According to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/landmark

Landmark-an event or development that marks a turning point or a stage.

According to Dave...

Landmark-an opinion handed down by the Supreme Court that violates the 10th Amendment, States' Rights, and the very spirit of the Constitution itself.

A bit biased? Not really. Just a silly definition added to further my point.

The Supreme Court of the United States has made something of a history of horrendously bad decisions. You know, declaring slavery constitutional, declaring segregation constitutional, overturning the death penalty as unconstitutional only to have States revolt, alter their laws, and challenge the ruling only to have to reverse itself and declare Capital Punishment constitutional. Depending on where you are on the issues of abortion and religion, declaring one constitutional and the other unconstitutional.

Ironic, really...

1.) Abortion does not appear in the Constitution, thus the 10th Amendment would lead one to believe that it was strictly a States' Right to regulate such a topic without the intervention of the Federal Government.

2.) Freedom of Religion IS in the Constitution, as is a complete ban on CONGRESS regulating it's activities. So why would the Supreme Court decide that IT had the right to do so? One would think that the right to choose to participate in religion would be an individuals, and the right to do pretty much whatever it wanted resided with the States. Maybe I'm just from Mars...

Another couple of thoughts on the history of all our Harvard Law graduates (aka, the Supreme Court)...

1.) The Supreme Court declared slavery constitutional in 1857 in the (there's the word!) Landmark decision in Dred Scott v. San(d)ford. They couldn't even spell the poor guy's name correctly! Then the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and (did you know about this one?) the Civil Rights Act of 1868! I didn't know about that until beginning all my research! All of those Acts, Amendments, and Executive Orders and the Supreme Court still comes out in 1896 and says segregation is constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson.  I mean, at least they spelled the guy's name right this time!

2.) The Supreme Court, in it's decision in Plessy, was actually, for once, in line with States' Rights! The Southern States enacted regulations restricting blacks from sharing facilities with whites, etc. Back of the bus kind of stuff (actually, that started with railroads, hence Plessy). No-win situation. Do we defer, refusing to issue a decision and allow State law to stand, thus recognizing 10th Amendment States' Rights, or do we overturn States' Rights, thus further damaging the Constitution. Answer: Best not to have ruled in slavery 50 years before! (many more issues to discuss, not the time just yet--come back!)

3.) Even when the Supreme Court finally decided to do the right thing, consider the turmoil that resulted. The 1950's and 60's were a time of considerable unrest and racial tensions. We are still to this day feeling the effects of slavery, segregation, and the Civil Rights era. Way to go, Justices! Way to do the (unconstitutional) right thing! (I say unconstitutional because they shouldn't have ever entered into these issues)

4.) Did you know that four Amendments to the Constitution exist as a direct result of Supreme Court rulings? With three modern amendments always on the forefront of activists activities (flag burning, gay marriage, abortion) The Supreme Court rules and Congress acts to rebuff the Justices. See also the 11th, 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Four out of 17 since the Bill of Rights and Constitution were ratified.

That's roughly one in four as a result of Supreme Court actions.

Landmark--also known as waste of time! As in, Congress' time.

Here's a bit of Constitution trivia for you--who controls the Supreme Court? I mean, they're unelected and appointed, "in good behavior," for life. So who owns a "check" on the Supreme Court?

Interesting, isn't it, that the Supreme Court is comprised of unelected people, the people don't have a direct say in who sits on the Court, and they currently have the most impact and seemingly are the mightiest of the three branches of our government, hmm?

Where is the concept of self-governance in a system where unelected Justices hand down ruling after ruling that overturns Acts of Congress and State Law? I don't read that in either the text of the Constitution or the text of the deliberations of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

In fact, I barely read ANYTHING about the Judiciary in the debates! The make-up of the Congress, how many Representatives per State, how many seats Slaves count for, what powers the Federal Government will have and which reside with the States, what powers the Chief Executive would have, which checks and balances are to be held by each branch, etc.

The delegates were VERY meticulous--we would call them anal today--about the Framing of the Constitution. Yet, they spoke about the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary for about two days and Article 3 was complete.

Now how is it that a group like the States could be sooooo concerned about government making decisions without considering the will of the people and they would be so deliberate about placing controls on the government, yet they would put in place a system where unelected persons who have the power to say what the Constitution means have absolute power in that system? That just doesn't make sense.

Then you consider how many times the States or Congress have acted to restrict future impact of Supreme Court decisions on the nation.

Then you are forced to ask, as I did a few years ago, where does the ability of the third branch of government to control the other branches and lower levels of government?

Answer: John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in his Landmark (oh, oh--there it is again!) decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Marbury was some government lackey being appointed as Justice of the Peace or some other necessary government position by outgoing President John Adams. Incoming President Thomas Jefferson wanted "his" guy in Marbury's position, and refused granting Mr. Marbury's commission for said position. Kind of a Scott Armey situation: "Please, give me a government job--I can't get a job anywhere else! Please, please!!"

It turns out, Mr. Marshall and President Jefferson were cousins! How about that--a Hatfield's and McCoy's long before those clans duked it out int Kentucky, or wherever, duking it out in the Halls of Congress (back when the Supreme Court met in the basement!).

Oh, and Madison as in James Madison, Father (and signatory from Virginia) of the Constitution, present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. John Marshall was out playing golf at Pebble Beach that day, or some such.

Well, what would the Chief Justice know about what the Constitution meant? After all, he didn't write it!! James Madison had more to do with that, and should have known something about what it meant seeing as how he was there and had the notes to prove it.

Incidentally, Congress made it legal for an incoming President to appoint his own staff, advisors, etc sometime subsequent to the whole Adams/Jefferson/Madison/Marshall thing. And President Madison did not release the text of his notes from the Constitutional Convention until late in life (approximately 25 years after Marbury).

So, in other words, the Chief Justice did not have the notes from 1787 to refer to in order to fully grasp the intents of the Framers, and instead established the Power of Judicial Review for future generations of Justices to be bound by. And the entire issue brought before the Court in Marbury--the ability of the President to fire those he wished or replace those he wished within his administration--was later Legislated in Congress, as it should have been.

This rather casts an interesting slant on Precedent. It was not fuly informed when it was established, and the case that brought it up was later made obsolete by Legislation, thus eliminating the need for the "opinion" of the Chief Justice in the first place!

Too bad things don't work out the way they should have. Because after Marbury, every major (or Landmark) case since has been predicated on the notion that the Supreme Court is imbued with some great Power to say what is and is not constitutional, according to the great and uninformed John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As opposed to the United States Supreme Court.

Interesting thoughts, hmm? Most of my analysis is just that--my taking historical events that are indisputed, and considering a bit deeper the ramifications of other events, and disputing those with which I disagree wholeheartedly.

Today we have a government that is dominated by the Judiciary, where from what I can see the Justices should really be relegated to amateur golfer status. We have a Congress that is discussing Socialized Healthcare Insurance, Gay Marriage, and occassionally, Abortion, and States that are either too inept, or too ill-informed, to take action and reclaim powers that should never have been stripped from them by Washington.

We have serious problems, and our wannabe representatives would rather talk about flag burning, abortion, and healthcare insurance.

Where am I going with this? Come back for more, but I don't intend on just talking about the problems or just putting forward solutions.  I am inclined to do something about the problems and I hope that distinguishes me from many other bloggers out there.

Until next time...