If . . ., the people will have ceased to be their own rulers

[David Lockmiller]

The other Supreme Court fight

Jamelle Bouie, a Times Opinion columnist, has explained how Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln both fought their political opponents’ attempts to lock in power through the courts.

“If the policy of the Government upon the vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court,” Lincoln said in his first inaugural address, “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

[AussieMick]

I've heard it said that there's no such thing as a stupid question. ... but here goes. ...
Does the U.S. constitution allow for referendums?

Reason I ask is that Australia has had its share of activist Supreme Court judges. .... sometimes making decisions that, in any citizens opinions, that are contrary to the will of the people. In short they interpret the Constitution in a "special " way and "create " legislation.

One , maybe the only, option for Govt is to ask the people in Referendum to alter a specfic part of the Constitution. That's been tried very rarely, and is rarely successful. From memory, there must be a majority overall as well as a majority in every State.

So.... is a referendum an option in U S ?

[RJNorton]

(09-25-2020 06:53 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  So.... is a referendum an option in U S ?

Not at the national level. The Constitution does not provide for referendums. However, some individual states allow for referendums.

[David Lockmiller]

President Lincoln formulated the role of the Supreme Court in his First Inaugural Address:

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes."