Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog



What Is the Remedy When the Supreme Court Exceeds Its Constitutional Authority? (version 2)
Raymond Richman, 7/1/2015

The Constitution of the U.S. made no provision for judicial review of federal or state legislation. Articles III, of the Constitution of the U.S. created the federal judicial system, but made no provision for declaring unconstitutional Congressional legislation or Presidential actions. In the  case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court  arrogated to itself the power to declare actions of the President and the Congress and the several states unconstitutional. But the power is not unlimited. The Court has no power to legislate as it has done in cases stemming back to Pres. F. Roosevelt when the President attempted to pack the Court. It has the power to interpret laws and the constitution when there is ambiguity in the letter of the law or conflicting legislation. The President and the Congress are entitled to challenge any excessive arrogation of power.

Amendments to the Constitution have weakened the States. The U. S. constitution created a republic with the federal government having limited powers with all rights not granted to it being reserved to the states or to the people under the 10th amendment. The first of the amendments to weaken the States was the 14th amendment ratified in 1868. Section 1 recites that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Of course, the Civil War denied the States the right to secede from the union. The 14th Amendment went further; it reduced the rights of states even those that had not attempted to secede. The Supreme Court in its making marriage between homosexuals indicates how much this amendment weakened the States, 32 of which have laws banning marriage among homosexuals.

The States created the Constitution and established a republic. The States and the Federal Government were not created co-equal. The States retained the power to determine the members of the Senate. Until the 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913, the legislatures of the States appointed the members of the Senate. That amendment marked the end of any state control over the actions of any branch of the federal government.

The Federal Government remained subordinate to the States in one area, taxation. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution originally provided that, “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers…”. The Supreme Court interpreted direct taxes to include income and property taxes. The 16th Amendment changed this by providing that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” The unintended consequence was to increase the power of the federal government versus the States. States could impose income taxes but had to be mindful that they were competing with other states, some of which levy no income tax at all. The Federal Government was enabled through conditional grants to bend the states to its will in a number of areas, particularly in education and public housing and urban development, areas normally the province of the States.   

The recent decisions upholding the Affordable Care Act and making state prohibitions against marriage among homosexuals show the court behaving in a manner totally contrary to that envisioned by the writers of the original constitution. In the first case, the court ignored the actual language of the law and in the second, the Court invaded an area entirely in the province of the States. Prior to 1962, oral and anal intercourse among homosexuals was a felony in every State. In 1962, lllinois became the first state to legalize consensual sodomy. Other states followed or reduced the penalty. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in a Texas case that same sex sodomy was protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which restricted the power of the states.

The USA can hardly be considered a republic any longer. The end of the U.S. as a republic began with the passage of the 14th Amendment and the 16th and 17th Amendments added nails to the coffin.

The Supreme Court's actual authority is only as deep as the willingness of the other branches of government to accept its decisions. What can the States and American citizens do about the encroachment on legislative power which these decisions of the Supreme Court, which are themselves unconstitutional, demonstrate.

The States still have the authority to amend the Constitution under Article V. All it requires is two-thirds of both Houses of Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution and three-fourths of the States to ratify it. It is time to reign in the abuse of the power of the Supreme Court of the United States. Keeping in mind that the Senate was created to protect the interests of the States, language such as the following might be included in the proposed amendment, “No decision of the Supreme Court of United States in which twenty percent or more of the justices dissent shall be entitled to the full faith and credit of the several states without a vote indicating the concurrence of three-fourths of the members of the Senate.”

.

Your Name:

Post a Comment:




  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Archive
    Sep 2017
    Aug 2017
    Jul 2017
    Jun 2017
    May 2017
    Apr 2017
    Mar 2017
    Feb 2017
    Jan 2017
    Dec 2016
    Nov 2016
    Oct 2016
    Sep 2016
    Aug 2016
    Jul 2016
    Jun 2016
    May 2016
    Apr 2016
    Mar 2016
    Feb 2016
    Jan 2016
    Dec 2015
    Nov 2015
    Oct 2015
    Sep 2015
    Aug 2015
    Jul 2015

    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories:
    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Politics

    Real Estate Taxation
    Trade
    Miscellaneous

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • TradeReform.org
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


    Wikipedia:

  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]