We have grown in experience with that understanding, but we also have the experience of politicization of the Supreme Court. We have this in conjunction with the other trends in politicization, of both the White House and the Congress, while we have continued to experience twin trends of some voter splitting attitudes, some becoming complacent and not participating as often and as effectively, others becoming much more politically active and activist in public interest events.
As we know from our American history from original sources, governance became a much more overtly partisan institution shortly after the ratification of the Constitution itself and as Americans actively learned the how to's of constitutional process. Non-partisan expression of constitutional perspective and effort has not developed nearly as steadily and has been a lesser influence. An exception, in my opinion, is the early post Civil War period Reconstruction leg and amendments, wherein an exceptional return to limited scope affirmation of the principles and purposes of US Constitution thought and governance became obviously necessary and appropriate to both end slavery and to restore constitutional governance and to return to its practice at the State level for the former Confederate States and for states being newly formed.
The latter Reconstruction efforts were remarkable in effectiveness, limited though it actually was. Nevertheless, the efforts provide insight into effective action of Americans through enabling Congress to better inform both specific, explicit provisions in the Constitution and in constitutional legislation. The Court and the White House moved within the tactical and strategic openings created by the people and Congress.
That is how I reflect on more recent and current trends. What are your perspectives?
To add a bit of real-world clarification here, just think for a moment of the vastly significant potential impact on understanding of the political character and potential of America's people by looking at a current-day political map of the US.
What we are offered is a red states blue states map. Is that a map of 'us', of 'we the people' in our heads and in our vision of a better America and better shared American future?
Is that red blue map a constitutional expression of self-governance and future of that self-governance?
In my view, that red blue map is a distorted contrivance. It says not a jot about who we aspire to be as a rule of law constitutional self-governing people. Need we look farther to see how effectively political actors and political living in America has become partisan, pointlessly partisan, destructively partisan?
We are not 'we the people' by means of parties. We are who we are as the self-governing people of America only via use of the Constitution and by our conscious constitutional efforts to check abuses of authority and of assumption of authority by non-people actors, e.g., political parties, corporations, private think tanks....
Thank you, Ms Wehle, for this review of decisions and actions.
Also, the Brennan Center discussion will be important to hear and study; thank you for providing the opportunity to register and listen. I hope that the discussion will be tapped and allowed to be listened to later; I will not be able to be there on Wed.
"Trump v. CASA ... a major win for the Trump administration...." The Constitution and its history just do not support this decision. To me with my limited, lay person's understanding, the upholding of the nationwide injunction capacity of the judiciary seems necessary and proper when a controversy points factually to a conflict between an executive or a legislative action the public interest in affirming rule of law [just as plainly, to me at least, the question is not about whether a President's or a court's jurisdiction, whether one or the other is more powerful in re the other]. The matter is strictly one of constitutional exercise of authority.
If, when a court is presented with a request to protect a person against an executive or legislative action and the court sees the merit of offering protection, then a President's abuses or excessive or wrongful assertion authority in violation of the Constitution or its laws, is rightly to be checked by the court, by the judicial function of the court in re the people and the purpose of the Constitution for the people to self-govern. Any court is correctly preventing the harm to the people, the harm to the people that will be the consequence of the President's assertion of authority, by issuing the injunction against the follow through on the assertion.
Could this be more clear? This is not a contest; this is a necessary function of the judiciary within the constitutional separation of powers and within the scope of necessary and effective maintenance and protection of the public interest and, generally, the Constitution as a purposeful instrument of establishing and effecting constitutional governance [rule of law self-governance ] by, for and of the people.
It was my understanding growing up that the Supreme Court was a check on the power of Congress and the President, not a rubber stamp
Thank you, Mr Ryan, for this observation.
We have grown in experience with that understanding, but we also have the experience of politicization of the Supreme Court. We have this in conjunction with the other trends in politicization, of both the White House and the Congress, while we have continued to experience twin trends of some voter splitting attitudes, some becoming complacent and not participating as often and as effectively, others becoming much more politically active and activist in public interest events.
As we know from our American history from original sources, governance became a much more overtly partisan institution shortly after the ratification of the Constitution itself and as Americans actively learned the how to's of constitutional process. Non-partisan expression of constitutional perspective and effort has not developed nearly as steadily and has been a lesser influence. An exception, in my opinion, is the early post Civil War period Reconstruction leg and amendments, wherein an exceptional return to limited scope affirmation of the principles and purposes of US Constitution thought and governance became obviously necessary and appropriate to both end slavery and to restore constitutional governance and to return to its practice at the State level for the former Confederate States and for states being newly formed.
The latter Reconstruction efforts were remarkable in effectiveness, limited though it actually was. Nevertheless, the efforts provide insight into effective action of Americans through enabling Congress to better inform both specific, explicit provisions in the Constitution and in constitutional legislation. The Court and the White House moved within the tactical and strategic openings created by the people and Congress.
That is how I reflect on more recent and current trends. What are your perspectives?
To add a bit of real-world clarification here, just think for a moment of the vastly significant potential impact on understanding of the political character and potential of America's people by looking at a current-day political map of the US.
What we are offered is a red states blue states map. Is that a map of 'us', of 'we the people' in our heads and in our vision of a better America and better shared American future?
Is that red blue map a constitutional expression of self-governance and future of that self-governance?
In my view, that red blue map is a distorted contrivance. It says not a jot about who we aspire to be as a rule of law constitutional self-governing people. Need we look farther to see how effectively political actors and political living in America has become partisan, pointlessly partisan, destructively partisan?
We are not 'we the people' by means of parties. We are who we are as the self-governing people of America only via use of the Constitution and by our conscious constitutional efforts to check abuses of authority and of assumption of authority by non-people actors, e.g., political parties, corporations, private think tanks....
Thank you, Ms Wehle, for this review of decisions and actions.
Also, the Brennan Center discussion will be important to hear and study; thank you for providing the opportunity to register and listen. I hope that the discussion will be tapped and allowed to be listened to later; I will not be able to be there on Wed.
"Trump v. CASA ... a major win for the Trump administration...." The Constitution and its history just do not support this decision. To me with my limited, lay person's understanding, the upholding of the nationwide injunction capacity of the judiciary seems necessary and proper when a controversy points factually to a conflict between an executive or a legislative action the public interest in affirming rule of law [just as plainly, to me at least, the question is not about whether a President's or a court's jurisdiction, whether one or the other is more powerful in re the other]. The matter is strictly one of constitutional exercise of authority.
If, when a court is presented with a request to protect a person against an executive or legislative action and the court sees the merit of offering protection, then a President's abuses or excessive or wrongful assertion authority in violation of the Constitution or its laws, is rightly to be checked by the court, by the judicial function of the court in re the people and the purpose of the Constitution for the people to self-govern. Any court is correctly preventing the harm to the people, the harm to the people that will be the consequence of the President's assertion of authority, by issuing the injunction against the follow through on the assertion.
Could this be more clear? This is not a contest; this is a necessary function of the judiciary within the constitutional separation of powers and within the scope of necessary and effective maintenance and protection of the public interest and, generally, the Constitution as a purposeful instrument of establishing and effecting constitutional governance [rule of law self-governance ] by, for and of the people.