The Corner

Law & the Courts

Good Faith Is Measured by the Constitution Not Predictions about the Supreme Court

In response to More On Why So Many Iranians Died

Roger, Mark can speak for himself, of course, but I take him to be making an argument that is the antithesis of what you’ve portrayed it to be. He is not saying that one should support legislation one believes to be unconstitutional in the bad faith hope that the Supreme Court might mistakenly (or in bad faith) uphold it. He is saying that one may (and often should) support legislation one believes in good faith to be constitutional even if one realizes there is a good chance the Supreme Court will in bad faith invalidate it.

What determines the propriety of a legislative proposal is the Constitution, not a prediction of how the proposal might be ruled on by a Supreme Court notorious for elevating politics over law. More concretely, let’s assume one believes legislation that would deny birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens is both (a) consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment (as I argued yesterday and as is more comprehensively argued in Edward J. Erler’s excellent column on the home page), and (b) a proper exercise of Congress’s plenary power under article I, section 8, to establish the criteria of naturalization. Under that good faith belief, it would be appropriate to support such legislation even if one suspects that five justices on the current Supreme Court might well contort the Constitution to strike it down. And if one believes the policy of granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is harmful to the nation, then supporting legislation to end the policy would not only be appropriate but in the nation’s best interests — regardless of what the Court’s progressives might eventually do. 

When our government and our nation functioned better, it used to be understood that every branch of government had an obligation to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of its actions. The Supreme Court’s ruling was understood as dispositive only because it was final, not because it was necessarily right. The modern notion that legislatures and presidents should feel free to support dubious measures because the Supreme Court will sort it all out at some point is noxious. But so is the corrollary that the political branches should refrain from good policy they validly believe to be constitutional just because the Supreme Court might come to a different conclusion. If you are convinced you are right, and you believe you have a chance of convincing a court that you are right, there is no duty to refrain because that court might — for good or bad reasons — decide you are wrong.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

The Worst Cover-Up of All Time

President Donald Trump may be guilty of many things, but a cover-up in the Mueller probe isn’t one of them. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, attempting to appease forces in the Democratic party eager for impeachment, is accusing him of one, with all the familiar Watergate connotations. The charge is strange, ... Read More

Theresa May: A Political Obituary

On Friday, Theresa May, perhaps the worst Conservative prime minister in recent history, announced her resignation outside of number 10 Downing Street. She will step down effective June 7. “I have done my best,” she insisted. “I have done everything I can. . . . I believe it was right to persevere even ... Read More
PC Culture

TV Before PC

Affixing one’s glance to the rear-view mirror is usually as ill-advised as staring at one’s own reflection. Still, what a delight it was on Wednesday to see a fresh rendition of “Those Were the Days,” from All in the Family, a show I haven’t watched for nearly 40 years. This time it was Woody Harrelson ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Democrats’ Other Class War

There is a class war going on inside the Democratic party. Consider these two cris de couer: Writing in the New York Times under the headline “America’s Cities Are Unlivable — Blame Wealthy Liberals,” Farhad Manjoo argues that rich progressives have, through their political domination of cities such as ... Read More

The Deepfake of Nancy Pelosi

You’ve almost made it to a three-day weekend! Making the click-through worthwhile: A quick note about how National Review needs your help, concerns about “deepfakes” of Nancy Pelosi, one of the most cringe-inducing radio interviews of all time, some news about where to find me and the book in the near ... Read More
White House

For Democrats, the Party’s Over

If the Democrats are really tempted by impeachment, bring it on. Since the day after the 2016 election they have been threatening this, placing their chips on the Russian-collusion fantasy and then on the phantasmagoric charade of obstruction of justice. The attorney general accurately gave the ingredients of the ... Read More