The U.S would be better off without the Supreme Court

Introduction Article VI: “…any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. ” [1] Early in the evolution of American government it was established, starting with Marbury v. Madison, that the Supreme Court held a special obligation to review the Constitutionality of laws,…deriving justification of this burden implicitly from the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. Since then, the role of the Judicial Branch and the federal courts have received definite form and character as the guardians of Constitutional law wherever it may be threatened. It also follows that the Court was established to be the highest of the judicial hierarchy. Functioning as a national arbiter, it exists to be virtually “the final word. ” Hence, in order to fulfill my burden of proof I will demonstrate that the Supreme Court was firstly a net harm through is execution (ie. its consistent inability to objectively defend the Constitution), and secondly in its very design and existence as a political and national tyrant. Failure of Duty The following are examples of overt and unjustified disregard of Constitutional liberties by the Supreme Court: Korematsu v. US (1941) The Court ruled that restriction on the rights of people of Japanese descent was legal and Constitutional because they posed a threat to the safety of the U. S. Furthermore, this case made it legal to order Japanese Americans that had neither committed crime nor treason, into internment camps during WWII solely on the basis of race. “The opinion, written by Supreme Court justice Hugo Black, held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent” [2] It is self-evident that this case destroyed the freedom of thousands of Americans under an unsubstantiated whim of suspicion and racism. The Slaughter-House Cases (1873) The Louisiana legislature passed an act granting the city of New Orleans the power to construct a Slaughter-House Corporation to “centralize all slaughterhouse operations in the city. ” Then it proceeded to establish a government-enforced monopoly on this industry. When the Butcher’s Benevolent Association appealed to the Court that this was a violation of the equal protection, due process, and privileges and immunities clauses of the 14th Amendment, the Court found the state-initiated monopolization Constitutional on an insidious technicality. [3] “Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe writes that “the Slaughter-House Cases incorrectly gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause. ” Similarly, Yale law professor Akhil Amar has written “Virtually no serious modern scholar—left, right, and center—thinks that Slaughter-House is a plausible reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. ” [3] There are multiple grounds on which one would find it unconstitutional for the government to institute and enforce a monopoly, but the 14th amendment and the establishment of equal protection is among the most apparent. What is the point of a Constitution if it may be interpreted so liberally that its laws can be misconstrued by a bloated Court to mean the opposite of what was stated and intended? Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) They ruled that State-enforced Segregation was legal insofar as accommodations were kept “separate but equal,” hence refusing to challenge or annul Jim Crow laws. The most indisputable aspect of this case was the fact that Jim Crow was separate and deliberately unequal. This serves as another disregard of the 14th Amendment by the same court, evidently rooted in the pervasive racist sentiment of the time. [4] “While in theory these laws required black facilities to be equal to white facilities, they very rarely were, resulting in blacks often being forced to use inferior facilities or not being offered facilities at all. ” [5] Essentially, the Court supported a set of laws that placed Black Americans in a position of inferiority, …while hiding behind the tenuous justification of “separate yet equal,” fully aware that the laws were anything but. Turner Broadcast System v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (1994) “ However, under the rule of Red Lion the High Court held that a federal agency could regulate broadcast stations (TV and Radio) with far greater discretion. In order for federal agency regulation of broadcast media to pass constitutional muster, it need only serve an important state interest and need not narrowly tailor its regulation to the least restrictive means. ” [6] Again the Supreme Court widens the regulatory power of the FCC in direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Employment Division v. Smith (1990) It was decided that the government could revoke unemployment benefits from users of Peyote, even if the drug is used as part of a religious ritual. It is essentially a penalty on a victimless religious practice and both a disrespect to freedom of religion, and again that frequently ignored equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. [7] Buck v. Bell (1927) The court ruled that compulsory sterilization (the governmental mandate forcing the mentally ill and diseased to undergo surgery for sterilization – as to prevent the passage of undesirable traits) was legal and constitutional. “It was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool. ”[8] Since when did the government have the Constitutional authority to force surgery? Bush v. Gore (2000) This ruled that the Florida Supreme Court’s method of recounting the ballots was somehow a violation of the 14th Amendment. They then proceeded to use this nonsensical assertion to overtake a case that was below their jurisdiction! They refused to recount the votes claiming that Florida law did not allow them sufficient time, and narrowly granted George Bush the presidency in a majority of 5-4. As demonstrated by these seven cases, the Supreme Court is a failure. It has failed to protect civil liberties where it was most necessary, and violated the limits of governmental power where it was most explicit. Centralization of Justice The Supreme Court is among the most powerful institutions in American government, yet it is also one of the most exclusive and radical in its distortions of Constitutional text. I contend that 9 highly partisan unelected individuals should not have the power to coerce an entire country. No entity has the authority under American law to overturn a Supreme Court decision, except the Supreme Court itself. So, the word of the Court is the final word on the matter. As a result, it has used this absolutist advantage to force policies of the nation that the public may not have agreed with. NINE people forced racial integration on a country perhaps unprepared for it (though segregation was wrong, one should not approve of this method). NINE people asserted power unto themselves in Marbury v. Madison! Nine people may alter the political and social atmosphere of the nation in a matter of 1 case. This power is the essence of despotism, and hence must be removed. Sources 1. . http://archives.gov... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www.oyez.org... 5. . http://articles.usa-people-search.com... 6. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 8. . http://en.wikipedia.org...