One of the geniuses of our form of government is the division of powers among the three branches of government with each having certain delegated powers that are related not only to their specific role, but also in preventing any one branch for usurping the powers rightly granted to another. It’s a good system, and while not perfect, has been the source of much benefit to the American people.
This is not to say that one branch or another has from time to time attempted to extended its authority and made decisions for which it was never intended to address. One would think that would most often happen with a president since there is only one of him, and thus he does not need to gain consensus from others to exercise the responsibilities of his office as well as to attempt to usurp authority granted elsewhere.
There would be evidence of just that sort of thing happening, but we have also been plagued by a judiciary that has gone beyond using the Constitution, the laws of our country, and judicial precedent to make decisions. This is often referred to as “legislating from the bench.”
It has some of its origin in the fact that interest groups can take matters to court at a much lower cost and with much less effort than would be required to lobby Congress to enact legislation. The problem has been exacerbated by activist judges who view all this Constitution and precedence business more as flexible guidelines that they can use at will in rendering decisions. As such, the court usurps the rightful power of the legislature as it becomes somewhat of a law-making body itself as opposed to one that is to properly interpret the law and render justice.
As a result of the power of the president to appoint federal judges with the consent of the Senate, judges have often reflected the political beliefs of the president who appointed them. This has not always the case as we saw in the appointment of Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Eisenhower. Nevertheless, two schools of judicial thought have permeated the Supreme Court and the balance between the two often determines the outcome of cases argued before that body.
One would be the strict constructionists. These are judges who see their job as deciding cases based on the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. The other school of thought is much more liberal, seeing the Constitution as a living document subject to interpretation relative to current social norms. This propensity to rule in one way or another is not a phenomenon exclusively present at the U.S. Supreme Court level, but throughout all our courts.
Immigration laws in Texas offer an insight into how this plays out in real cases. Texas’ legislature passed a tough new immigration law strengthening the requirement that voters present acceptable IDs in order to vote. A liberal judge enjoined the implementation of that law. Texas appealed the decision to the Federal Appeals Court with jurisdiction and that court blocked the lower court’s injunction effectively allowing the new voter ID law be in effect for next November’s elections, although a few changes were ordered. So the liberal judge found her order of no effect because Texas refused to give up and mounted an effective appeal.
“Texas Republicans won a minor victory Tuesday in their battle to implement a voter identification law.
“By a 2-1 vote, a federal appeals court panel in New Orleans stayed a permanent injunction to throw out the law, which requires voters to present an accepted photo ID card.
“A previous order by U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos allowed those without an accepted ID to vote by signing a sworn declaration stating they have a reasonable impediment to obtaining one.
“The injunction will allow Texas to use a revised voter ID measure known as Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) for this November’s elections.”
This matter of getting a proper ID should not be a problem for actual US citizens no matter where they live, even in Texas. It’s not like elections are held all the time, and there is plenty of advance notice giving anyone with even the least amount of motivation plenty of time to secure a proper ID.
“The new version was supported by the U.S. Justice Department, which once opposed the law but has reversed its position since President Donald Trump took office.
“‘We are pleased that the Fifth Circuit has stayed the injunction and allowed Texas to proceed with its duly enacted voter identification laws,’ the Justice Department said in a statement provided to Politico by spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam. ‘Preserving the integrity of the ballot is vital to our democracy, and the Fifth Circuit’s order allows Texas to continue to fulfill that duty as this case moves forward.'”
Of course the Obama administration opposed Texas’ voting laws just like it would oppose any laws designed to enure that U.S. citizens have the ability to vote once in each election, and that non-citizens do not have the ability to vote. Illegal aliens overwhelming support Democrats, so letting them slip through the system under such noble sounding words as fairness, anti-discrimination, and other terms is a desirable technique for the left.
But one’s right to vote should have nothing to do with whether that person is a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or any other party member. It has to do if they are 18, a citizen of the U.S., a resident of their district for the prescribed time, and not barred from voting by court order.
Any legitimate effort to insure that those who meet those qualifications can vote and those who do not cannot vote is desirable. More than that, it insures fair elections. And that’s the goal that gives legitimacy to the candidates that are elected and the issues that are decided at the polls.
Source: Fox News