Sometimes someone will suggest that if it weren't for the power of the federal courts to strike down laws enacted by Congress, that Congress might actually start to deliberately make laws inconsistent with the clear language of the Constitution, and that no one would be able to stop them. This type of statement is misguided because the only real protection that the public has depends on the self discipline of Congress not to enact laws that would conflict with the rights embodied in the text of the Constitution.

To the extent that courts strike down acts of Congress, it does not follow that there is any intent on the part of Congress to violate the Constitution, but only that the interpretation of most members of Congress differs from the interpretation of courts from time to time.

The reality is that since most powers exercised by federal courts exist only by merit of statutory authority vested in the courts by Congress, that the courts would be all but powerless to resist the determination of any elected government if the president and majority of the members of Congress had no respect for the Constitution. A determined Congress, with the cooperation of a president, could easily pass laws that would prevent courts from interfering with their legislative agenda.

The analogy that comes to mind is that the power of the courts to protect the Constitution is like a "lock on a screen door;" the lock only has value when neighbors forebear from entering a house because they know that the locked door signifies that the house owner wants to keep everyone else out. Clearly, however, no such lock would be able to prevent a burglar from entering the house.

Therefore, it follows that Americans should not look to the courts to be the guardians of our national Constitution, but rather should focus their attentions on electing members to Congress who have the integrity to uphold and protect the Constitution as each member of Congress is required by oath to do.