ARRA News Service
News Blog for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. Content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this "Blog" - no paid ads - no payments for articles. Fair Use Doctrine is posted & used.
Blogger/Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year]
Contact: editor@arranewsservice.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)
    Home Page
   

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato (429-347 BC)

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Progressivism or Judicial Review: Choose One

There is much on the line in the upcoming Supreme Court term, including the possibility of rulings that would nationalize gay marriage and overturn a key provision of Obamacare. For three-quarters of a century, Progressives have largely dominated the Court with a legal theory that suggests that neither nature nor the Constitution as originally understood should constrain its rulings. In our latest essay on Federalist 78, we consider Alexander Hamilton's case for judicial review in light of Progressivism's pull on the American regime and the cases likely to define this year's Supreme Court session. ~ David Corbin & Matt Parks

Let’s hope the Roberts Court chooses constitutional judgment over Progressive will.
Drs. David Corbin and Matthew Parks: On any given day a list of Big Progressivism’s most dangerous enemies would include the usual politically-incorrect suspects: entrepreneurs, independent thinkers, devout Christians, and trigger-word citizens and organizations. But if the latest exposé on Samuel Alito is any indicator, we can expect Samuel, Clarence, Antonin, John, and perhaps even Anthony to jump to the top of the list in the next few months.

What gives with Alito? More like, “Where’s Alito?” In true fifth-grade fashion, the NYT’s Linda Greenhouse reports that he’s the least recognizable conservative of the Roberts bloc (“I doubt if one American in a thousand could pick him out of a lineup.”)

What’s Justice Alito thinking? Apparently he’ll have to do better than letting down his (Philadelphia) sports-fan guard in an American Spectator profile. Justice Kagan allowed People Magazine to document her more human side, which included divulging SCOTUS’s hazing of “junior” justices. While not the stuff of Pulitzer Prizes, this was reporting at its best, a revealing look at how the youngest judge made friends on the court and learned to hunt with Justice Scalia. Justice Sotomayor perhaps did Alito and Kagan one better still when her budding friendship with J-Lo enabled Elle, US, and PopSugar to highlight the diva’s shepherding of Justice Sotomayor’s journey into the spotlight. Justice Scalia, however, may be the only justice with a voice that could give J-Lo the “Goosies.”

American Idol-status aside, the list of alarming charges Greenhouse emits later in her article includes Justice Alito’s willingness to headline Federalist Society events; his consistent and reliable jurisprudence that has made him popular among conservatives; his willingness to hear legal challenges to public union coercion, but most dangerously of all, his predilection, in his own words, for paying deference to “the standards of the American people — not the standards of professional associations, which at best represent the views of a small professional elite.”

Does anything of the sort amount to justices behaving badly?

Progressives, despite their complaints, have dominated the Supreme Court for seventy-five years (since the “switch in time that saved nine”), as the legal realism that early Progressive Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., pioneered went mainstream and then came to dominate the legal establishment. Offering a radical rejection of nature as the guiding source for legal judgment, Holmes left his readers (and, eventually, his nation) without any ultimate basis for resolving judicial questions: law was only the threats of the powerful reduced to technical language. That made judges mere partisans, for or against the ruling class judgment. When judges acted accordingly, the legal realists completed the circle by declaring that judges had always been partisans, but were now free from the obligation to pretend otherwise.

But if judges are only partisans, as every mainstream media analysis of the Supreme Court today assumes, just how far should a free people be bound by their judgment? Abraham Lincoln’s response to the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision provides a helpful answer. There are two parts to every court decision: the judgment and the reasoning. The rule of law demands, Lincoln argued, that the particular judgment of the case be respected by all. Dred Scott lost his case, much to Lincoln’s regret, but that part of the matter had to stand, once the final appeal to the Supreme Court was exhausted. The reasoning of the Court majority, rife with historical and interpretive errors and partisan judgments, however, need not be regarded as conclusive by the president, the Congress, or the people at large.

What was true of the reasoning in the grossly unjust Dred Scott ruling is true of every instance of Holmes-inspired, living Constitution jurisprudence since.

Federalist 78, even more than Chief Justice Marshall’s monumental Marbury v. Madison (1803) decision, establishes the moral and legal basis for judicial review, the power of the courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional.

In the context of justifying the “good behavior” tenure of judges, Alexander Hamilton argues that judicial independence is especially critical under “a limited Constitution.” He explains:
By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.Hamilton defends this claim in the paragraphs that follow, demonstrating that the case for judicial review depends upon a series of essential premises denied by Progressivism.

The first objection he considers is one grounded in a mistaken understanding of the separation of powers. If the courts can declare laws unconstitutional, doesn’t that make them superior to the Congress? No, answers Hamilton. It only means that both are subject to the Constitution – which is to say that “the power of the people is superior to both.” Why prefer the people’s Constitution to the legislator’s law: because of the “nature and the reason of the thing,” Hamilton argues–the “prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority.”

We are accustomed to hearing that the government is meant to serve the people–that the people are the master of our system. It is critical, however, to note where and how that mastery is expressed: in the Constitution, not the latest opinion polls or election results. There is no room in Hamilton’s system for a Progressive-style “living Constitution,” evolving with changes of elite or popular opinion to suit the prejudices of the day. The Constitution would cease to be a “prior act” if it were not fixed in meaning by those who established it, the people who participated in the ratification process in 1787 and 1788.

But it is the “nature and reason of the thing,” more than Hamilton’s particular verbiage, that excludes a Progressive justification of judicial review. The Constitution itself is an instance of the natural right of a people, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, “to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness,” through the preservation of their “unalienable rights.” Such a government, the Declaration further proclaims, derives “its just powers from the consent of the governed.” That’s why the judiciary can’t turn a blind eye to an unconstitutional act by the legislature or executive: to do so would make it a party to injustice and, in a self-defeating way, undermine its claim to its otherwise legitimate political authority.

Judicial review, then, is a necessary part of a constitutional system built upon the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. But Progressive legal philosophy has no place for those or any other such truths and can therefore find no justification for annulling state or federal laws in the founders’ defense of judicial review. What then?

Mystic appeals to History or the “mystery of human life” might fill the rhetorical hole in the Progressive argument, but there is no substitute reasoning for judicial review within the bounds of republican principles. An appeal beyond the Constitution to Justice itself, defended, at least in part, by Hamilton in Federalist 78, still requires a natural order of things–exactly what Holmes and his acolytes deny. Let the Progressive judges, then, truly be realists and tell us: we judge so, because we wish it so–and we believe we have the power to make our wishes stick.

Hamilton anticipated such an abuse of judicial review, the exercise of “will” in the place of “judgment,” but considered it an unavoidable danger, short of abolishing judicial power, and politically improbable, given the weakness of the judiciary.

Progressivism has made the improbable not just probable, but necessary, so long as it controls five Supreme Court votes and enough political power to vindicate them.

What does that mean for the three most important cases of the upcoming term?

A Progressive’s dream scenario would amount to the Roberts Court:
  • Upholding the Obama Administration’s decision to provide health care subsidies to individuals in states that did not set up their own Obamacare “exchange,” contrary to the “manifest tenor” of the law–ruling, in essence, that the executive branch can spend money the legislative branch has not appropriated, contrary to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.
  • Positing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, which would thereby strike down bans still in effect in fourteen states and provide another victory for the assailants of the natural order of things.
  • Getting back into the business of regulating political speech by upholding a Florida campaign finance law particular to judicial campaigns.
Such a series of judgments would reinforce the trend that one’s adherence to Progressivism rather than constitutionalism is the standard of “good behavior,” making all the “concrete difference” in the world in the further pragmatic unraveling of the American legal regime. Let’s hope instead that the Roberts Court chooses constitutional judgment over Progressive will.
----------------
Drs. David Corbin and Matthew Parks are Professors of Politics at The Kings College (NYC). They are contributors to the ARRA News Service. They edit and write for The Federalist and are on Facebook and Twitter.

Tags: Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78, Constitution, Dred Scott, Linda Greenhouse, Marbury v. Madison, Obama Administration, Obamacare, Samuel Alito, Roberts Court, Supreme Court, David Corbin, Matthew Parks To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 6:26 PM - Post Link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home


View U.S. National Debt

Don't miss anything!
Subscribe to the
ARRA News Service
It's FREE & No Ads!

You will receive a verification email
& must validate you subscribed!

You Then Receive One Email Each AM
With Prior Days Articles / Toons / More


Also, Join & leave conservative posts & comments on
Facebook.com/ARRANewsService


Recent Posts:
Personal Tweets by the editor:
Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru - @arra
#Christian Conservative; Retired USAF & Grad Professor. Constitution NRA ProLife schoolchoice fairtax - Editor ARRA NEWS SERVICE. THANKS FOR FOLLOWING!

Action Links!
State Upper & Lower House Members
State Attorney Generals
State Governors
The White House
US House of Representatives
US Senators
GrassFire
NumbersUSA
Ballotpedia

Facebook Accts - Dr. Bill Smith
Pages:
ARRA News Service
Arkansans Against Big Government
Alley-White Am. Legion #52
Catholics & Protestants United Against Discrimination
End Taxpayer Funding of NPR
Overturn Roe V. Wade
Prolife Soldiers
Project Wildfire 4 Life
Republican Liberty Caucus of Arkansas
The Gold Standard
US Atty Gen Loretta Lynch, aka Eric Holder, Must Go
Veterans for Sarah Palin
Why Vote for Hillary (Satire)
FB Groups:
Arkansas For Sarah Palin
Arkansas Conservative Caucus
Arkansas County Tea Party
Arkansans' Discussion Group on National Issues
Blogs for Borders
Conservative Solutions
Conservative Voices
Defend Marriage -- Arkansas
FairTax
FairTax Nation
Arkansas for FairTax
Friends of the TEA Party in Arkansas
Freedom Roundtable
Pro-Life Rocks - Arkansas
Republican Network
Republican Liberty Caucus of AR
Reject the U.N.

Patriots
Exchange
Links

Request Via
Article Comment

Links to ARRA News
A Patriotic Nurse
Agora Associates
a12iggymom's Blog
America, You Asked For It!
America's Best Choice
ARRA News Twitter
As The Crackerhead Crumbles
Blogs For Borders
Blogs for Palin
Blow the Trumpet Ministry
Boot Berryism
Cap'n Bob & the Damsel
Chicago Ray Report - Obama Regime Report
Chuck Baldwin - links
Common Cents
Conservative Voices
Diana's Corner
Greater Fitchburg For Life
Lasting Liberty Blog
Liberal Isn't Amy
Marathon Pundit
Patriot's Corner
Right on Issues that Matter
Right Reason
Rocking on the Right Side
Saber Point
Saline Watchdog
Sultan Knish
The Blue Eye View
The Born Again Americans
TEA Party Cartoons
The Foxhole | Unapologetic Patriot
The Liberty Republican
The O Word
The Path to Tyranny Blog
The Real Polichick
The War on Guns
TOTUS
Twitter @ARRA
Underground Notes
Warning Signs
Women's Prayer & Action
WyBlog

Editor's Managed Twitter Accounts
Twitter Dr. Bill Smith @arra
Twitter Arkansas @GOPNetwork
Twitter @BootBerryism
Twitter @SovereignAllies
Twitter @FairTaxNation

Editor's Recommended Orgs
Accuracy in Media (AIM)
American Action Forum (AAF)
American Committment
American Culture & Faith Institute
American Enterprise Institute
American Family Business Institute
Americans for Limited Government
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Security Council Fdn
AR Faith & Ethics Council
Arkansas Policy Foundation
Ayn Rand Institute
Bill of Rights Institute
Campaign for Working Families
CATO Institute
Center for Individual Freedom
Center for Immigration Studies
Center for Just Society
Center for Freedom & Prosperity
Citizens Against Gov't Waste
Citizens in Charge Foundstion
Coalition for the Future American Worker
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Concerned Veterans for America
Concerned Women for America
Declaration of Am. Renewal
Eagle Forum
FairTax
Family Research Council
Family Security Matters
Franklin Center for Gov't & Public Integrity
Freedom Works
Gingrich Productions
Global Incident Map
Great Americans
Gold Standard 2012 Project
Gun Owners of America (GOA)
Heritage Action for America
David Horowitz Freedom Center
Institute For Justice
Institute for Truth in Accounting
Intercollegiate Studies Institute
Judicial Watch
Less Government
Media Reseach Center
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Right To Work Foundation
National Rifle Association (NRA)
National Rifle Association (NRA-ILA)
News Busters
O'Bluejacket's Patriotic Flicks
OathKeepers
Open Secrets
Presidential Prayer Team
Religious Freedom Coalition
Renew America
Ron Paul Institute
State Policy Network
Tax Foundation
Tax Policy Center
The Club for Growth
The Federalist
The Gold Standard Now
The Heritage Foundation
The Leadership Institute
Truth in Accounting
Union Facts



Blogs For Borders

Reject the United Nations

Presidential Prayer Team

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


FairTax Nation on FaceBook
Friends of Israel - Stand with Israel
Blog Feeds
Syndicated - Get the ARRA News Service feed Syndicated!
ARRA Blog Feed

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Add to The Free Dictionary

Powered by Blogger


  • To Exchange Links - Email: editor@arranewsservice.com!
  • Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting principles & beleifs beliefs of other organizations, this blog/site is soley controlled and supported by the editor. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
  • Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
  • © 2006 - 2020 ARRA News Service
Creative Commons License
Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.