|
| |
 Precedence
Takes Precedence
Nancy Salvato
August 2, 2004 |
It used to be standard curriculum in any US
History class to discuss the famous Marbury vs. Madison court case of 1803.
Basically, what occurred was that President James Madison denied William
Marbury his commission for his appointment as judge. Marbury decided to go
to the Supreme Court and ask the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to force
Madison to comply with the outgoing President Adams’ wishes that Marbury be
commissioned as a judge.
The result of that case was that Marbury was not granted the writ because
Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the section of the Judiciary Act
which expanded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to include
issuing writs of mandamus violated the Constitution. Moreover, Marshall set
the precedence for judicial review by further declaring that the Supreme
Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution and therefore could
declare unconstitutional and inoperative any law contrary to the
Constitution. Since it was not disputed, the precedent was set and this has
been established practice ever since.
The Constitution is pretty specific about what powers are enumerated or
given to the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial Branches of the federal
government. It is also pretty specific about what powers are left to the
states because, after all, we are a republic, lest we forget that every
American is a citizen of both the United State and the state in which he/she
resides. The power of the federal government has been extended because as
interpreted by the courts, the "due process” clause of the 14th Amendment
makes much of the federal Bill of Rights applicable to the laws and actions
of the states. Precedence developed through decisions made in individual
court cases becomes the precursor for established practice.
Now, the last I heard, the president determines the foreign policy of the
nation and is responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs. Administering
the election process is the responsibility of the individual states. There
has been no precedent set otherwise. There have been no amendments to the
Constitution which would state otherwise. As a matter of fact, in the last
200 years, there have only been 27 amendments to the Constitution so things
stand pretty much the way the framers intended.
So what would make a bunch of liberal Democratic congressmen think that they
could virtually ignore the laws of the United States Constitution and write
a letter requesting the United Nations to monitor this year’s U.S elections
is beyond me. Oh, wait a minute, let’s see. Is it perhaps the idea that they
would like the activities of the United States to be monitored by a world
government? Would they like the U.S. to be ruled under a global system of
government instead of getting it’s sovereignty from the people of the United
States?
Asking the corrupt UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to provide this sort of
assistance went beyond any authority that U.S. Representatives Eddie Bernice
Johnson (Tex), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Corrine Brown (Fla.), Julia Carson
(Ind.), William Lacy Clay (MO), Joseph Crowley (N.Y.), Elijah Cummings
(Md.), Danny Davis (IL), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Michael Honda (CA), Barbara Lee
(CA), Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), and Edolphus Towns
(N.Y.) are given under the legislative powers vested in congress.
Not only did these U.S. representatives act irresponsibly toward their
constituencies, they acted in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and
that they should be facing some serious repercussions for the above
transgression.
It should be mandatory that any persons elected as representatives in the
federal government are aware of the laws of the U.S. Constitution and swear
to uphold them. Oh, wait a minute. They are. When will this be addressed,
then? Or will we establish the precedence that nothing will be done in the
face of such disregard for an oath of office!
 |
|
