Mr. Speaker, as a nonlawyer and observing that there are many young people in the gallery today, this is actually an instructive debate that we are having for the second time in 2 weeks. Last week, with the sponsorship of Republicans and Democrats alike, we paid tribute to John Marshall.
John Marshall was perhaps the most important jurist in the history of the United States, because despite what many people think, in the Constitution of the United States nowhere does it say who will settle disputes between the legislature, the executive, and the courts. What if each of the three branches come to a different conclusion?
Well, John Marshall, in 1803, 201 years ago, said the courts are going to decide. The courts are going to be the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not.
For 200 years, that has served as the way that we have operated, virtually unquestioned. It was even unquestioned in the year 2000 when, in the Constitution of the United States, it clearly says that Congress has the right to choose electors, and the Supreme Court took that upon itself. We Democrats, although we were very concerned about it, jurists, scholars of jurisprudence said it was a terrible decision, but no one says it should not be the courts to make that decision.
I would say to the gentlewoman or anyone who supports this bill, if not the courts then who? Who is going to make the decision about the constitutionality of this law?
We are left with essentially three choices. One, we can say the State courts will make that final determination. But what if we have two State courts that are in conflict? Who is going to resolve that dispute?
Two, we can say that it will be the legislature that will always decide these things, and we have 50 different legislative interpretations, or the legislature will change every 2 years, changing interpretation of the law.
And the third choice is just anyone can choose whatever interpretation that they like.
Before we choose anything but the courts, before we support this, let us remember something here. The courts are where the minority goes to have their views heard. That one person who is standing outside a movie theater; the courts are where that one person goes who wants to protect his right to bear arms against a legislature that is overzealous, where the one person goes who has burnt a flag and wants to go to find out if what he has done is constitutional.
There are dozens and dozens of places in society where the majority rules. The court is the only place we go to protect our constitutional rights.
So to the sponsors of the bill, to the sponsors of the rule, I ask them, if not John Marshall's way, if not judicial review, if not the Supreme Court of the United States of America, then who will it be who will decide what is constitutional and what is not?
