Why Senate Races Are the Most Important Races of 2012

In an election year when there is a presidential election in addition to Congressional and statewide races, the presidential election often takes center stage. In some respects, this is understandable. The president comprises the head of one of the three branches of our constitutional republic.However, the focus on the presidency is indicative of a government whose balance of power has gotten out of whack. For starters, we have crept away from our Constitutional foundation where the federal government's power is limited, and the states' power is appropriate. Even in our federal government, the scales of power have been tipped. Congress has willingly abdicated its legislative powers to unelected executive branch agencies who legislate under the guise of regulation. Couple the extensive powers of agencies and departments like the EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security with the increasing frequency of executive orders in the last 100+ years, it is clear that the branches of government have been twisted. Additionally, with each Supreme Court decision, judicial precedence becomes the new guiding force rather than the true precedence--the Constitution.

One of the reasons our Founders created this three branch system of government was to provide a check and balance, not only to provide a check to each branch's adherence to the Constitution or ideology, but also to each branch's power. The election later this year has the potential to re-elect an extremely progressive president or elect an unprincipled "Republican". This election year also will indicate whether we maintain a GOP House or flip it, Somewhat lost in the shuffle is that this election year also determines whether or not Republicans regain control of the Senate or at least pick up some seats. Regardless of who is elected President, there are several reasons why the Senate is especially crucial, as the Constitution has given Senators different powers or responsibilities than their counterparts in the House.

One of the responsibilities that the Senate specifically has is the ratification of treaties. In late 2010, we saw a Democratic majority Senate (with a good deal of moderate Republicans joining in) ratify the START treaty . This treaty with Russia was rushed through by America, only to have the Russians sit on the treaty before ratifying it themselves. With President Obama recently noting to Russian President Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility after the election", this would prove to be a motivator for conservatives if Obama were to be re-elected. A strong conservative Senate would be crucial in preventing the President from entering into more treaties that may not be in America's best interest, nor in the interest of an ally like Poland. Between President Obama scrapping a missile defense program in Poland on the 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland and his gaffes in discussing "flexibility" with the Russian President and in referring to Nazi death camps as Polish death camps, it would be important to have a Senate who would stand with America's allies and not aim to weaken our country. In the same vein, discussion has opened up again recently over the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) in the Senate. If this treaty were to be ratified, it would require that America pay royalties ,which would be distributed to poor underdeveloped countries, on energy development done in certain arctic regions. This would abdicate American sovereignty by implementing a global redistribution of wealth from energy production on what are really American seas. This is in addition to the limits on sea travel and naval activity. If this is ultimately not voted upon during this session, a conservative Senate would be a big deterrent in its ratification regardless of whether Obama's Secretary of State were to push for the treaty again or if a Romney administration were to advocate for its approval.

Another  important responsibility given to the Senate is the approval of judicial and cabinet appointments. A strong conservative Senate would help keep President Obama in check when he attempts to appoint a new Secretary of State, if he is re-elected. Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, although quite liberal, was palatable enough to be confirmed by the Senate in 2009. However, she has opted not to serve in Obama's second term if he is re-elected. A conservative Senate would ideally help ensure that President Obama would appoint a more palatable liberal, rather than one who is a radical. We saw earlier in his term when President Obama attempted to appoint radical Donald Berwick to head Medicare, the blowback from Republicans and conservatives was strong enough to prompt President Obama to appoint Berwick during a Senate recess. Berwick later resigned from his post.  This check and balance would be even more pronounced if the Senate were to not only become more Republican, but more conservative as well. Additionally and probably most importantly, a strong conservative is needed when a new Supreme Court nominee is appointed. There is the potential for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to retire. Would a President Obama appoint another justice to perpetuate judicial activism for even longer in that seat? Additionally, there is potential that if a Republican were to win, Justices Roberts and Scalia would retire in order for more justices to be appointed by a Republican president. For the most part, with the blocked appointment of Robert Bork being a notable exception, the Senate confirms the President's nominees to the bench. However, would Senate confirmation hearings of Obama's appointees be more rigorous with a conservative Senate, or would they be bold enough to block a radical appointee? On the flip side, would a conservative Senate hold a Romney administration accountable in appointing a true originalist judges to the bench, even in spite of his poor record of judicial appointments as governor? Romney often blames Democratic control in Massachusetts as a source of his failings. Would a conservative Senate hold him accountable to make wise decisions? Not only in potential judicial appointees, but also in his own cabinet, as again, he did a poor job with some other appointees as governor and even to date as the presumed GOP nominee.It is important that the Senate provides a conservative and constitutional check to whomever is elected President in November.

Suffice it to say, the 33 Senate seats up for grabs this November are extremely important, not only in working with their bicameral buddies in the House, but also in providing a much needed check to whomever occupies the White House and whomever may be placed on the judicial bench. In order to slowly but surely try to bring our nation back to its true Constitutional foundation, we must ensure that principled conservatives are elected in 2012. Most conservatives are disenchanted by our presidential prospects, but we have every reason to be inspired by the foundational principles found in our Constitution. We must remember, though, as the father of our Constitution, James Madison, once noted, "if men were angels, no government would be necessary". Men are not angels, and yet another blessing of our republic is that we get to elect our leaders from amongst our fallible selves. It is inherent in our human nature that our leaders will be flawed.Therefore, it is important for us to elect from among the flawed human candidates out there those who have the best grasp of our Constitution so that they may exercise those powers and responsibilities that they swear an oath to uphold to the best of their abilities. Let's remind our leaders that the Constitution still begins with "We the People", and let's ensure we have a Senate that lives that message out in their leadership.

Crossposted here and here.

What Would Thomas Jefferson Tell Us Today?

At our local 9/12 group meeting tonight, we were studying the Preamble to the Constitution and the seven provisions provided in its words. In discussion of the second provision, to provide a more perfect union, some words from Thomas Jefferson were shared that I think are very pertinent for today (emphasis mine):

We owe every other sacrifice to ourselves, to our federal brethren, and to the world at large to pursue with temper and perseverance the great experiment which shall prove that man is capable of living in [a] society governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace; and further, to show that even when the government of its choice shall manifest a tendency to degeneracy, we are not at once to despair, but that the will and the watchfulness of its sounder parts will reform its aberrations, recall it to original and legitimate principles, and restrain it within the rightful limits of self-government.

Thomas Jefferson was a minister to France when the Constitution was written in Philadelphia, and I am not sure the context of these words. However, his words are basic building block in the foundation of our nation. The Founders knew that our nation would never be truly "perfect". Men are fallible. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison noted, "if men were angels, no government would be necessary". This is in part why our Founders framed the Constitution as calling for a "more perfect union". The "more" indicates that true perfection can never be achieved. In fact, Jefferson knew that government ultimately had a "tendency to degeneracy". Our nation has not been in the black financially since President Jackson's administration. Our courts are legislating from the bench and thus twisting the branches of government. Our executive branch is defying the balance of powers by ignoring a Senate recess and appointing an essentially unaccountable bureaucrat. Our states are being sued for trying to enforce laws that the federal government should be enforcing themselves in reality. Individuals are being forced to purchase services, like health insurance, when there is no Constitutional authority to do so. The limited federal government has turned into a limitless oligarchy. The state's are losing their Constitutionally provided power. Individuals are losing their rights. What does Jefferson tell us?

Jefferson says, "do not despair" and be a "sounder part". Be willing to be watchful. Call for reform. Return to the first principles and restraint and limits of government. This is indeed what many have been doing for many, many decades, and indeed, what the Tea Party movement has been focused on in recent years. However, it seems like there is some despair. To be sure, for many of us, there are individuals we wish were running for higher office. There are people whom  we thought we could trust in government who have let us down and who have strayed from the platform which they supposedly espoused. However, Thomas Jefferson makes no direct mention of elected leaders in his statement here when he says "we". The "we" seems to be broader than that. The "we" that established the Constitution was not "we" as in the delegates at the Constitutional convention, nor was it we the states as had been the basis for the failed Articles of Confederation. It was "we the people".

 Perhaps too often, we put our trust in leaders and project our hopes onto them. To be sure, elected leaders do possess the powers and the mandate for change or restoration. They can influence policy, institute reform, and shape a message and an attitude towards our nation and the world. However, if we begin to place our hopes for our nation only on those people or those whom we hope will pursue such leadership roles, we will ultimately be despaired, which our Founders did not wish for us. With an overly powerful government, we can feel powerless, but we are not. We have the opportunity and the right to continue to call for reform and a return to first principles for those leaders, but also for ourselves. We can continue to educate ourselves on those first principles. Perhaps the reason we have strayed so far from those principles is that we haven't remained vigilant from generation to generation to pass knowledge of those principles down to younger generations or even across to our own generation. As  Ronald Reagan once said, "freedom is never one generation from extinction".  Reagan did not despair, just as Jefferson did not despair when government became degenerate. The went to action, not only as elected leaders, but also as citizen leaders. We have opportunity to do the same.

Happy Constitution Day!

Today marks the anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. The Heritage Foundation has put out the following video as a reminder to honor one of our founding documents:



If you have the opportunity, today might be a good day to take some time to read the Constitution--the blueprint our Republican Democracy.

Crossposted here.


And just for funnsies:

Governor Palin's Call to Restore Honor and Protect the Constitution

On Saturday, Governor Palin spoke before hundreds of thousands of Americans at the Restoring Honor rally. In yet another contrast between herself and President Obama, Governor Palin stated at the rally:

I must assume that you too know that we must not fundamentally transform America as some would want. We must restore America and restore her honor!

What is would restoration of America look like? Would it mean that our leaders have character? Would it mean that politicians were public servants rather than self-servants? Would it mean that our government, both Democrats and Republicans, used the Constitution as a blueprint rather than a doormat? Would it mean that everyday Americans looked for government to protect us, rather than provide for us? Would it mean that we, as Americans, respected one another, and saw each other as unique individuals, rather than demographic groups? Would it mean that we honored our military? Would it mean that we honored our elders and respected one another? Would it mean that we realize that our rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable--given to us only by God-- not given to us by government?

Governor Palin is one who has character and sees the role of elected official as a public servant, not a self-servant. She sees not an America separated by demographic groups, but one that united as a nation, but unique as individuals. She values and respect the Constitution as she states so often, and even stated, in a brief interview on Saturday (emphasis mine):

That’s what Americans are ready for — the kind of change where we get back to protecting our constitution and limiting government...That’s what I think we see reflected here, even though this is a rally about restoring honor.

Governor Palin shows deep respect for both the U.S. and Alaska Consitutions. She even held her gubernatorial inauguration in Fairbanks, AK where the Alaska Constitution was written and used that founding document as her compass--whether it was in crafting ACES legislation, molding her stance on school vouchers, or in her desire and efforts to allow Alaska to contribute more resources to the rest of the country. Governor Palin sees state and national founding documents as governmental compasses.

Such a focus on the Constitution is seen not only in her speeches, interviews, and writings, but also even in her PAC solicitations. Earlier this summer, I received a mailing from SarahPAC with the following text (Emphasis mine.):

Dear Whitney,

I am inspired by the American patriots across our nation who want to bring Congress back to the ideals of our Founding Fathers.

The White House and Congress need to hear that Americans don't want cradle-to-grave government control of our lives. We don't want government bureaucrats deciding what kind of light bulbs we should use, what kind of cars we should drive, and which doctors can and can't care for us and our families.

Liberal politicians should not be trying to re-write the U.S. Constitution. Our Constitution is a centuries-old gift from our steadfast Founding Fathers. We cannot sell out our sovereignty, surrender our God-given rights, or falter in the War on Terror.

Republicans recently took victory away from liberals in three states and sent a message to Congress and the White House that Americans are fed up with politicians trying to impose more big-government policies on our nation.

Now I'm asking for your help to carry that momentum across the country.

What Americans want is a return to the values our Founding Fathers fought and died for. Government should get out of our way so we can raise our families, run our businesses, and keep more of our hard-earned money.

So many people have asked me what can we do to save our country from politicians who want to take away our basic rights. What we can do, Whitney, is join the effort and help send pro-family, pro-American patriots who share our beliefs to Congress.

If you're ready to join the movement, please use the enclosed reply form to send your best gift possible to SarahPAC today. We'll use it to change our nation to the ideals that matter to all of us. Thank you for joining me to keep America the country we know and love!

With an Alaskan heart,
Sarah Palin

I was particularly struck by her emphasis on the words "Founding Fathers" and "Constitution". While the current administration is operating with the goal of fundamentally transforming our nation, through her endorsements and her voice, Governor Palin is operating with the goal of fundamentally restoring our nation to the principles it was founded upon, a theme echoed in Saturday's speech.

Our Constitution has three main themes woven throughout its text:a limited federal government, appropriate powers given to states, and emphasis on individual freedoms. These are all themes upon which Governor Palin has built her political philosophy. Governor Palin is a very strong advocate for 2nd amendment and 10th amendment rights in particular. She believes that the branches of government must not be twisted. In her speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Convention, she has called out the EPA, an agency of unelected bureaucrats housed executive branch, for legislating from the executive branch. She does not believe judicial officials should legislate from the bench. She does not believe the federal government should go beyond its powers to infringe upon states' powers. However, she is not only going to speak out when the federal government overreaches, she is also going to speak out when the federal government is not fulfilling one of its Constitutional roles, as she has done by standing with Governor Brewer with regards to border insecurity in Arizona.

If one examines the premise of the writing of the Constitution--the Preamble--one can see that Governor Palin is lock step with every principle in that famed, beautifully simple paragraph. Governor Palin believes that it is "we the people", not the "we the governing authorities" that make have founded and maintain this country. Governor Palin believes that justice must be established and domestic tranquility ensured by properly prosecuting terrorists, securing our border, and taking our enemies seriously. She believes that the common defense must be provided for. She has spoken out against the President for drawing back nuclear weapons and cutting funds for missile defense.Governor Palin believes in promoting the general welfare, not by creating and perpetuating entitlement programs, but by removing burdensome regulations and taxation from businesses, families, and individuals so that they have the opportunity to better provide for their own welfare. Governor Palin supports securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. She understands that in order to have such liberty, government must not impinge upon individual freedoms, nor should our nation become beholden to foreign countries because of a dependency upon foreign fossil fuels, when America has abundant sources here. She sees that the current trajectory of our nation's spending puts us on a path towards insolvency,and she has even called such spending generational theft. Blessings of liberty will not be passed on to our posterity if our nation is drowning in debt.

When the word "restoration" is used, it hearkens back to the time of our Founders, whose wisdom crafted our Constitution, the document that guides Governor Palin's political worldview, and represents leadership full of integrity and character:



Time will tell if Governor Palin chooses to run for President. However, it is clear that if she is elected and takes her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, she will mean every word of that oath and will not risk perjuring herself with such a declaration. It must be noted that Governor Palin's desire to restore America and help return it to the principles of the Constitution are not bound by political office. Her moving speech this weekend was a call to recognize God, to return to the principles of the Founders and great leaders of the past, and to show gratitude to our military. Such is Governor Palin's call to restore honor:

Governor Palin and the Constitution

A couple of weeks ago I received a mailing from SarahPAC with the following text:

Dear Whitney,

I am inspired by the American patriots across our nation who want to bring Congress back to the ideals of our Founding Fathers.


The White House and Congress need to hear that Americans don't want cradle-to-grave government control of our lives. We don't want government bureaucrats deciding what kind of light bulbs we should use, what kind of cars we should drive, and which doctors can and can't care for us and our families.


Liberal politicians should not be trying to re-write the U.S. Constitution. Our Constitution is a centuries-old gift from our steadfast Founding Fathers. We cannot sell out our sovereignty, surrender our God-given rights, or falter in the War on Terror.


Republicans recently took victory away from liberals in three states and sent a message to Congress and the White House that Americans are fed up with politicians trying to impose more big-government policies on our nation.

Now I'm asking for your help to carry that momentum across the country.


What Americans want is a return to the values our Founding Fathers fought and died for. Government should get out of our way so we can raise our families, run our businesses, and keep more of our hard-earned money.


So many people have asked me what can we do to save our country from politicians who want to take away our basic rights. What we can do, Whitney, is join the effort and help send pro-family, pro-American patriots who share our beliefs to Congress.


If you're ready to join the movement, please use the enclosed reply form to send your best gift possible to SarahPAC today. We'll use it to change our nation to the ideals that matter to all of us. Thank you for joining me to keep America the country we know and love!

With an Alaskan heart,
Sarah Palin

Emphasis mine.

I was particularly struck by her emphasis on the words "Founding Fathers" and "Constitution". While the current administration is operating with the goal of fundamentally transforming our nation, through her endorsements and her voice, Governor Palin is operating with the goal of fundamentally restoring our nation to the principles it was founded upon.

Our Constitution has three main themes woven throughout its text:a limited federal government, appropriate powers given to states, and emphasis on individual freedoms. These are all themes upon which Governor Palin has build her political philosophy. Governor Palin is a very strong advocate for 2nd amendment and 10th amendment rights. She believes that the branches of government must not be twisted. In her speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Convention, she has called out the EPA, an agency of unelected bureaucrats housed executive branch, for legislating from the executive branch. She does not believe judicial officials should legislate from the bench. She does not believe the federal government should go beyond its powers to infringe upon states' powers. However, she is not only going to speak out when the federal government overreaches, she is also going to speak out when the federal government is not fulfilling one of its Constitutional roles, as she has done by standing with Governor Brewer with regards to border insecurity in Arizona.

If one examines the premise of the writing of the Constitution--the Preamble--one can see that Governor Palin is lock step with every principle in that famed, beautifully simple paragraph. Governor Palin believes that it is "we the people", not the "we the governing authorities" that make have founded and maintain this country. Governor Palin believes that justice must be established and domestic tranquility ensured by properly prosecuting terrorists, securing our border, and taking our enemies seriously. She believes that the common defense must be provided for. She has spoken out against the President for drawing back nuclear weapons and cutting funds for missile defense.Governor Palin believes in promoting the general welfare, not by creating and perpetuating entitlement programs, but by removing burdensome regulations and taxation from businesses, families, and individuals so that they have the opportunity to better provide for their own welfare. Governor Palin supports securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. She understands that in order to have such liberty, government must not impinge upon individual freedoms, nor should our nation become beholden to foreign countries because of a dependency upon foreign fossil fuels, when America has abundant sources here. She sees that the current trajectory of our nation's spending puts us on a path towards insolvency,and she has even called such spending generational theft. Blessings of liberty will not be passed on to our posterity if our nation is drowning in debt.

I support Governor Palin because she stand for the Constitution and the principles of the Founders, and she supports candidates who do the same. While time will tell if she runs for President, she has my support if she does. There is no one else out there who, upon taking the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, will mean every word of that oath and will not risk perjuring herself by uttering those words. For those reasons alone, she has my support.


Crossposted here and here.

It is Still We the People

As many of us watched the health care reform debates over the past year, we likely sat dumbfounded by the disregard of the will of the people and the Constitution by members of Congress. The will of the people has been ignored and the fabric of our already tattered Constitution (metaphorically-speaking) has been torn even further. However, even though our government has effectively ignored its Constitutional limits, that does not mean that we should ignore our Constitutional rights.

The Preamble to our Constitution begins with the words, “We the People”. It is We the People who established this nation, and it is We the People who are prepared to tenaciously do what we must to help to restore it. The Founding Fathers, in crafting our Bill of Rights, first highlighted several of our freedoms:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What does this mean for us? It means that we can continue to speak and to educate our fellow Americans. Although Jefferson Smith in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” was a fictional character, his words speak volumes to us today. “Liberty is too precious a thing to be buried in books.” Liberty is too precious for us not to share it with our families, our friends, and even our elected officials! Let us exercise our freedom of speech to share the liberty that we have vested in both our inalienable and vested rights. Our Constitution also grants us the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” . What does this mean? We have the right to express our grievances to our elected officials, some of whom have perhaps acted like self-servants rather than public servants.

What is the next step? The President still has to sign this bill, and the Senate will have to vote on the reconciliation bill that was also passed on Sunday. Additionally, thirty-seven states have passed legislation or are in the process of passing legislation that will enable them to sue the federal government on the grounds that federally mandated insurance coverage oversteps the bounds of the federal government and usurps the power of the states. Additionally, the executive order that President Obama has promised to sign in order to, in essence, repeal federally funded abortion is being challenged by claims that an executive order cannot trump the law.

While this bill has cleared the majority of the necessary hurdles, it is not yet over. While perhaps our country and our government have transformed into a nearly unrecognizable shadow of what our Founding Fathers intended for it to be, it is not over yet. Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government the men at the convention had crafted for the American people. His reply was, “a republic – if you can keep it.” Let us remember it was We the People who founded this country, and it is We the People who will peacefully, yet boldly, do all that we can to keep our republic.

Crossposted here.

What Is an Executive Order?

On Thursday, February 18, 2010, President Obama signed an executive order to create a bipartisan debt commission to address ways to reduce the federal budget deficit. President Obama signed this order after a proposal to create such a commission failed in Congress. Executive orders allow the President to circumvent Congress to implement various policies. In fact, Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications director, recently said, [t}he challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress. In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda” (emphasis mine). President Obama has used executive orders 43 times in his presidency thus far to order action ranging from closing the Guantanamo Bay prison to establishing a Council of Governors (NOTE: links are PDFs and may take more time to load). In recent administrations, President George W. Bush issued 248 executive orders, and President Bill Clinton issued 364 executive orders.

What is the precedence for a President using executive order? The Constitution does not specifically extend such power to the President. Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 states, “[t]he Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”. While executive orders have been used since 1789, the basis for such usage is thought to have originated from the Mississippi v. Johnson Supreme Court decision. This decision suggested that the President performs two general types of tasks: ministerial and discretionary. Executive orders are a means of a President executing his or her ministerial duties. The guidelines for executive orders were clarified by the Youngstown Steel Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer Supreme Court decision. This court decision stated that executive orders must not be used to create law, but only to act upon a law or the Constitution.

Executive orders have been used extensively by both Republican and Democratic administrations. They have been used for controversial and noble reasons alike. President Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 was used to promote the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. One executive order under President Eisenhower led to the desegregation of public schools. Executive orders have also been issued by consecutive administrations to nullify the executive order of the previous administration. Though not by executive order, President Clinton rescinded what is widely known as the Mexico City Policy, a policy instituted by President Reagan that prevented any federal funding from going to foreign countries for abortion services. When President Bush took office, he issued an executive order that re-instituted the Mexico City policy. Last year, when President Obama took office, he issued an executive order rescinding President Bush’s executive order which once again allowed taxpayer money to fund foreign abortions (NOTE: links are PDFs and may take more time to load).

While individuals of all political stripes can recognize the subjective good and bad that has resulted from executive orders, we as Americans should be vigilant and attentive to what executive orders are stating. We must view their words and subsequent effects as Constitutional or non-Constitutional rather than Right or Left.

Crossposted here.

Does a Recent Illinois Supreme Court Decision Tangle the Branches of Government?

At the beginning of February, the Illinois Supreme Court handed down a decision deeming caps on medical malpractice lawsuit awards unconstitutional. This allows juries to have free rein to award any monetary value that they see fit to a person who sues a doctor for medical malpractice. This decision has potential health care implications including higher medical malpractice insurance premiums for physicians which often subsequently mean higher costs for patients. Additionally, this decision sets a dangerous precedence that may allow the Illinois Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. Specifically, the summary of the judicial opinion stated, “[i]n this decision, the supreme court reversed as unnecessary the circuit court’s judgment holding the statute unconstitutional as applied, but affirmed the finding that, under the Illinois Constitution, the statute is facially invalid on separation of powers grounds.”

The Illinois state constitution states that the jurisdiction of the Illinois Supreme Court is to “exercise original jurisdiction in cases relating to revenue, mandamus, prohibition or habeas corpus and as may be necessary to the complete determination of any case on review.” In layman’s terms, this means that the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to review cases regarding taxation, overturning a lower court’s decision (mandamus), prohibition as determined by the Constitution, and protection of unlawfully imprisoned individuals (habeas corpus).

While the court opinion seems within the court’s jurisdiction to overturn a lower court’s opinion, it seems as if they are outside their bounds by, as they stated in their summary opinion, that “the statute is facially invalid on separation of powers grounds” (Article 2). Essentially, they are stating that the Court should be able to determine the laws of medical malpractice suits. Legislative powers are not given to the judicial branch, but to the legislative branch as stated in Article IV, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution, “ [t]he legislative power is vested in the legislative branch”. The term, legislative, means that a certain entity has the right to make laws. Such legislative powers to make laws are given only to the legislative branch of the Illinois government.

While the Supreme Court decision states that limiting medical malpractice claims is “invalid on separation of powers grounds”, their decision seems to do just the opposite. Rather than appropriately reviewing legislation and the effects of such legislation, this decision ultimately allows the judicial branch to write the medical malpractice law by stating that there cannot be caps on such insurance. What is to say that the judicial branch cannot then decide what other laws or regulations may be? For example, with the precedence of this decision, the judicial branch may also have the “power” to determine the fine or prison time for anyone breaking an Illinois law, when such determinations are really left to be made by the legislative branch. The judicial branch, as all branches of government, must act within the power given to it by the Constitution. When one branch acts beyond its power, the branches of our government become tangled.

Crossposted here.

If Only All Revolutionary/ Constitutional History Was Put to Music

I ran across the video posted below this week. The song that is used in the video was popular a few years ago, but re-written to fit the theme of the revolutionary history:



I'm reminded of the good ol' Schoolhouse Rock videos that I used to see in elementary school. Hey, you may laugh, but I have the Preamble memorized because of it:



It may be sad, but perhaps if we set the revolutionary and constitutional history of our country to music, we would be standing on better footing than we currently are.