To The Reader’s Forum:

The Supreme Court’s vision of the constitutional legitimacy of the exercise of authority by each Branch of Government – in and by itself – unrelated to the Separation of Powers doctrine, is poorly conceived.

The Constitution delineates the authority of each of our Branches of Government. It does so by bestowing powers and imposing duties on each of the respective Branches.

In the exercise of a particular Branch’s authority, situations may arise where the use of one of its constitutional powers conflicts with one of its duties, and even results in nullifying it. If so, such actions should be viewed by the Supreme Court as beyond the Branch of Government’s constitutional authority, and void from the outset.

All members of each Branch of Government swear allegiance to the Constitution. The Constitution provides that it and the laws of the United States are the Supreme Law of the Land. (Const. Art. VI) As such, our President, Congressional Representatives, and Supreme Court Justices are bound by them, not above them, while they carry out their constitutional duties and powers.

Of course, the Congress and the President can amend and repeal our Laws as provided in the Constitution but, short of this, shouldn’t the Supreme Court consider Congress and the President bound by the Laws as written until they amend or repeal existing Law(s)? Otherwise, Congress or the President may, in effect, amend or repeal our Laws, without following the process laid out in the Constitution for doing so.

Maurice F. Baggiano, J.D.,

Jamestown

published legal author, former adjunct faculty member at Gannon University (Erie, PA) and the Rochester Institute of Technology, member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court