The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.
The Personhood Debates
Debate 9: The Sanctity of Life Act
_ Bill
Ron Paul's supporters have often claimed that their candidate is the only one who will not violate the Constitution if he is elected. In the article below, I have demonstrated the error of this claim in regards to Mr. Paul's pro-life position. Would any of Mr. Paul's supporters care to provide a similar expose which proves that Mr. Santorum holds to an unconstitutional position?
Article Link: Personhood and Ron Paul
Buren
Not much on exposes here, just a poor mixed race country boy from Rock Creek Alabama with a question: How has that whole letting the federal government decide abortion been working out for you? If the "personhood: site has a problem with The Sanctity of Life Act that would defined human life and legal personhood as beginning at conception then I have a problem with them. Two thing for sure Dr. Paul has delivered over 4000 babies aborted 0 and has NEVER voted to fund planned parenthood....
Bill
Have you read the article yet?
Buren
Yes but I have also read Liberty Defined, The Revolution A Manifesto and END THE FED. And I TOTALLY agree with Dr. Paul on all major issues.
Bill
Then you realize that I am not opposed to Mr. Paul's personal pro-life beliefs. I have simply pointed out that he has attempted to implement those beliefs in an unconstitutional manner.
Buren
Bill I have to admit you do some good writing and your post are always insightful and well thought out. Though we tend to disagree most times, I can tell you are as passionate in your beliefs as I am about mine and I thank you for always showing class.....respect
Bill
Thank you, Buren. That's very kind of you.
John
Have to agree with Buren. We disagree Bill but it is refreshing to see someone actually use some logic to back up their position. For me personally, it comes down to morality > constitution. No government should exist, however that isn't really the point of this discussion. If government is to exist, it's role should be clearly defined and it shouldn't intrude into people's lives. I am pro-life but and as Paul says the feds aren't responsible for making laws involving violence, that is the states' job. Until we can win the argument that life starts at conception I don't see how we can overcome this without imposing our will on others. Unfortunately, that means we have to let states decide whether abortion is a violent crime or not, regardless of our positions on this.
Daniel
Interesting article. Packed full of emotional arguments, however, like Bill pointed out. How's that federal government pro-life strategy working out for you? Last time I checked we've had a fully republican legislative and executive branch in office and we've never been able to criminalize abortion. You say you want to criminalize abortion? Then try doing something new that might actually work rather than trying to beat a dead horse back to life.
Tom
Just a thought...if Tennessee legalizes baby murder and it's illegal in Alabama...would the person that went across state lines to commit said murder be able to be charged with murder upon re-entry to Alabama?
Spencer
Serious question, who is "The Personhood Initiative"? Is it just you and your agenda Bill or are you a non-profit or a PAC or what?
Bill
Well, I guess thanks are due all around.
John, I would love to discuss the topic of anarchy with you sometime on my Increasing Learning page which is linked below.
Daniel, I invite you to explain why you think that following the Constitution becomes a bad idea just because others have failed in their attempts to do so.
And Tom, that's an excellent question with a complex legal answer that we can understand with a simple example. Nearly everyone in Alabama knows that a citizen of Alabama can travel to Mississippi to gamble without fear of arrest when they return. The same would be true of any other difference between the legal codes of the various states.
Spencer, the Personhood Initiative in Alabama is a very small group of like minded pro-life activists who provide education and support for the personhood movement in Alabama. I am the primary author and researcher of that group. At this point in time, we are not incorporated. We simply work together as independent entities striving toward a common goal.
https://www.facebook.com/increasinglearning
Spencer
More bad logic in this article, and I feel like you'll use some more to "refute me". Mr. Paul's personal views on abortion are irrelevant to making the claim that his positions violate the Constitution. In your first point, you equate Paul's personal beliefs as having the force of federal law (which the country would be in a much better place if this were the case), unfortunately congress has not yet taken to immediately implementing his personal policies. Until the time federal law says that an unborn fetus IS a human, then there is no Constitutional violation. Argument 1 down.
Argument 2 is based on the same reasoning, so my defense is the same as the above.
Argument 3 also seems irrelevant. Paul wants to remove the SCOTUS authority over abortion. If there's a state who is sued for that issue AND abortion, then it does seem it would go to the SCOTUS. So what? Nothing there is unconstitutional.
Argument 4 goes back to my first point.
In short, you SEEM to personally dislike Paul(why I'm not sure), and contort your reasoning to justify your dislike.
Daniel
Bill, the constitution does not define a fetus as life. You define a fetus as life. A large portion of the country does not define a fetus as life. Just because it's your opinion does not make it correct. The bible does not define a fetus as life. Just because it is my opinion that a fetus is not life does not make me correct. I am actually "pro-life" because I am all about people taking responsibility for their actions, but I am in no way going to act like the moral fiber of this country rests on criminalizing something that is so undefined.
Bill
Thank you for taking the time to read the article, Spencer. Unfortunately, you and Daniel seem to have overlooked a couple of very significant facts.
1) Mr. Paul's Sanctity of Life Act declares that every child is a person from the moment of conception.
2) If every child is a person from the moment of conception, then every child is brought under the protection of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and any law permitting abortion becomes unconstitutional.
3) The people have the right to sue their state level government if that government either passes or refuses to repeal a law which violates the Constitution.
4) The Constitution states in Article III, Section 2 that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over every case in which a state is named as a party.
5) Mr. Paul's Sanctity of Life Act would have eliminated the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over any law having to do with abortion.
> Therefore, Mr. Paul's Sanctity of Life Act -- which recognizes the Constitutional protection of unborn children and, at the same time, denies the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over cases dealing with that protection -- is an unconstitutional act.
The fact that Mr. Paul sponsored and introduced this bill in Congress means that he has personally sought to pass an unconstitutional law. According to Mr. Paul and most of his followers, we should not vote for a candidate who has sought to do something that violates the Constitution. Therefore, we should not vote for Mr. Paul.
Daniel
Indeed, I had never given this legislation much thought until now because I have different views than Dr. Paul on abortion. You are however incorrect (I think, lol!) that he tried to pass unconstitutional law. Murder is handled at the state level. Just because it gives the power to the states to determine HOW to handle it does not mean it specifically allows states to NOT punish the crime. This is one thing I disagree with Dr. Paul on. Can I challenge you to find a current candidate that you disagree with less than Dr. Paul? :) So really if it's unconstitutional that abortion should be handled at the states level does that mean you think murder should always be held trial in a federal court of law?
Bill
I did not say that it is unconstitutional for abortion to be handled on a state level. I said that it is unconstitutional to deny the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over challenges to the constitutionality of state level laws. To use your example of murder: even though murder is tried and punished on the state level, the Supreme Court has original, Constitutional jurisdiction over any suit that may be brought against the state claiming that its murder laws are unconstitutional. Congress does not have the authority to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing such a case. Therefore, Congress does not have the authority to prevent the Court from hearing similar challenges to state level abortion laws.
Daniel
I'll do some more studying on this, but simply for arguing my side of the story (and thank you again for engaging in a fact based discussion which will result in educating myself and others im sure) would you say that the supreme court having the last say in terms of constitutionality over passed legislation is constitutional? There is no specific language that says there is and in fact the power to have the last say came from a supreme court hearing. Seems like rather out of balance "checks and balances" to me. If this is the case then it would be not only constitutional, but mandatory for the legislative branch or any other branch to reallocate the power to the states and people.
Buren
Bill, we agree on pro life though we disagree (like people have for generations) on interpretations of The Constitution. The difference seems to be that Ron Paul and I value ALL life. That includes the lives of those we have slaughtered in these UNCONSTITUTIONAL wars. The unborn? Check the statics of over 25% of all Iraqi babies being born with horrible birth defects due to our use of depleted uranium munitions. (against international law by the way)
Spencer
After reading Article 3, Sec 2 and The Sanctity of Life Bill, I still see no conflict. The SOLB addresses the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and doesn't do anything about the original jurisdiction. There is no conflict with the Constitution.
Bill
Daniel, the authority of the Supreme Court in such cases can be more easily understood by looking at the limits placed on the authority of the states. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, every state is forbidden from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," or denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Therefore, the state does not have the authority to pass laws which violate the right to life, liberty or property.
Now, let's imagine for a moment that the state of Alabama has passed a law stating that the Governor can deprive business owners of their property without any form of due process. What recourse would the business owners have in such a case? Would they have to wait until they can successfully lobby the Alabama legislature to change this unconstitutional law? Not at all. They can instead sue the state for the restoration of their constitutional rights. Since the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all cases in which a state shall be named as a party, this suit would be heard in a federal court and will most likely proceed all the way to the Supreme Court where they will correctly declare it to be unconstitutional.
This should illustrate the authority of Supreme Court to declare certain laws unconstitutional, but there may perhaps be those who are wondering if such a case is too farfetched to be worth considering. In preemptive response to that thought, let me mention that a similar case did occur in Truax v. Corrigan over a law in Arizona which the court determined to be unconstitutional. The court stated that:
"the legislative power of a state can only be exerted in subordination to the fundamental principles of right and justice which the guaranty of due process in the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to preserve, and that a purely arbitrary or capricious exercise of that power whereby a wrongful and highly injurious invasion of property rights, as here, is practically sanctioned and the owner stripped of all real remedy, is wholly at variance with those principles."
Buren, would you mind explaining how the "war" in Iraq is unconstitutional?
Spencer, the Sanctity of Life Act would have amended the US Code to state that "the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise" any case involving abortion. As Mr. Paul has stated on several occasions, this wording would eliminate not just the appellate jurisdiction but all jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over cases involving abortion. Such a limitation would be unconstitutional.
Buren
The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. (see: U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8) Rather, Congress voted for a resolution which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress.
Bill
Did you know that Congress has exercised the right to authorize hostilities without an official declaration of war on several occasions throughout our nation's history? In fact, we could go all the way back to the Fifth Congress which, in 1798, approved an act stating:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to instruct the commanders of the public armed vessels which are, or which shall be employed in the service of the United States, to subdue, seize and take any armed French vessel, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere, on the high seas...
And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to grant to the owners of private armed ships and vessels of the United States, who shall make application therefor, special commissions in the form which he shall direct and under the seal of the United States; and such private armed vessels, when duly commissioned, as aforesaid, shall have the same license and authority for the subduing, seizing and capturing any armed French vessel..."
(http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/qw04.asp)
This period of hostility between America and France is known to historians as the Quasi-War with France. It is said to be a quasi-war because America entered into it without an official declaration of war. However, the validity of this quasi-war has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in several cases.
In Bas v. Tingy, for example, the Justice Washington stated:
"It may, I believe, be safely laid down, that every contention by force between two nations, in external matters, under the authority of their respective governments, is not only war, but public war. If it be declared in form, it is called solemn, and is of the perfect kind; because one whole nation is at war with another whole nation; and all the members of the nation declaring war, are authorised to commit hostilities against all the members of the other, in every place, and under every circumstance. In such a war all the members act under a general authority, and all the rights and consequences of war attach to their condition. But hostilities may subsist between two nations more confined in its nature and extent; being limited as to places, persons, and things; and this is more properly termed imperfect war; because not solemn, and because those who are authorised to commit hostilities, act under special authority, and can go no farther than to the extent of their commission. Still, however, it is public war, because it is an external contention by force, between some of the members of the two nations, authorised by the legitimate powers. It is a war between the two nations, though all the members are not authorised to commit hostilities such as in a solemn war, where the government restrain the general power."
(http://laws.findlaw.com/us/4/37.html)
Chief Justice Marshall made a similar declaration in Talbot v. Seeman:
"The whole powers of war being by the Constitution of the United States vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry. It is not denied, nor in the course of the argument has it been denied, that Congress may authorize general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation, or partial hostilities."
(http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/1/case.html)
Thus we can see that the right of Congress to engage our nation in hostilities without declaring war is a right with a rich and longstanding history. It is not a cowardly waiver of their responsibility, but rather a recognized action in direct accordance with that responsibility.
Spencer
This why I'm not a lawyer, or a judge. I do not read those words and get the same meaning you do. I can't rightly say I've ever read or heard where Paul has actually delineated appellate/original jurisdiction about abortion in his bill. You're in fact the first person I've come across to approach the bill from this angle. As I've said before, I believe it's because you are opposed to Paul's candidacy for other reasons besides "abortion".
Daniel
Bill, I could argue that criminalizing abortion effects womens liberty. You must realize that because there is such a division in defining life that you can not use the 14th amendment to justify criminalizing abortion. My qualms with the SOLA is that it seeks to amend the supreme court, which would be against todays laws, however, I would argue todays law are unconstitutional as the constitution never gives the supreme court the "last word" with legislation. Only the supreme court gave itself the last word and that can hardly be upheld as justified law.
Bill
Spencer, Mr. Paul introduced his Sanctity of Life Act on May 20, 2009. According to the Congressional Record, he stated:
"Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Sanctity of Life Act. This legislation provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases ... the federal courts have no legitimate authority to tell states and local communities what restrictions can and cannot be placed on abortion."
You can read Mr. Paul's entire speech at this link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2009-05-20/pdf/CREC-2009-05-20-pt1-PgE1221-2.pdf, and you can see that he makes no distinction between appellate and original jurisdiction. He simply states that the act declares that the Supreme court does "not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases."
Furthermore, in his letter to Personhood USA, Mr. Paul stated that "As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts." Once again he makes no distinction between appellate and original jurisdiction. He simply states that he will remove abortin from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
(http://www.personhoodusa.com/files/Keith%20Ashley/Ron%20Paul%20Personhood%20Statement_0.pdf)
Daniel, did you read my earlier explanation for why the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the Constitutionality of any given law?
Daniel
Bill I don't question that they have authority to rule over a law, but they are not constitutionally the LAST form of government to rule over a law. Unless, of course, you think that the supreme court ruling themselves to be the "last word" was constitutional. In the case of SOLA, I would argue congress has not only the right but the duty to overide the supreme court as the "last word" and ammend the supreme courts ruling. I disagree that SOLA should be the first legislation to do such a thing since it's already a sticky subject, but I think it should be done.
Bill
Let me point out a technicality of the court system that very few people are aware of. According to the McArthur v. Scott decision, the opinions of the courts are not binding on any party which is not named in that opinion. The McArthur Court stated that:
"upon a review of the cases no precedent has been found, either in a court of probate or in a court of chancery, in which a decree disallowing a will, rendered in a suit brought to set it aside, or to assert an adverse title in the estate, without making such executors, or an administrator with the will annexed, a party to the suit, has been held binding upon persons not before the court ... The record of the decree setting aside the will showed that neither these plaintiffs, nor any executors or successors of executors in the trust, were parties to the suit; and consequently that the plaintiffs' title under the will, as originally admitted to probate, was not affected by that decree."
This means, for instance, that Roe v. Wade is only binding on the state of Texas and not on any other state since no other state was named as a party in that case. The court only ruled that a particular Texas law was unconstitutional for very particular reasons. Technically speaking, the other states are free to maintain and enforce laws identical to the one struck down in Texas until such a time as they are each tried in a federal court. It is only the fear of losing such a case which prevents the states from doing so.
Furthermore, Texas has every right to restructure its law against abortion in a way which conforms to the Roe opinion. The mere removal of the exception clause would sufficiently change their abortion law enough to overcome the Roe decision.
In short, the Supreme Court is not the "last word" on any law. They represent merely a decisive word which is interjected every now and then in the never ending legal process.
Daniel
I don't understand how that explains they aren't the last word? Very informative post, but just because the ruling only holds true for the state in question, it does not mean that if Alabama state made a law found to be in contradiction to the supreme courts hearing of a Texas hearing, that the supreme court would leave them alone. This means they are the "last word" and I can hardly see how it was even legal for the supreme court to hold a hearing where they declared themselves to have the final say on subjects like abortion.
Bill
Here is the relevant section from Marbury v. Madison. Please let me know which part of this decision you find disagreeable.
"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions-a written constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?
This is too extravagant to be maintained.
In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey?
There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
It is declared that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.' Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law.
The constitution declares that 'no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.'
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavours to preserve?
'No person,' says the constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.'
Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
Daniel
Is that the text in it's entirety? Because I see nothing that suggests this ruling deems the supreme court can not be over-ruled by the legislative branch and conversely it also specifies that the supreme court can rule against the legislative branch, both keeping the other in check. So, back to the original argument. Is it unconstitutional for SOLA to give states the ability to decide on the legality of abortion when the supreme court has already deemed it unconstitutional. I stick with my answer, that no it is not, because, there is nothing unconstitutional about the legislature amending a supreme court ruling.
Bill
That is the entire relevant section of Marbury v. Madison, but you can read the rest of the case at this link: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html.
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states:
"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"
The power to judge whether an action is legal and equitable lies fully within the jurisdiction of the courts. The legislature has no Constitutional authority to overrule a decision of the court. Any attempt by the legislature to declare by law that a Supreme Court ruling is null and void would be an unconstitutional breech of the power of the Court.
By the way, I would recommend that you read Federalist No. 78.
Ron Paul's supporters have often claimed that their candidate is the only one who will not violate the Constitution if he is elected. In the article below, I have demonstrated the error of this claim in regards to Mr. Paul's pro-life position. Would any of Mr. Paul's supporters care to provide a similar expose which proves that Mr. Santorum holds to an unconstitutional position?
Article Link: Personhood and Ron Paul
Buren
Not much on exposes here, just a poor mixed race country boy from Rock Creek Alabama with a question: How has that whole letting the federal government decide abortion been working out for you? If the "personhood: site has a problem with The Sanctity of Life Act that would defined human life and legal personhood as beginning at conception then I have a problem with them. Two thing for sure Dr. Paul has delivered over 4000 babies aborted 0 and has NEVER voted to fund planned parenthood....
Bill
Have you read the article yet?
Buren
Yes but I have also read Liberty Defined, The Revolution A Manifesto and END THE FED. And I TOTALLY agree with Dr. Paul on all major issues.
Bill
Then you realize that I am not opposed to Mr. Paul's personal pro-life beliefs. I have simply pointed out that he has attempted to implement those beliefs in an unconstitutional manner.
Buren
Bill I have to admit you do some good writing and your post are always insightful and well thought out. Though we tend to disagree most times, I can tell you are as passionate in your beliefs as I am about mine and I thank you for always showing class.....respect
Bill
Thank you, Buren. That's very kind of you.
John
Have to agree with Buren. We disagree Bill but it is refreshing to see someone actually use some logic to back up their position. For me personally, it comes down to morality > constitution. No government should exist, however that isn't really the point of this discussion. If government is to exist, it's role should be clearly defined and it shouldn't intrude into people's lives. I am pro-life but and as Paul says the feds aren't responsible for making laws involving violence, that is the states' job. Until we can win the argument that life starts at conception I don't see how we can overcome this without imposing our will on others. Unfortunately, that means we have to let states decide whether abortion is a violent crime or not, regardless of our positions on this.
Daniel
Interesting article. Packed full of emotional arguments, however, like Bill pointed out. How's that federal government pro-life strategy working out for you? Last time I checked we've had a fully republican legislative and executive branch in office and we've never been able to criminalize abortion. You say you want to criminalize abortion? Then try doing something new that might actually work rather than trying to beat a dead horse back to life.
Tom
Just a thought...if Tennessee legalizes baby murder and it's illegal in Alabama...would the person that went across state lines to commit said murder be able to be charged with murder upon re-entry to Alabama?
Spencer
Serious question, who is "The Personhood Initiative"? Is it just you and your agenda Bill or are you a non-profit or a PAC or what?
Bill
Well, I guess thanks are due all around.
John, I would love to discuss the topic of anarchy with you sometime on my Increasing Learning page which is linked below.
Daniel, I invite you to explain why you think that following the Constitution becomes a bad idea just because others have failed in their attempts to do so.
And Tom, that's an excellent question with a complex legal answer that we can understand with a simple example. Nearly everyone in Alabama knows that a citizen of Alabama can travel to Mississippi to gamble without fear of arrest when they return. The same would be true of any other difference between the legal codes of the various states.
Spencer, the Personhood Initiative in Alabama is a very small group of like minded pro-life activists who provide education and support for the personhood movement in Alabama. I am the primary author and researcher of that group. At this point in time, we are not incorporated. We simply work together as independent entities striving toward a common goal.
https://www.facebook.com/increasinglearning
Spencer
More bad logic in this article, and I feel like you'll use some more to "refute me". Mr. Paul's personal views on abortion are irrelevant to making the claim that his positions violate the Constitution. In your first point, you equate Paul's personal beliefs as having the force of federal law (which the country would be in a much better place if this were the case), unfortunately congress has not yet taken to immediately implementing his personal policies. Until the time federal law says that an unborn fetus IS a human, then there is no Constitutional violation. Argument 1 down.
Argument 2 is based on the same reasoning, so my defense is the same as the above.
Argument 3 also seems irrelevant. Paul wants to remove the SCOTUS authority over abortion. If there's a state who is sued for that issue AND abortion, then it does seem it would go to the SCOTUS. So what? Nothing there is unconstitutional.
Argument 4 goes back to my first point.
In short, you SEEM to personally dislike Paul(why I'm not sure), and contort your reasoning to justify your dislike.
Daniel
Bill, the constitution does not define a fetus as life. You define a fetus as life. A large portion of the country does not define a fetus as life. Just because it's your opinion does not make it correct. The bible does not define a fetus as life. Just because it is my opinion that a fetus is not life does not make me correct. I am actually "pro-life" because I am all about people taking responsibility for their actions, but I am in no way going to act like the moral fiber of this country rests on criminalizing something that is so undefined.
Bill
Thank you for taking the time to read the article, Spencer. Unfortunately, you and Daniel seem to have overlooked a couple of very significant facts.
1) Mr. Paul's Sanctity of Life Act declares that every child is a person from the moment of conception.
2) If every child is a person from the moment of conception, then every child is brought under the protection of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and any law permitting abortion becomes unconstitutional.
3) The people have the right to sue their state level government if that government either passes or refuses to repeal a law which violates the Constitution.
4) The Constitution states in Article III, Section 2 that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over every case in which a state is named as a party.
5) Mr. Paul's Sanctity of Life Act would have eliminated the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over any law having to do with abortion.
> Therefore, Mr. Paul's Sanctity of Life Act -- which recognizes the Constitutional protection of unborn children and, at the same time, denies the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over cases dealing with that protection -- is an unconstitutional act.
The fact that Mr. Paul sponsored and introduced this bill in Congress means that he has personally sought to pass an unconstitutional law. According to Mr. Paul and most of his followers, we should not vote for a candidate who has sought to do something that violates the Constitution. Therefore, we should not vote for Mr. Paul.
Daniel
Indeed, I had never given this legislation much thought until now because I have different views than Dr. Paul on abortion. You are however incorrect (I think, lol!) that he tried to pass unconstitutional law. Murder is handled at the state level. Just because it gives the power to the states to determine HOW to handle it does not mean it specifically allows states to NOT punish the crime. This is one thing I disagree with Dr. Paul on. Can I challenge you to find a current candidate that you disagree with less than Dr. Paul? :) So really if it's unconstitutional that abortion should be handled at the states level does that mean you think murder should always be held trial in a federal court of law?
Bill
I did not say that it is unconstitutional for abortion to be handled on a state level. I said that it is unconstitutional to deny the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over challenges to the constitutionality of state level laws. To use your example of murder: even though murder is tried and punished on the state level, the Supreme Court has original, Constitutional jurisdiction over any suit that may be brought against the state claiming that its murder laws are unconstitutional. Congress does not have the authority to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing such a case. Therefore, Congress does not have the authority to prevent the Court from hearing similar challenges to state level abortion laws.
Daniel
I'll do some more studying on this, but simply for arguing my side of the story (and thank you again for engaging in a fact based discussion which will result in educating myself and others im sure) would you say that the supreme court having the last say in terms of constitutionality over passed legislation is constitutional? There is no specific language that says there is and in fact the power to have the last say came from a supreme court hearing. Seems like rather out of balance "checks and balances" to me. If this is the case then it would be not only constitutional, but mandatory for the legislative branch or any other branch to reallocate the power to the states and people.
Buren
Bill, we agree on pro life though we disagree (like people have for generations) on interpretations of The Constitution. The difference seems to be that Ron Paul and I value ALL life. That includes the lives of those we have slaughtered in these UNCONSTITUTIONAL wars. The unborn? Check the statics of over 25% of all Iraqi babies being born with horrible birth defects due to our use of depleted uranium munitions. (against international law by the way)
Spencer
After reading Article 3, Sec 2 and The Sanctity of Life Bill, I still see no conflict. The SOLB addresses the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and doesn't do anything about the original jurisdiction. There is no conflict with the Constitution.
Bill
Daniel, the authority of the Supreme Court in such cases can be more easily understood by looking at the limits placed on the authority of the states. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, every state is forbidden from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," or denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Therefore, the state does not have the authority to pass laws which violate the right to life, liberty or property.
Now, let's imagine for a moment that the state of Alabama has passed a law stating that the Governor can deprive business owners of their property without any form of due process. What recourse would the business owners have in such a case? Would they have to wait until they can successfully lobby the Alabama legislature to change this unconstitutional law? Not at all. They can instead sue the state for the restoration of their constitutional rights. Since the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all cases in which a state shall be named as a party, this suit would be heard in a federal court and will most likely proceed all the way to the Supreme Court where they will correctly declare it to be unconstitutional.
This should illustrate the authority of Supreme Court to declare certain laws unconstitutional, but there may perhaps be those who are wondering if such a case is too farfetched to be worth considering. In preemptive response to that thought, let me mention that a similar case did occur in Truax v. Corrigan over a law in Arizona which the court determined to be unconstitutional. The court stated that:
"the legislative power of a state can only be exerted in subordination to the fundamental principles of right and justice which the guaranty of due process in the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to preserve, and that a purely arbitrary or capricious exercise of that power whereby a wrongful and highly injurious invasion of property rights, as here, is practically sanctioned and the owner stripped of all real remedy, is wholly at variance with those principles."
Buren, would you mind explaining how the "war" in Iraq is unconstitutional?
Spencer, the Sanctity of Life Act would have amended the US Code to state that "the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise" any case involving abortion. As Mr. Paul has stated on several occasions, this wording would eliminate not just the appellate jurisdiction but all jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over cases involving abortion. Such a limitation would be unconstitutional.
Buren
The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. (see: U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8) Rather, Congress voted for a resolution which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress.
Bill
Did you know that Congress has exercised the right to authorize hostilities without an official declaration of war on several occasions throughout our nation's history? In fact, we could go all the way back to the Fifth Congress which, in 1798, approved an act stating:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to instruct the commanders of the public armed vessels which are, or which shall be employed in the service of the United States, to subdue, seize and take any armed French vessel, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere, on the high seas...
And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to grant to the owners of private armed ships and vessels of the United States, who shall make application therefor, special commissions in the form which he shall direct and under the seal of the United States; and such private armed vessels, when duly commissioned, as aforesaid, shall have the same license and authority for the subduing, seizing and capturing any armed French vessel..."
(http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/qw04.asp)
This period of hostility between America and France is known to historians as the Quasi-War with France. It is said to be a quasi-war because America entered into it without an official declaration of war. However, the validity of this quasi-war has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in several cases.
In Bas v. Tingy, for example, the Justice Washington stated:
"It may, I believe, be safely laid down, that every contention by force between two nations, in external matters, under the authority of their respective governments, is not only war, but public war. If it be declared in form, it is called solemn, and is of the perfect kind; because one whole nation is at war with another whole nation; and all the members of the nation declaring war, are authorised to commit hostilities against all the members of the other, in every place, and under every circumstance. In such a war all the members act under a general authority, and all the rights and consequences of war attach to their condition. But hostilities may subsist between two nations more confined in its nature and extent; being limited as to places, persons, and things; and this is more properly termed imperfect war; because not solemn, and because those who are authorised to commit hostilities, act under special authority, and can go no farther than to the extent of their commission. Still, however, it is public war, because it is an external contention by force, between some of the members of the two nations, authorised by the legitimate powers. It is a war between the two nations, though all the members are not authorised to commit hostilities such as in a solemn war, where the government restrain the general power."
(http://laws.findlaw.com/us/4/37.html)
Chief Justice Marshall made a similar declaration in Talbot v. Seeman:
"The whole powers of war being by the Constitution of the United States vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry. It is not denied, nor in the course of the argument has it been denied, that Congress may authorize general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation, or partial hostilities."
(http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/1/case.html)
Thus we can see that the right of Congress to engage our nation in hostilities without declaring war is a right with a rich and longstanding history. It is not a cowardly waiver of their responsibility, but rather a recognized action in direct accordance with that responsibility.
Spencer
This why I'm not a lawyer, or a judge. I do not read those words and get the same meaning you do. I can't rightly say I've ever read or heard where Paul has actually delineated appellate/original jurisdiction about abortion in his bill. You're in fact the first person I've come across to approach the bill from this angle. As I've said before, I believe it's because you are opposed to Paul's candidacy for other reasons besides "abortion".
Daniel
Bill, I could argue that criminalizing abortion effects womens liberty. You must realize that because there is such a division in defining life that you can not use the 14th amendment to justify criminalizing abortion. My qualms with the SOLA is that it seeks to amend the supreme court, which would be against todays laws, however, I would argue todays law are unconstitutional as the constitution never gives the supreme court the "last word" with legislation. Only the supreme court gave itself the last word and that can hardly be upheld as justified law.
Bill
Spencer, Mr. Paul introduced his Sanctity of Life Act on May 20, 2009. According to the Congressional Record, he stated:
"Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Sanctity of Life Act. This legislation provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases ... the federal courts have no legitimate authority to tell states and local communities what restrictions can and cannot be placed on abortion."
You can read Mr. Paul's entire speech at this link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2009-05-20/pdf/CREC-2009-05-20-pt1-PgE1221-2.pdf, and you can see that he makes no distinction between appellate and original jurisdiction. He simply states that the act declares that the Supreme court does "not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases."
Furthermore, in his letter to Personhood USA, Mr. Paul stated that "As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts." Once again he makes no distinction between appellate and original jurisdiction. He simply states that he will remove abortin from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
(http://www.personhoodusa.com/files/Keith%20Ashley/Ron%20Paul%20Personhood%20Statement_0.pdf)
Daniel, did you read my earlier explanation for why the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the Constitutionality of any given law?
Daniel
Bill I don't question that they have authority to rule over a law, but they are not constitutionally the LAST form of government to rule over a law. Unless, of course, you think that the supreme court ruling themselves to be the "last word" was constitutional. In the case of SOLA, I would argue congress has not only the right but the duty to overide the supreme court as the "last word" and ammend the supreme courts ruling. I disagree that SOLA should be the first legislation to do such a thing since it's already a sticky subject, but I think it should be done.
Bill
Let me point out a technicality of the court system that very few people are aware of. According to the McArthur v. Scott decision, the opinions of the courts are not binding on any party which is not named in that opinion. The McArthur Court stated that:
"upon a review of the cases no precedent has been found, either in a court of probate or in a court of chancery, in which a decree disallowing a will, rendered in a suit brought to set it aside, or to assert an adverse title in the estate, without making such executors, or an administrator with the will annexed, a party to the suit, has been held binding upon persons not before the court ... The record of the decree setting aside the will showed that neither these plaintiffs, nor any executors or successors of executors in the trust, were parties to the suit; and consequently that the plaintiffs' title under the will, as originally admitted to probate, was not affected by that decree."
This means, for instance, that Roe v. Wade is only binding on the state of Texas and not on any other state since no other state was named as a party in that case. The court only ruled that a particular Texas law was unconstitutional for very particular reasons. Technically speaking, the other states are free to maintain and enforce laws identical to the one struck down in Texas until such a time as they are each tried in a federal court. It is only the fear of losing such a case which prevents the states from doing so.
Furthermore, Texas has every right to restructure its law against abortion in a way which conforms to the Roe opinion. The mere removal of the exception clause would sufficiently change their abortion law enough to overcome the Roe decision.
In short, the Supreme Court is not the "last word" on any law. They represent merely a decisive word which is interjected every now and then in the never ending legal process.
Daniel
I don't understand how that explains they aren't the last word? Very informative post, but just because the ruling only holds true for the state in question, it does not mean that if Alabama state made a law found to be in contradiction to the supreme courts hearing of a Texas hearing, that the supreme court would leave them alone. This means they are the "last word" and I can hardly see how it was even legal for the supreme court to hold a hearing where they declared themselves to have the final say on subjects like abortion.
Bill
Here is the relevant section from Marbury v. Madison. Please let me know which part of this decision you find disagreeable.
"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions-a written constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?
This is too extravagant to be maintained.
In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey?
There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
It is declared that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.' Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law.
The constitution declares that 'no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.'
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavours to preserve?
'No person,' says the constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.'
Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
Daniel
Is that the text in it's entirety? Because I see nothing that suggests this ruling deems the supreme court can not be over-ruled by the legislative branch and conversely it also specifies that the supreme court can rule against the legislative branch, both keeping the other in check. So, back to the original argument. Is it unconstitutional for SOLA to give states the ability to decide on the legality of abortion when the supreme court has already deemed it unconstitutional. I stick with my answer, that no it is not, because, there is nothing unconstitutional about the legislature amending a supreme court ruling.
Bill
That is the entire relevant section of Marbury v. Madison, but you can read the rest of the case at this link: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html.
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states:
"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"
The power to judge whether an action is legal and equitable lies fully within the jurisdiction of the courts. The legislature has no Constitutional authority to overrule a decision of the court. Any attempt by the legislature to declare by law that a Supreme Court ruling is null and void would be an unconstitutional breech of the power of the Court.
By the way, I would recommend that you read Federalist No. 78.