Any eighth-grader can open a United States History book, flip to the chapter on the three branches of government, and learn about that phenomenon known to us as the “system of checks and balances.” The Supreme Court Justices can’t even find the chapter on how to interpret the Constitution. At the risk of sounding like that textbook, the idea was to have those three branches have certain powers to ensure that one branch did not get out of control and fully run the nation. Too late.

Recent rulings have completely disregarded any Constitutional or historical basis, instead leaving Justices to opt for the creation of legislation through personal ideological preferences while giving no respect to the one document they are bound to uphold. This is no longer just one case here and there involving major decisions. It is case after case, week after week, fully affecting the public in major ways. 

The new way legislation is passed is for left-wing interest groups, such as the ACLU, to sue over issues that are so unpopular with the public that, if given a public vote, would likely be struck down. Such issues can instead be shot over to favorable majority-liberal court systems and worked through State Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and up until the point where they eventually arrive at the United States Supreme Court. At this point, 5 partisan lawyers have full control over the future of the United States. I’m guessing any minute now that liberals will begin demanding that minority opinion on the court should be able to filibuster the majority’s findings. For once I wish it were the case. 

When the Supreme Court recently issued its ruling that local governments can claim private property of one entity and sell it to another private entity, it was not only a slap in the face to hard-working Americans in general but more-so to the Constitution, specifically the Fifth Amendment. At this point, I vote to claim eminent domain on the Supreme Court Courthouse and turn it into a giant convenience store, forcing David Souter to be the night-clerk. For once, we will have a public use for this useless Justice. And yes, I will gladly vacation at the “Lost Liberty Hotel.”

A few months ago, the court issued a majority opinion in a juvenile death penalty case that said that it had too look at Europe, not the Constitution, to arrive at its opinion. The majority opinion cited “national consensus,” social-science evidence, and a desire to end “international isolation” on the matter as their reasons for striking down the death penalty for persons who committed a crime while under the age of 18. The only excuse that the 5 Lawyers-turned-Lawmakers could come up with was “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Of course, we did not see such logic used in a recent case regarding the Ten Commandments. Isn’t the United States pretty much the only country that does not have a government with an obsession of being this anti-religion? Does that mean we are “isolated” on the issue compared to countries in Europe, the Middle East, and South America? A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted last week showed that 75% of Americans favored allowing the display of the Ten Commandments on State property. I would call that “national consensus.” Beyond that, the interpretation that a display somehow establishes a religion in the first place is uniquely absurd. I’m not even sure if it is legal to display the Ten Commandments on my lawn at this point.

The biggest problem with the system of checks and balances is that the process by which the Courts decisions can be checked takes years and requires major hurdles. Consider that the courts either strike down or create thousands of laws a year. The only way to change a courts mandated “law” is to alter the Constitution, a process which is so unbelievably hard that it has happened only 17 times since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in the 1700's. In order to strike down one court opinion, it would take the better part of at least a decade.

The Supreme Court was destined to be the least active branch of government, the one that was not held directly responsible to the people. Perhaps the solution is a new Constitutional Amendment, allowing a vote on whether to retain or dismiss the tyrants of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not living up to its end of the deal. It’s time we start fighting back.

----------------------------------------

Dustin Hawkins is a columnist living in the Nashville, TN area. He can be contacted through his website at www.dustinmhawkins.com or through his e-mail at dustinmhawkins@yahoo.com.