A Kritocratic America?

Alberto Knox

In my history course at school we've been looking at the battle of power between the executive and legislative branches of government in the USA. At a given point in its development, the USA was either dominated by Congress or the Presidency.

This got me thinking...how could the third branch of government, the Supreme Court become the dominant branch? i.e the branch holding the most political authority and influence? Is there any plausible way this could come about?
 

Citizen

The supreme court convicts all members of congress and the president for crimes against human decency?
 

Alexandru H.

One could argue that the US is a direct emanation of Marshall's Federalist Ideas, put forth in his Supreme Court decisions. Another example: segregation is stopped through the Supreme Court and its Brown vs Board of Education decision.

The institution certainly has a fundamental role in shaping the country, more than other european democracies...
 

Chengar Qordath

Citizen said:
The supreme court convicts all members of congress and the president for crimes against human decency?
Click to expand...
That would require a completely different constitution; right now the court doesn't have the power to convict anyone of anything on their own; the Court's original jurisdiction is very narrow.
 

Cicero the Younger

To have any of the three branches in control would require a different constitution. That's the beauty of checks and balances. No president or senator or justice can ever behave like a dictator. Not because it's illegal (lots of rulers have come into power by seizing it illegally), but simply because our government is so structured that anyone who tried to act like a dictator would find that they simply weren't getting their way.

Edit: Of course, no sooner do I say that than I remember Andrew Jackson and the Cherokees. They took their case to the Supreme Court, which explicitly said that it would be illegal to force the Cherokees from their lands. And, like a true Caesar, Jackson ignored them and did it anyway. If you can get people with guns who will carry out your orders, then of course you can get your way. But the checks and balances do hold up, most of the time.
 
Last edited:

Alberto Knox

Cicero the Younger said:
To have any of the three branches in control would require a different constitution. That's the beauty of checks and balances. No president or senator or justice can ever behave like a dictator. Not because it's illegal (lots of rulers have come into power by seizing it illegally), but simply because our government is so structured that anyone who tried to act like a dictator would find that they simply weren't getting their way.

Edit: Of course, no sooner do I say that than I remember Andrew Jackson and the Cherokees. They took their case to the Supreme Court, which explicitly said that it would be illegal to force the Cherokees from their lands. And, like a true Caesar, Jackson ignored them and did it anyway. If you can get people with guns who will carry out your orders, then of course you can get your way. But the checks and balances do hold up, most of the time.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking for the Supreme Court to hold complete power, that's completely implausible!

At the present time, the Presidency is recognised as the dominant branch of American politics due to the power and influence it can exert over the other branches (partly due to Jackson). It does not have absolute power due to checks and balances but it exerts heavy influence over Congress and the Supreme Court. In America's earlier history that role was held by Congress.

What I am asking is how the Supreme Court can take on the role the Presidency does today as the main focus and control in US government?
 

Citizen

Could it be done by a series of successful legal challenges to Presidential decrees, setting the precedent that the President's wishes can be over-turned by the supreme court?
 

Chengar Qordath

Citizen said:
Could it be done by a series of successful legal challenges to Presidential decrees, setting the precedent that the President's wishes can be over-turned by the supreme court?
Click to expand...
Still not a very good mechanism though; the Supreme Court has the power to overturn presidential decrees and law passed by Congress already, and is hardly the dominant branch. The problem is, by the time any legal challenge can work it's way through the entire justice system up to the Supreme Court several years have passed at a minimum.

Seems like the best way to do things would be a change to how the US justice system works so that the court can hear cases and make rulings in a very quick manner; it doesn't matter how much power the court has if it can only act five years after the fact.
 

Citizen

Chengar Qordath said:
Seems like the best way to do things would be a change to how the US justice system works so that the court can hear cases and make rulings in a very quick manner; it doesn't matter how much power the court has if it can only act five years after the fact.
Click to expand...
About average for a government bureaucracy, no?
 

Ion_StormH

Citizen said:
About average for a government bureaucracy, no?
Click to expand...
america-fuck%20yeah.jpg
 

Tom Veil

You know what? Come up with a way for the Supreme Court to enforce the Cherokee ruling against the will of President Jackson and against the will of the state government of Georgia, and you have yourself the most Kritocratic nation in the modern world right there.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Chengar Qordath said:
Still not a very good mechanism though; the Supreme Court has the power to overturn presidential decrees and law passed by Congress already, and is hardly the dominant branch. The problem is, by the time any legal challenge can work it's way through the entire justice system up to the Supreme Court several years have passed at a minimum.

Seems like the best way to do things would be a change to how the US justice system works so that the court can hear cases and make rulings in a very quick manner; it doesn't matter how much power the court has if it can only act five years after the fact.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm about 60% certain that the Court can hear any case that it takes an interest in; it just depends on whether or not the Chief Justice adds it to the agenda and the majority of Justices agree to hear it.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Tom Veil said:
You know what? Come up with a way for the Supreme Court to enforce the Cherokee ruling against the will of President Jackson and against the will of the state government of Georgia, and you have yourself the most Kritocratic nation in the modern world right there.
Click to expand...

Idea!

Officers swear to uphold The Constitution, not obey the President, like enlisted men do. Maybe the general in charge of kicking the Indians out refuses to go against the Court's ruling since Jackson's actions are unconstitutional, so he refuses to order his men forwards.

A little shaky, I know; haven't given it much thought, but it a precedent like that could very easily put the military in the Court's pocket.
 

Chengar Qordath

wolfpaw122 said:
Actually, I'm about 60% certain that the Court can hear any case that it takes an interest in; it just depends on whether or not the Chief Justice adds it to the agenda and the majority of Justices agree to hear it.
Click to expand...
Than can choose to hear any case that is appealed to the Supreme Court; it usually takes several years for that to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top