Which of following features of constitution are not enforceable in court?

I would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on national security matters, and I would interpose the presidency in saying, as the commander in chief, we will not enforce this. And by the way, for our liberal friends, the source of that is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In 1942 a group of German saboteurs were landed in Florida and Long Island. They were all picked up within two weeks. Roosevelt brought in his attorney general and said: They will be tried in a military court, they will be executed, it should happen within three weeks, and tell the Supreme Court if they issue a writ of habeas corpus, I will not honor, and therefore they should not issue it. I am the commander in chief in wartime. They aren't. Candidate Gingrich's comment, like the quotation he cited from President Roosevelt, sounds like constitutional bravado. It is a rarity for presidents to simply ignore decisions of the Supreme Court, although it has been done. President Abraham Lincoln famously ignored Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's order finding unconstitutional Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus rights in 1861, early in the Civil War. But the example of Roosevelt and the German saboteurs is more complex than the Gingrich summary implies. The saboteurs, convicted of war crimes by a military commission, actually had their day in a civilian court -- in three courts, including the Supreme Court -- as they pursued (unsuccess...

Abstract In an earlier article, we disproved the three claims central to the dominant view in the study of constitutional conventions: that there is a shared “Commonwealth approach” to constitutional conventions; that Commonwealth courts will recognize and employ conventions but never enforce them; and that conventions are sharply distinguishable from rules of law. We drew from Canada, India, and the United Kingdom to demonstrate that Commonwealth courts have recognized, employed, and indeed also enforced conventions. In this article, we turn from the descriptive to the normative, arguing, again in contrast with the dominant view, that Commonwealth courts sometimes should enforce conventions. We argue that courts should act as executors of the will and judgment of constitutional actors, and limit themselves to enforcing only power-shifting conventions: conventions which transfer power from those who have legal power to those who can legitimately wield it. In playing this role, judges uphold the legitimate allocation of power—legitimate, not according to judges but according to constitutional actors themselves. 1. Introduction In an earlier article, we disproved three foundational assumptions in the study of constitutional conventions that there is a shared “Commonwealth approach” to constitutional conventions; that Commonwealth courts will recognize and employ conventions but never enforce them; and that conventions are sharply distinguishable from rules of law. 1 We uncov...

We the People really need to get out the the habit of running to government to fix the problems of government. It seems every infringement on our rights is met with a chorus of cries to take someone to court. While there is a time and a place to get the opinion of a court, we have changed them from powerless arbiters of fact and law into oligarchs dispensing their opinions with the force of law. However, the question still remains: What happens when the courts don’t bother to follow the law? Let’s look at the request The Order places temporary numerical restrictions on public gatherings to address this extraordinary health emergency. Chief Justice Roberts concurrence, The church claimed that the governor’s order discriminated against places of worship by placing greater restrictions on them than on other businesses. The court, which denied the injunction, seemed to focus on the question of whether or not this was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. First Amendment Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts concurrence, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. As I’ve said seve...

IJ believes that all people have the right to earn an honest living in the occupation of their choice without arbitrary, unnecessary, or protectionist government interference. • • Projects • Project on Immunity and Accountability • End Forfeiture Initiative • Project on the Fourth Amendment • Food Freedom Initiative • Cases • • Virginia Open Fields • • Recent Cases See our clients talk about their experiences and learn how we are fighting for their rights—and yours. • Support IJ • About Us • • About Us • • Staff • • Contact Us • Careers • Working at IJ • Students • Attorney Pathways at IJ • • Events & Speakers • Honors and Accolades • State Offices • Financial Reports • Board of Directors • Search • The Constitution was written to limit government power, but those limits are meaningless unless judges restrain public officials when they overstep their bounds. Judicial engagement is a cutting-edge approach to judicial review that ensures that Americans receive an honest, reasoned explanation in court whenever they allege a plausible abuse of government power. Enforcing the Constitution is CJE’s annual review of the judiciary’s performance. We provide a guided tour of 20 notable examples of judicial engagement and judicial abdication in 2014 and 2015. They come from state courts, federal district courts, federal appellate courts, and, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court. They involve SWAT raids on barbershops, licensing schemes for tour guides, gun rights, gay marriage, raisin ...