Mike Huckabee vs. John Marshall???

“… a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” – SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Is Mike Huckabee challenging the SCOTUS decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison?

Here is an excerpt from the transcript of Chris Wallace’s recent interview of Huckabee:

WALLACE: Governor, I want to keep moving along, because as I say, there are a lot of things you said in your announcement. You also seemed to indicate that as president, you wouldn’t necessarily obey court rulings, even the Supreme Court. Here you are.


HUCKABEE: Many of our politicians have surrendered to the false god of judicial supremacy, which would allow black robed and unelected judges the power to make law as well as enforce it.


WALLACE: But, Governor, we have operated under the principle of judicial review since the Marbury versus Madison case in 1803.

HUCKABEE: Judicial review is actually what we’ve operated under. We have not operated under judicial supremacy. Presidents Lincoln, Jefferson, Jackson, presidents have understood that the Supreme Court cannot make a law. They cannot make it. The legislature has to make it, the executive branch has to sign it and enforce it.

And the notion that the Supreme Court comes up with the ruling and that automatically subjects the two other branches to following it defies everything there is about the three equal branches of government. Chris, the Supreme Court is not the supreme branch. And for God’s sake, it isn’t the Supreme Being. It is the Supreme Court.

Later in the interview, Huckabee states, “We are sworn to uphold the Constitution and law. And it has to be consistent and agreed upon with three branches of government — one can’t overrule the other two. That’s all I’m saying. We learned that in ninth grade civics, but I’m convinced a lot of Ivy League law schools must have forgotten that simple basic civics lessons along the way.”

Now, here is an excerpt from the American Bar Association publication “Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court’s First Great Case”.

A majority of the current Supreme Court justices have opened a new path of judicial review in the areas of federalism and states’ rights. Congress has for many years tied much of its legislation to a broad interpretation of its constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce. In 1995, Chief Justice William Rehnquist authored a majority opinion in United States v. Lopez that announced the Supreme Court’s intention to define an outer limit on Congress’s legislative authority under the Commerce Clause.

Lopez struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 on the grounds that the act did not regulate a commercial activity and did not require that possession of a firearm be connected to interstate commerce. Five years later, in United States v. Morrison, the Court affirmed a lower court’s decision striking down the federal Violence Against Women Act.

In both Lopez and Morrison, the Court rejected what it saw as a weak causal chain between essentially noneconomic violent conduct and the effect of that conduct on interstate commerce. Such reasoning, the Morrison majority said, would essentially dissolve the boundaries between the national and the local, eroding the police powers that the Constitution vests in the states.

So, in the SCOTUS case of United States v. Lopez, the Court struck down a law enacted by Congress and signed by the President. The Court did the same thing in the case of United States v. Morrison.

DISCUSSION QUESTION: Is Mike Huckabee in error in regards to the authority of federal courts to strike down federal laws that are unconstitutional?

School Choice Finally on the Agenda in Illinois
Why Does Liberal Rag Salon.com Hate Our Soldiers? Because They Take Money From Welfare Spending