Really? I suggest you read that again. The entire article, all three sections, deals with jurisdiction.....
Phooey!
The Founding Fathers assigned the job of deciding what the Constitution means and how it applies to the federal courts (Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...
The exercise of
judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed. In fact, of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers: and of the 55 framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers.
What our Constitution says and how it applies has been a matter for dispute almost as soon as the ink was dry.
Hylton v. United States in 1796 appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Then came
Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803; and
McCulloch v. Maryland was decided 10 years later, in 1813.
So, as the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution, if there is disagreement about whether a law is constitutional, the matter is one within the province of the federal courts to decide. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177 -- 178):
...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.....
And indeed, it is a general principle in the United States that courts give deference to legislative acts and presume statutes valid and enforceable, unless unconstitutionality is determined:
- As the Supreme Court said in Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:
...It has been truly said, that the presumption is in favour of every legislative act, and that the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality...
- And much more recently in U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), at 605:
......Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577_578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress' power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution....
Holding on to cherished misconceptions about what the law is or how the law works doesn't help promote the RKBA. To deal effectively with reality we must first clearly understand it.
Of course in our system the people do have a say.
- The Founding Fathers well understood how people do disagree and how politics works. They were active, mostly successfully, in the commercial and political world of the time. Almost all were very well educated. They were generally politically savvy. Many were members at various times of their home colonial assemblies or were otherwise active in local government or administration. They were solidly grounded in the real world and knew how to make things work in the real world. That is why they were able to bring our nation into being.
- But we live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as you do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role of government. So while you and those who share your views may use the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give you to promote your vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions.
- The Constitution, our laws, and our system give you resources and remedies. You can associate with others who think as you do and exercise what political power that association gives you to influence legislation. You have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people to enable you to elect legislators and other public officials who you think will be more attuned to your interests. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.
- So if you want things to be different, by all means, get politically active and try to marshal sufficient political power to change things. But of course that doesn't guarantee that you will get your way. People who think that things should be different from the way you think things should be also have a say? If you don't believe that they do, you believe in tyranny -- as long as it's your tyranny.
