laws, without any regard for what previous court decisions had said on the subject?

And if appellate decisions were not binding, then judges could ignore prior overrulings, hoping that they would get a different appellate judge who (because precedent is not binding) could happen to agree with them. We'd end up with a system like South Dakota, where laws are passed regardless of the fact that an identical one had been declared illegal, just because a different appellate judge might rule differently. Utter chaos.

So, it's the job of courts to interpret the laws, and to apply them to specific types of situations. And for stability sake, those decisions must have binding authority on lower courts through precedence. It's also the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, which includes applying that interpretation nationally.

The only alternative to having the Supreme Court not create precedent that is binding nationally is to throw away the doctrine of precedent entirely. That means that any court can come up with any interpretation, regardless of how the law was interpreted in the past. So, either legislators would constantly need to update laws to reflect and include every possible later specific interpretation, or we lose any concept of stability and predictability in the legal system.

{Edit} Precedent and "stare decisis" are go back centuries to the common law courts of England. They are mentioned as essential in Supreme Court cases dating back to the 1820s. The concepts go back at least to the Code of Justian around 500 AD. And both are still necessary to have a stable functional court system. That doesn't mean rulings cannot change; only that such changes must be for a strong and valid reason, rather than being arbtirary or capricious.

Answer 3

in case you suspect Obama's State of the Union speech, you have considered Obama dissing the appropriate court docket. If there's a acceptable court docket justice that magically retires, i think of he replace into compelled to realize this. (observe that i did no longer say "she" the two between the she's on the SC are in Obama's pocket)

Answer 4

I pays well. Also, it helps create Government jobs with great benefits and retirement (At Taxpayer's Expense) for their friends and families. Of course, others (not friends and families) can get some of the smaller positions, but, they not pay much.

Answer 5

they know the majority of usa is docile & would never think of questioning the benvelance of authority.

Answer 6

TYPICAL CON BS