Article by Ramsey Clark
From a constitutional, legal perspective, there is actually less to Attorney General Meese's statement than meets the eye. His words can be taken as generalties on a nonissue. To say that decisions of the Supreme Court are not the supreme law of the land is not instructive. Certainly article VI of the Constitution does not list them as such. But just as surely, the Supreme Court is the institution that, at least since Marbury v. Madison, finally interprets the Constitution for our government and our people.
To say that Supreme Court decisions bind only “the parties in a case and also the executive branch for whatever enforcement is necessary”' cannot be acceptable to any person who aspires to live under constitutional government. We may dissent, protest, and seek to overturn a Court decision—by foul means, or fair—or engage in civil disobedience as we choose or dare, but once pronounced, a decision of the Supreme Court is applicable throughout the land in all circumstances in which it applies. A Supreme Court decision is not binding on everyone as if they were parties to the decree, subject to direct sanctions by the Court, but it should be violated only at one's peril, and it ought to be enforced by all executive officials at all levels of government. Any other rule would be anarchy. The study of precedents and the role of stare decisis would have little meaning if precedents could be freely ignored.
About the Author
Ramsey Clark. Attorney General of the United States, 1967-1969; Deputy Attorney General, 1965-1967; Assistant Attorney General, 1965-1967. B.A., University of Texas; J.D., M.A., University of Chicago.
Citation
61 Tul. L. Rev. 1093 (1987)