I was very pleased to read the latest Supreme Court decisions, ruling that President Biden's administration does not have the right in law to arbitrarily override the obligation of student loan recipients to repay their loans, and that First Amendment rights override any attempt to force individuals to endorse or echo speech with which they have a disagreement in conscience.
I hasten to add, I'm not pleased because those decisions happen to coincide with my own views. Rather, I'm pleased because they stand firmly in the line of previous jurisprudence, and uphold Constitutional norms that have long been recognized in this country. "Woke" state and national government policies had sought to modify and/or override them, or get around them by claiming spurious and exigent circumstances that demand immediate action. SCOTUS has consistently (and, this week, yet again) ruled that the Constitution is the bedrock of our laws, and cannot be ignored or overridden.
It's going to take ceaseless vigilance to guard against such attempts. They've been common throughout the history of this country (remember President Lincoln's efforts to ignore and/or override habeas corpus during the Civil War?), and they'll doubtless be at least as common, if not more so, in the future. If we are to be a nation of laws, we need to defend that heritage - even if we disagree with some of the court decisions thus produced. It's not about what we want. It's about upholding the law - and ensuring that the law(s) uphold and defend the Constitution.
Peter
11 comments:
Threefur! Hat Trick.
And the left is melting down! LOL
When Biden is in Jail, the 2020 election and the 2022 elections have been reversed, when the Clintons get jailed in mass and Obama is in prison I will pay attention to what the Supremes do. Until then I will not play the game.
That screaming you hear? Woke idjits whinning again. Love it.
Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Uh, I think Lincoln was within his rights.
Good point, Aesop - Affirmative Action and homosexual discrimination bit the dust, too.
PS Nice to see you mention disHonest Abe.
@Hamsterman: The problem was that Congress is authorized to suspend habeas Corpus, but the President is not. Lincoln acted unilaterally, and only later did Congress pass enabling legislation - hence the legal impasse.
Yeah. It's worth noting that Congress wasn't in session at the time, and given the situation in early 1861 I think Lincoln was less "seeking power" and more "trying to prevent his country's capitol from being cut off."
That having been said, ex parte Merryman, which basically said "that was unconstitutional and don't do it again" was good law.
Incorrect. They ruled he did not have the right to *dispense funds for that purpose*. An important distinction.
Let's not forget FDR's unconditional confinement of Americans of Japanese descent & his use of mental hospitals to hide political prisoners during WWII.
They missed on this one, however:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
Post a Comment