Michigander in Mass

An open letter from a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts...

An interesting ploy in the evolution of our democratic experiment is about to take place. A lot of people are nervous about the "Don't Let Massachusetts Gay Marriage Happen to the Rest of the U.S. Act"... One moment... Oh, I'm sorry, I'm told it's actually the "Accountability for Judicial Activism Act."

Basically, it states that Congress can overturn a Supreme Court ruling with a 2/3rds majority vote, if the ruling itself involves a constitutional interpretation of any legislation. And it goes into effect immediately--thus affecting any judicial interpretation of the act itself.

Will this lead to another revolution? I doubt it. Assuming it's enacted--and given our current president and legislature, that's somewhat likely--let's play out the possibilities:

1. BECOMES LAW, RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, 2/3RDS VOTE FAILS. Thanks for playing. Try again next term.

2. BECOMES LAW, RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, 2/3RDS VOTE PASSES. Highly unlikely, but creates a constitutional crisis. There are so many variables here--including the makeup of the court, the sitting president, changes in congressional makeup, etc.--that it's hard to predict the result here, but it's not pretty. Fortunately it's unlikely.

So how do we avoid this mess? First, VOTE! I expressed in earlier columns just a few reasons why voter turnout is so low. But here is a great issue (gay marriage that is) that should have liberals and conservatives alike out pounding the streets and voting their consciences.

Second, write your congressman expressing your concern over the potential constitutional crisis this creates. Congress is treading into dangerous waters here. What's to stop them from trying the same thing all over again, but this time only requiring a simple majority? How do we get out of that crisis? If I were a betting man, I'd pick Congress over the Supreme Court in a fight for control of the military any day!

I'm sure Representative Lewis listened to his conscience when he authored this act. He was responding to what he sincerely felt was a gross misuse of judicial power. But if that is the case, the he has responded in kind--an eye for an eye. It is a gross misuse of legislative power that effectively instills into Congress the power to override the constitutional interpretations of our Supreme Justices. It is in my lay-interpretation a gross injustice.

If a signal must be sent to overreaching justices, it should be done through the existing checks we have in place on the judiciary. Appoint new judges, vote them out of office when possible, or initiate impeachment processes against the judges when possible. If these aren't effective means of checking the judiciary, then begin the constitutional amendment process to adjust the checks and balances accordingly.

Mr Lewis, shame on you for initiating this sharade. If you truly are following your conscience, then you should have picked a more appropriate means of correcting the balance of our constitutional system. If not, well, I can confidently state that the conservative political base of Kentucky is now comfortably assured of your stance against gay marriage.