>>I ask for a clarification. While there exists these non-justiciable issues, IF the highest court in a State or the Supreme Court of the US deems the matter to be Constitutional in nature, then they DO have the final say, e.g., Roe v. Wade.<<
Here is the nitty-gritty of the doctrine of Separation of Powers: pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, as amended, the House of Representatives has the ultimate power to resolve the question of which Electors will vote for the President.
Now here is where it gets a little nasty - even if the United States Supreme Court said otherwise, they can't enforce it because they don't have an army. Congress can tell them to back off and there is nothing the Supreme Court can do.
The people who drafted the Constitition were students of history, of Rome, of Athens, of Jerusalem, of Constantinople, and other nations and empires long gone. They wanted to make sure that what destroyed other empires did not destroy our nation.
And one of the surest ways to destroy a nation, they believed, was to concentrate power in one branch of the government, so they spread it out.
The study of Constitutional Law seems very high minded and abstract, but in the back of your mind you should always be aware of Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Nero, and the like. It has happened before, it will happen again (Hitler, Stalin), but we don't want it to happen here.
The United States Supreme Court is a federal court, empowered to decide cases and controversies - but is this a case? It's framed as a case, but it's really a federal election. And Congress decides federal elections.
This is not the Warren Court. It's the Rehnquist Court. |
