A brief rant about the separation of powers

[tigertoy]

Reading over the headlines on Yahoo News, I particularly revolted by this story about how the House Republicans, on party lines, passed a bill barring the federal courts from considering challenges to the infamous words 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I was also struck by the juxtaposition with this one, about how the Florida Supreme Court struck down the law shoved through by Jeb Bush barring Terri Schiavo's husband from letting his dead wife's body stop taking up a hospital bed.

I'm not going to rant on either of the specific issues these laws are directed at, even though they are both worthy of some ranting on their own. The real issue that gets my goat today is the contempt that legislators display for the concept of separation of powers. Once they think they are on the Morally Right side of an issue, they seem to forget that we have three branches of government in America for good reasons, and only a change in the Constitution can change the balance between them.

Congressmen for sure, and I assume Florida state legislators also, take an oath of office to uphold their respective Constitutions. At what point does passing legislation that deliberately undermines the Constitution become more than an issue for the voters to consider in the next election and rise to something for which they should be impeached or even charged with treason?

Comments

[billroper]

Courts rule on points of law and constitutionality on a regular basis. The question in the Schiavo case is not whether the legislature can pass a law to overrule a court decision, because it's clear that they have that privilege when a court is ruling on points of law. (For instance, Major League Baseball continues to have an antitrust exemption granted by the Supreme Court specifically because Congress has not passed a law that would remove it. The Supreme Court refuses to overturn the -- really odd! -- precedent, partly on the grounds that Congress hasn't passed such a law; thus, they must be happy with the decision.)

The question here is whether the law that the Florida legislature passed is constitutional under both the Florida and the U.S. Constitutions. When legislatures pass such a law, they generally do their best to try to craft it in such a way that a court will view it as constitutional. (Unless they're just trying to make a political point, in which case, all bets are off.) The Florida Supreme Court has -- in what should not be a great surprise -- ruled the law unconstitutional. Since I haven't read the text of their decision, nor the Florida constitution, I can't tell you whether their reasoning appears valid or they're just being pissy. I understand that Governor Bush is considering appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, but hasn't made a decision yet.

As far as Michael Schiavo's motives, I have heard these things before, some of them via Marty Burke who -- for reasons that you might imagine -- has taken an interest in the case. I can't tell you whether Terri Schiavo is actually brain dead or not, but it's fairly clear that her husband has sufficient motivation to want her dead.