Judicial review plays vital role in system
The David Brooks column (April 26) [not posted] on the abortion issue and its divisiveness in American political life is fundamentally confused about the relationship of the judiciary to the legislative bodies, both state and national.
The original Roe v. Wade case was but an example of judicial review of an application of Texas law. The only way to simply keep it "in the legislatures," as Brooks suggests, would be to deny judicial review -- a course of action now being promoted by various right- wing religious and non-religious groups. To deny judicial review is to destroy the tempered quality of American government.
The legislative and judicial branches are intertwined and should remain so. Brooks' ideas sound nice on first reading but are profoundly misguided and show a deep misunderstanding of our system of government.
Legislatures write laws. Courts interpret them, that is, try to apply them constitutionally. Without this balance, the Constitution becomes "unhooked" from the lawmakers and turns into an historic curio. Brooks' notion that states can differ radically over what is and isn't legal has been tested in U.S. history already. It resulted in the Civil War.
Bill Hicks
Siler City
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
"Brooks' notion that states can differ radically over what is and isn't legal has been tested in U.S. history already. It resulted in the Civil War."
You seem to be implying that because states differed in what they considered legal, the Civil War resulted.
From even an elementary viewpoint, that isn't true. It is much more likely that the Civil War could have been completely avoided had the Federal Government ALLOWED States to have different viewpoints instead of insisting that all states follow the same rules.
Posted on May 3, 2005 10:23 AM
I don't want to speak for Bill. For me, his opinion stands on its own merit. It's a fine letter.
But I will go out on a limb and expand on what Bill said: the states differed on what they thought was constitutional. It's a higher standard. I think whether something is legal or not does not require much in the way of higher level thinking. But when law goes up against the constitution, or there are elements of the constitution that seem to conflict, you need a judiciary to decide.
And if you need a judiciary, you need a hierarchy, leading to a single, highest court to determine what the constituion means for the entire country.
For the strict constructionist, slavery and the third class status of African-Americans would be upheld forever. I'm glad we had activist judges in those days.
I agree, the Civil War would have been avoided, but we wouldn't like the country that resulted.
Posted on May 3, 2005 6:49 PM
"I agree, the Civil War would have been avoided, but we wouldn't like the country that resulted."
And we do now?
Personally, having a few slaves cook my food, tend my crops and wash my clothes might be a nice change.
Posted on May 4, 2005 11:19 AM
Well as old granddaddy used to say,"If I'd knowed how this would turn out, I'd of picked my own damn cotton."
Posted on May 4, 2005 3:47 PM