The Final Arbiter of the Constitution

[Keith Broaders]

Contrary to what you've been taught the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not.

In 1850 the Supreme Court ruled that the Fugitive Slave Law was Constitutional. The Supreme Court justices' opinions were contrary to the principles of liberty, equality, and justice. The 7 Justices who voted with the majority should be posthumously impeached.

Many of the Northern States passed personal liberty laws that nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in their state. This act of defiance illustrated that the states have a right and a duty to decide what is and what is not Constitutional.  

The rulings of the Supreme Court are merely the opinions issued by a panel of 5  presumably wise jurists that voted to deny slaves their God given rights.  Decisions of the Supreme Court are nothing more than the opinions of fallible human beings that can and should be rejected by the legislatures of the states.

Rather than trusting the judgment of unelected partisan politicians to decide what is and what is not Constitutional, the final decision should come from the judgment of the legislatures of the 50 states.

When John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment, in response, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson issued the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

They promoted the idea that the states and the people should be the final arbiters of what is and what is not Constitutional.

The Constitution does not authorize the Court to interpret the Constitution.

The Supreme Court granted itself the power of Judicial Review and the authority to create new laws and nullify old ones. 

The states granted to the Supreme Court the authority to issue opinions, but not to rewrite the Constitution. 

All legislative power was assigned to Congress; the Supreme Court and the President were given no legislative power.

The Tenth Amendment clearly states that all powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states and the people. Since the power to interpret the Constitution was not delegated to the Supreme Court, that power has been reserved to the states.

The Supreme Court has rendered numerous disagreeable opinions, such as Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Johnson v. McIntosh, Korematsu v. the United States, and Roe v. Wade. The decisions on these cases have proven that "We the People" should not trust the judgment of the unelected partisan politicians. 

Supreme Court Justices can and should be impeached when they violate their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Representatives of the people in Congress should reject the rulings of the Supreme Court when they collectively believe the Court has made a mistake.

[David Shipp]

Over and above what you have correctly stated, We have three equal branches of Government.  Legislative, Judiciary, and executive.  The supreme court does not have the authority to tell the President (Executive branch)  what he can and/or can not do, other than to opinion on Article II.  In my opinion, the only time the Supreme court might have authority would be if congress were to also vote in favor of the Supreme court ruling. In that case it's two against one. I don't know it that has ever been tested.