Faith and Freedom with Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver and BarbWire’s Matt Barber…
An 11-minute weekday radio program discussing hot topics in the area of religious liberty, the sanctity of human life and the family.
Politifact just ran a story regarding whether or not one of the presidential contenders is right with respect to whether or not court orders are the final arbiter of what the Constitution says.
And in this article it says that the allegation that they are not is mostly false.
Mat Staver: Matt, this is a major issue with regards to what is the final rule of law? What is final arbiter of the Constitution?
The Constitution does not give any one of the branches of government the final authority over the constitutionality of any particular law. Doesn’t give it to the Executive, doesn’t give it to the Legislature, and it certainly doesn’t give it to the Judiciary.
…what has happened is we’ve just grown up over time with the Marbury v. Madison decision, which is where this judicial rule or authority comes from, where the Supreme Court has the authority, they say, to say what the law is, and we’ve just simply accepted it.
…when does this ultimately go too far?
Matt Barber: As you know, Congress actually establishes what powers the Supreme Court has and what cases it can have authority over and so forth, that’s provided for in Congress.
Federalist 51 says “The legislative authority necessarily predominates.” The founding fathers were clear in their writings throughout, the judicial branch of government was effectively the weakest branch of government.
They say 3 co-equal branches of government…well at the very least co-equal does not suppose that the Supreme Court would have precedence and control over all the other two branches of government.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.