Has the Counterrevolution Begun?
Patrick J. Buchanan
July 28 2004
Has Congress, after 50 years of seeing its power seized
by the Supreme Court, begun at long last to recapture its lost constitutional
Don't laugh. It may just be about to happen.
A day before Congress left town for a six-week vacation, the House passed the
Marriage Protection Act 233 to 194. This bill would deny "all federal courts,
including the Supreme Court, jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of
the Defense of Marriage Act."
So reports the Washington Post. DOMA is the 1996 law that says no state need
recognize same-sex unions established by other states.
What the House is saying is this: Massachusetts may hand out marriage licenses
to homosexuals – and these gay couples may sue, under the "full faith and
credit" clause of the Constitution, to have their "marriages" recognized in
other states. But no state has to recognize such "marriages," and no U.S.
judge is permitted to take up these cases.
This law has explosive potential. The House brushed aside, said the Post,
"warnings that the measure is unconstitutional and would open the floodgates
for efforts to prevent judges from ruling on other issues, from gun-control to
That is the idea. To recapture the lawmaking power from a black-robed judicial
elite and restore it to elected legislators. The overthrow of what
author-scholars William Quirk and R. Randall Bridwell call our "Judicial
Dictatorship" may have just begun.
The significance of this bill in terms of the balance of power in government
is hard to overstate. For years, Congress has been systematically stripped of
its power to decide the issues of race, religion and morality by the courts,
which have taken to making law by issuing edicts from the bench.
Congress is now dusting off a long-neglected weapon, put in Article III, to
restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and, eventually, to tell it to
keep its hands off such issues as abortion, flag-burning, school prayer and
The House is saying: These decisions should not be made dictatorially by
judges, but constitutionally by the 50 states and democratically by
This is how it was before the court began to exploit its right of judicial
review – first claimed by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison –
to impose a social revolution on America, a revolution rooted in the
non-majority values of Warren, Blackmun, Brennan, Douglas, Thurgood Marshall
and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
If the Marriage Protection Act passes the Senate and is signed by Bush, a
showdown will have been scheduled. Not just over gay marriage, but over
whether the Supreme Court has the final say over whether a law conforms to the
Constitution. The issue here is nothing less than, "Who says what the law is?"
Unelected justices, or elected congressmen and presidents?
This will be a critical test of the GOP majority in the Senate. If it stands
with the House and President Bush, the first and second branches of the U.S.
government will be telling the third, the U.S. Supreme Court: Your right of
review of all U.S. law is not absolute, but subject to our restrictions. You
are hereby instructed to return to the stall into which the Founding Fathers
The House vote, on a bill sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler, could be the
first shot in a counterrevolution that could ring down the curtain on the
Supreme Court's 50-year role as battering ram of social revolution.
Democrats sense the stakes. Said Rep. Jim McGovern, "This bill is ...
mean-spirited, unconstitutional, dangerous ... They couldn't amend the
Constitution last week, so they're trying to desecrate and circumvent the
Constitution this week."
But the desecrators and circumventers of the Constitution are not the
congressmen empowered by that document to write our laws. The circumventers
are the justices who have stolen that power.
If McGovern will take a look at Article III, Section II, he will see there a
written right of Congress to put regulations on the appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court. He will search in vain to find any Supreme Court right to
review and overturn U.S. laws.
"When legislators rail that unelected judges are finding legislative acts
unconstitutional, they are attacking the very structure of our democracy,"
ranted Georgetown Law Professor Chai Feldblum, when Hostettler's bill passed.
The professor has it exactly wrong. The Founding Fathers created a republic
where the majority rules through its elected representatives. They did not
create this rule of judges we have today, and which Congress, hopefully, may
be about to overthrow.
© 2004 Creators
for printable version.
Click here for
Daily Column Archives