Howard Phillips Quotes
The courts are under the Constitution, not over it.
One of the conundrums of our constitutional system is who has the last word as to what the Constitution means. Essentially it is the judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court. But there are those who believe that the current popular majority should have a say in what is or is not constitutional. If so the legislative branch should have the last word. Still others say that the President is the only person elected by ALL the people, so his opinion most reflects the will of the public. And then there are most who argue that the Constitutional system was created just to avoid the power of currently popular majorities, and the courts should decide based on the Constitution itself. So the statement has very little meaning except that Phillips thinks that the courts have too much power. Whoever gets to decide what is or is not Constitutional will be accused of being “over” the Constitution by those who don’t like the decisions. In our system, that is the courts.
Howard Phillips, Chairman, Conservative Caucus, Chairman, U. S. Taxpayers Party, Presidential Candidate, Constitutional Party, Conservative Caucus, Constitution Day Commemoration, September 16, 2006
Sourced by: Eigen's Political and Historical Quotations
Hatch was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time.
The view that the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of constitutional controversies was not held in early America.
See John Marshall's later (1803) use of the concept and term "repugnant." {606483}
This concept of balance of power and the equal role of the judiciary is actually quite rare. Even in Parliamentary democracies the parliament can override any court interpretation. In England, the upper legislative house, the House of Lords, actually serves as the nation’s highest or supreme court. And these “Law Lords” can override all regular judicial bodies.
Marshall is famous for, as Chief Justice, establishing the principle that the Judiciary can override Congress and the Executive in determining Constitutionality. However, as this quotation illustrates this principle had been discussed in open debate on the ratification of the Constitution. It was not simply a grab for power by a Chief justice; he uttered this quotation long before he ever suspected he would be a judge but actually spent much of his career in the executive and legislative branch of government.
Jefferson’s fears were later reinforced by John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison {606468}
The New Deal liberal Democrats had complained that the Supreme Court was making national policy and law and not interpreting law. They tried to pack the Supreme Court by adding more justices who would be more sympathetic to the New Deal. (See {587549}.) At the beginning of the 21st century it was the conservative Republicans who were making the same claim that the Supreme Court was making law and not interpreting it. The pattern seems to be when the court votes for your side, they are interpreting the law. When they vote for the other side, they are activist—making law improperly.
When asked for his position on abortion, candidate Bush answered:. Nine years later, President Bush proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling on flag desecration.
Referring to the Brown v. Board of Education, the Topeka, KS, Supreme Court school desegregation decision:
Cummings was arguing against a Constitutional amendment. His alternative led to Roosevelt's court packing schema.
Howard Jay Phillips was a three-time United States presidential candidate who served as the chairman of The Conservative Caucus, a conservative public policy advocacy group which he founded in 1974. Phillips was a founding member of the U.S. Taxpayers Party, which later became known as the Constitution Party.
