It follows roughly from this that the branch of government which is closest to the people, the legislature, should have the greatest power to set government policies. Members of the House of Representatives stand for election every two years; the President, every four years; and Senators, every six years. Judges, on the other hand, receive lifetime appointments. They are relatively shielded from public opinion.

Now, if people want to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion in Roe v. Wade, for instance, they must hope that, in time, vacancies in the court will be filled by sympathetic justices who may invalidate the court’s earlier ruling. This is preposterous. Why cannot the will of the people be exercised more swiftly and directly in a democracy?

A Constitution amendment should be passed giving Congress the power to override decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court by simple majority vote in both houses with subsequent approval by the President - just like any bill. Failing that, Presidents should not enforce court decisions which, in his or her opinion, appears to exceed its Constitutional authority. Being sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, the President should enforce what the Constitution actually says. Court-initiated laws are invalid.

An even more radical idea is that judges should be forbidden to take judicial precedent into account when they make decisions. They should look at each case with fresh and unprejudiced eyes in light of existing statutes. To do otherwise is to create a parallel system of laws that may conflict with laws passed by the legislature. Judicial precedent is not legitimate law. Precedent-based laws require the assistance of lawyers and lawyer’s time is expensive. Laws are meant to be understood by the average citizen.

Now let us consider what the President should not do. Under the U.S. Constitution, the President may not send Americans off to way without a Congressional declaration of war. Yet, this was done in the case of the Vietnam war and the war in Iraq. The Congress gave the President vague authorization to proceed and the President decided to go to war. Such wars are unconstitutional.

And what about “executive orders”? Aren’t these also a kind of law? Granted, the President has authority to make rules for the Executive Branch of government. Some of the executive orders appear to go well beyond that.

The stench of illegitimate government has become quite strong. Regardless of one’s political views, one should support steps to restore legitimate exercise of power under the Constitution. Otherwise, government begins to look like organized crime. That branch of government most responsive to the will of the people - the Congress - should make the major policy decisions. The other two branches should apply policy to specific situations. That’s the way democracy is supposed to work.

That said, legislatures (and city councils) are sometimes a pain in the neck. One would think that laws could be considered carefully and then kept for a number of years. But the legislatures are always passing new laws. If a major crime or accident happens, then, of course, a law must be proposed to keep this from happening again. The legislators must be seen as concerned about the problem.

The result is a proliferation of ordinances and laws. Did the San Francisco City Council really have to pass an ordinance forbidding people in that city to feed wild birds out of their hands? Did the Minneapolis city council have to pass an ordinance forbidding landlords to fix toilets in their buildings themselves? Our political class is full of busybodies who micromanage their communities and do not know enough to leave well alone.

 Click for a translation into:

French - Spanish - German - Portuguese - Italian