Who Made the Federal Courts King?

by Michael Maharrey

In an Aug. 25 Washington Times article titled Rebellion by states could be hazardous to health care overhaul, Wake Forest law professor Mark Hall once again illustrates why we shouldn’t call on lawyers to tell us anything about the Constitution, even though they like to wave their hands in the air screaming, “I know, I know!” Lawyers may know a lot about “law” – as in the string of court precedents handed down over time, but they typically know precious little about constitutional history, political philosophy or the ratification debates, and their asinine comments on constitutional principles usually reveal their ignorance and their reliance on false premises.

When asked about state efforts to nullify the federal health care act, he calls them a “bad idea” and “political moves.”

“The Constitution couldn’t be clearer that the federal law is the supreme law of the land. The only question is whether the federal law is valid.”

In the meantime, Hall thinks the states should sit down, shut up and let the courts decide.

Which begs the question – who made the federal courts king?

Answer – the federal courts did. Which seems a little fox guarding the henhouseish, doesn’t it?