Friday, May 17, 2024

Wimmen! Amirite? You Guys KnowwudImean!

I know it’s an overly simplistic argument, but at its core, the tri-partite government established by the Constitution recognizes that somebody has to have the last word, and that somebody is we, the people.

Congress is the representative body, starting in the House. There we find Paul Gosar and Ronny Jackson and MTG, alongside AOC and Jasmine Crockett and Jared Moskowitz. It’s truly a representative gov. The Senate was meant to be the House of Lords, but we, the people, eventually democratized that, too. Still, Senators sit for six years at a time, Representative md only for two. And the Senate or House can refuse to seat those whom the voters send. Voter control is not absolute, nor is it the only power. That’s the nutshell of Art. I, for our argument.

Art. II puts the President in power with the votes of the people (and the other end of the 3/5ths compromise, the Electoral College), and the acceptance of Congress on January 6th. Here the Congress can reject the votes of the electoral college, dangerous though that power is to wield. The Congress also (on paper) remove the president. The President can’t remove Congress. The President can’t spend money Congress doesn’t authorize, or start a war (that one has weakened a lot),. The President answers to the voters every four years, for only two terms. A restriction decided, again, by we, the people.

Art. III starts the judiciary, with a “Supreme Court” atop it. That Court’s authority and jurisdiction are still set by Congress, despite the fact the Court since 1925 has acted more and more like a co-equal branch of government.  Under Art. III, the only thing established is the name. Congress decides its size, jurisdiction, and largely its function. The Judiciary Act of 1925 arguably created the modern Court, but what Congress gives, it can as well take away. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t have another Taney Court, but another Roberts Court is nothing to be resigned to, either.

(When I agree with Bill Kristol, you know the Apocalypse is nigh.)

The point is, the people have oversight over Congress, and Congress itself can exercise oversight of its members. Congress has oversight over the president, including the power of impeachment. Congress cannot (and should not) direct the outcome of cases, but it can dismantle the entire federal court structure and start again with a three person Supreme Court, or a Court with 30 justices. It could alter the Court’s jurisdiction, even bring justices under the same rules as the rest of the federal courts, including mandatory retirement. The Court doesn’t answer to the people the way the Congress and the President do, nor necessarily should it. It’s an ugly thing when judges get on state courts in order to pursue political agendas. But those judges are also subject to the vote of the people. No state gives their judges lifetime sinecure. There is a wisdom in that.

The Court, in some respects, does answer to Congress. The fact that it is established in Art. III already indicates that. The fact that its title, and the title of “Chief Justice,” is the only specific directive given in Art. III, and Congress is empowered to do the rest, is a stronger indication of the Court’s position in the tripartite structure. The judiciary needs a measure of independence, yes. But it’s not a legislature, and it’s not the executive. And it doesn’t get to make up its own excuses based on “We’re the Supreme Court, bitchez!”

Everybody was doing it. As one does. Notice he blames the neighbors for being political, but takes no responsibility for his (or his wife’s) response. Nice work, if you can get it.
at

No comments:

Post a Comment