Changes

==Court==

==Court==

The first case of judicial supremacy was the 1958 case [[Cooper v. Aaron]], which asserted that because of the 1803 decision in [[Marbury v. Madison]], that "This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system."

The first case of judicial supremacy was the 1958 case ''[[Cooper v. Aaron]]'', which asserted that because of the 1803 decision in ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'', that "This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system."

The ''Cooper'' case justifies this position by taking one quote out of ''Marbury'', while disregarding the whole of the decision.  ''Marbury'' is actually quite modest, despite the claims of the supremacists, and asserts that Congress is not constitutionally capable of extending the Court's jurisdiction further than Constitutional proscription.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/article/420389/not-law-land The Myth of Judicial Supremacy], [[National Review]]</ref>

The ''Cooper'' case justifies this position by taking one quote out of ''Marbury'', while disregarding the whole of the decision.  ''Marbury'' is actually quite modest, despite the claims of the supremacists, and asserts that Congress is not constitutionally capable of extending the Court's jurisdiction further than Constitutional proscription.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/article/420389/not-law-land The Myth of Judicial Supremacy], [[National Review]]</ref>

But what the supremacists are not looking to do is stay within the framework of Constitutionality, instead, they are trying to break free from its bonds and make the judiciary the most powerful branch.  One author notes of judicial supremacy that "the court defines effective constitutional meaning such that other government officials are bound to adhere not only to the Court's disposition of a specific case but also to the Court's constitutional reasoning."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=0PG-DzJjfvYC&pg=PA7 Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History]</ref>

But what the supremacists are not looking to do is stay within the framework of Constitutionality, instead, they are trying to break free from its bonds and make the judiciary the most powerful branch.  One author notes of judicial supremacy that "the court defines effective constitutional meaning such that other government officials are bound to adhere not only to the Court's disposition of a specific case but also to the Court's constitutional reasoning."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=0PG-DzJjfvYC&pg=PA7 Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History]</ref>

This much was stated plainly in the 1992 case [[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]], where the court declared itself above the people when it wrote that it was "invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals."<ref name=constituting />  Judges, however, are not elected by the people and thus, are not their direct representatives.  This point of view places the Supreme Court at the head of an unauthorized, ongoing [[Constitutional Convention]].<ref>[http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-supreme-court-as-sitting-constitutional-convention/ The Supreme Court as Sitting Constitutional Convention]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=NFy6N6dRhT0C&pg=PA62 Originalism in American Law and Politics: A Constitutional History]</ref><ref>[http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-problem-of-judicial-supremacy The Problem of Judicial Supremacy]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=Ea05iZJUFlAC&pg=PA93 All Hail the Death of Truth! the Advent of the Postmodern Era]</ref><ref>[http://spectator.org/48353_ongoing-constitutional-convention/ The Ongoing Constitutional Convention], [[American Spectator]]</ref><ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/05/mark-levin-wows-state-legislators-take-your-power-back/ Mark Levin Wows State Legislators: 'Take Your Power Back'], [[Breitbart.com]]</ref><ref>[http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/10/01/constitutional-interpretation-in-republican-and-mixed-regimes/ Constitutional Interpretation in Republican and Mixed Regimes]</ref>

This much was stated plainly in the 1992 case ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', where the court declared itself above the people when it wrote that it was "invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals."<ref name=constituting />  Judges, however, are not elected by the people and thus, are not their direct representatives.  This point of view places the Supreme Court at the head of an unauthorized, ongoing [[Constitutional Convention]].<ref>[http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-supreme-court-as-sitting-constitutional-convention/ The Supreme Court as Sitting Constitutional Convention]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=NFy6N6dRhT0C&pg=PA62 Originalism in American Law and Politics: A Constitutional History]</ref><ref>[http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-problem-of-judicial-supremacy The Problem of Judicial Supremacy]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=Ea05iZJUFlAC&pg=PA93 All Hail the Death of Truth! the Advent of the Postmodern Era]</ref><ref>[http://spectator.org/48353_ongoing-constitutional-convention/ The Ongoing Constitutional Convention], [[American Spectator]]</ref><ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/05/mark-levin-wows-state-legislators-take-your-power-back/ Mark Levin Wows State Legislators: 'Take Your Power Back'], [[Breitbart.com]]</ref><ref>[http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/10/01/constitutional-interpretation-in-republican-and-mixed-regimes/ Constitutional Interpretation in Republican and Mixed Regimes]</ref> Much judicial supremacy can be seen in cases regarding abortion.<ref>Duke, Selwyn (July 8, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/32665-save-babies-and-abort-judicial-supremacy Save Babies and Abort Judicial Supremacy]. ''The New American''. Retrieved July 8, 2019.</ref>

In 2007, [[Chief Justice of the United States of America|Chief Justice]] [[John Roberts]] wrote for the court in criticizing and rejection the temptation for courts to exercise "judicial supremacy."<ref>[[United Haulers Ass'n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth.]]</ref>

In 2007, [[Chief Justice of the United States of America|Chief Justice]] [[John Roberts]] wrote for the court in criticizing and rejection the temptation for courts to exercise "judicial supremacy."<ref>[[United Haulers Ass'n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth.]]</ref>