ARE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE LAW OF THE LAND?
AKM
The following was reported in an article called “Meese warns high court not law of the land” (Spokane Chronicle, 10/23/86):
“Government officials should not look on Supreme Court decisions as the law of the land, says Attorney General Edwin Meese. The attorney general, in a speech delivered at Tulane University in New Orleans, said those who place judicial rulings ‘on a par with the Constitution’ are wrong.
“Meese . . . criticized a 1958 ruling that contained language suggesting that the Supreme Court seemed to equate its decisions with the Constitution. That ruling, Cooper vs. Aaron, referred to the landmark school desegregation case four years earlier, Brown vs. Board of Education, as ‘the supreme law of the land.’ Meese . . . criticized the court’s view of its own powers in Cooper vs. Aaron, saying that view ‘was, and is, at war with the Constitution.’
“. . . . A Supreme Court decision ‘binds the parties in the case and also the executive branch for whatever enforcement is necessary . . . [but] such a decision does not establish a ‘supreme law of the land’ that is binding on all persons and parts of government, henceforth and forevermore.’”
The following are a few examples of disobedience to the law and/or authority: President Andrew Jackson refused to abide by the Supreme Court’s decision that the National Bank was Constitutional. President Lincoln refused to abide by the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that slavery was Constitutional. Congress refused to support the Constitution when it delegated the money power to a private corporation. FDR secretly supported our Communist enemy – Stalin. Obama supports our national enemy – ISIS. So, do we still feel it is our duty to obey the Supreme Court’s decisions on desegregation, abortion, Obamacare, and same-sex marriage?
____________________________________
The following is from James J. Kilpatrick’s article, “Alabama Judge Rebels,” The Justice Times, April 1983:
District Judge W. Brevard Hand of Mobile, Alabama rebuked his superiors of the U.S. Supreme Court, asking if the Constitution was to be interpreted according to original intent and understanding or as a “living document” “which changes to suit the needs of the times and the whims of the interpreters.”
“The only proper approach,” said Judge Hand, “is to interpret the Constitution as its drafters and adopters intended. The Constitution . . . contains provisions for amending it. If the Country decided that the present text of the Constitution no longer satisfied contemporary needs, then the only constitutional course is to amend the Constitution by following its formal, mandated procedures. Amendment through judicial fiat is both unconstitutional and illegal . . .”