Are these lawmakers breaking their oaths to the Constitution?

Question

People who hold a public office swear to uphold the laws of the Constitution of the U.S.
When Republicans built a stone monument to the 10 Commandments and placed it in a courthouse, claiming it was "historic", they were knowingly breaking standing Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. They did this in hopes that a new court would overturn the old decisions. When the decision wasn't overturned, they took the monument on tour around the nation to show how liberal activist judges (or the conservatives they themselves had appointed) were attacking good Christian values.
Also, many states are already working on projects to ban abortion, knowingly and openly admitting to breaking the Court's interpretation of the Constitution in hopes of a new decision.
Is breaking the Court's interpretation deliberately in hopes of an opportunity to change the decision breaking their oath to uphold the Constitution?
Would it be if liberals allowed gay marriage against a court's decision?

does making laws you know are against the current interpretation of the constitution count as petitioning for the redress of grievances? isn't there another way, simply filing a suit against the government (is that not the proper method to petition against the government?)

Answer 1

In the South Dakota abortion case, maybe.

The Supreme Court precedent was clearly established, and they knew the law was invalid under the current interpretation. However, they were splitting the fine line that while the Court said they couldn't do it, the Constitution was silent on the subject. So, they weren't technically violating the Constitution, just the current interpretation of it. And because of the 1st Amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" (the one most people forget), they were using the only means available by creating a controversy that would lead to a case enabling them to challenge the current interpretation. Shady, but arguably valid.

{INSERT} Because of the Case-or-Controversy requirement of Article III, a suit can only be filed where there is standing, an injury in fact traceable to government action. You can't just challenge a law or court holding as wrong, unless you have been personally harmed by it. This ban was how the SD legislature created a situation was someone could be personally harmed, and would have to assert the prior Supreme Court ruling as support for their requested relief from the SD law. That creates the standing necessary to get the case into the federal courts. Absent that specific personal injury, there is no way to challenge the prior Court holding. So, while it may not be exactly what the Founders had in mind, it is a valid use of procedural due process to get the issue heard.


In the 10 Commandments case, probably not. The other clauses of the 1st Amendment guarantee people's rights to march around the country saying they don't like the decisions that are being made. And at the time the first monument was placed, the precedent wasn't that clear. It's still not very clear, except at the edges of the spectrum. So, again, no betrayal of their oath, because they could argue that what they were doing was a good faith action within the lines as established so far.

Finally, as to same-sex marriage, no. The Supreme Court has never that the Constitution forbids it. So, any action promoting such unions can't be in violation of either Supreme Court precedent or the Constitution.

Betrayal of an oath must be willful. Someone must know they have a duty, and know that their actions are in deliberate violation of that duty. While some of our elected officials are almost certainly guilty of such actions, the situations mentioned above are not.

Bad taste maybe. But not betrayal of their oath.

{EDIT to Mel T} Actually, courts do make law. It's called common law, as opposed to statutory law, and it accounts for about 75% or more of all the law that exists. That's the way the system has been set up since this country was founded, and long before that.

Answer 2

While we may not agree with what these lawmakers are doing, they are bringing into question those things that their constituents want changed in the laws. If there was never a question in the laws we would still have slavery and prohibition on alcohol. It is the job of those people who are appointed to represent us to question those laws we don't like and try and change them.

What we really have to do is figure out if those lawmakers are really doing is representing the American people the way they want to be represented. Does America want to be a Christian nation? Does America want abortion to be legal? Does America want drugs to be left illegal? Those are the questions we need to ask and those are the questions that our representatives should be taking into consideration when they do the things they do in our names.

I think we need to forget the tag of liberal and conservative and look at each issue on its own merit. We should, as citizens, have a greater voice in what laws are made and which laws are overturned. When was the last time that one of your representatives came to you and asked if you wanted the 10 commandments in a monument at the courthouse? When was the last time you were polled by someone in office (Not some third party pushing an issue) about abortion? We have given up our voice in the current republic government and are now being led by people elected because of one issue, not by people who are truly doing what their constituents want.

Answer 3

No, they are to protect the Constitution, not the courts opinion on it in general, As many decisions are wrong, if there were not challenges to it, blacks would not have rights, there would not be abortion today, since it was illegal at one point.
Women would not vote and so on.

Next it was a judge not "republicans" that built the monument, one man who did it, and he should have the right to do it, since those same commandments are in the supreme court building itself. And the supreme court starts each case asking God to bless them.

And yes in trying to uphold the real meaning of the constitution is protecting it.

Answer 4

The Supreme Court doesn't make law, Congress does. Supreme Court interprets law. You are free to sue and or press charges.

Edit:
The courts do make common law subject to precedent. The Congress can make law subject only to the constitution. The above issues should be addressed to the congress in my opinion (including the abortion issue). If for no other reason than to open up the appointment of judges beyond the "one issue" wackadoo. But you're right it is a balance.

Answer 5

I have found that the constitution in the USA is not upheld in any court system. We have the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of speech, and the right to protect our families against harm with any means necessary. Here are the facts you have to purchase a gun license to carry a weapon. You can say what you want as long as it don't offend anyone. You get charged with assault, and the offender becomes the victim.

Answer 6

no they are not the judges are for making new laws rather than letting the law makers make the law...the judge is to hold up and enforce the laws our lawmakers make...not interpret to their point of view...judges are do not work for the people they work for the law...the lawmakers work for the people...and should make the laws...not fight with judges who take matters into their own hands...those Judges should be thrown off the bench...

Answer 7

Yes, and the worst is GWB.