Alright, we admit it.  We do enjoy pointing out the constitutional ignorance of others, especially when those others owe their seats of power to the very first Article of the "supreme Law of the Land."  (Read "Congresswoman McKinney's Crash Course on the Constitution") But even we were shocked this week when the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), demonstrated his prodigious constitutional naiveté in an op-ed column published by The Washington Post.

On Tuesday, Chairman Specter went on the offensive in black-and-white in support of a bill he is sponsoring that would "mandate[ ] television coverage of the Supreme Court['s]" proceedings.  Even if televised oral arguments were the greatest good imaginable, that doesn't mean Chairman Specter -- or, for that matter, the Congress -- can simply make it so.  After all, the Constitution does divide power among the three branches of our government through the structural "separation of powers."

That seems pretty self-explanatory to us.  In other words, Chairman Specter, who is firmly ensconced in the legislative branch, the Congress of the United States, cannot infringe on the power granted by the Constitution to another separate and independent branch of the government, the judiciary, the Supreme Court of the United States.  Indeed, when asked about a similar bill during his testimony before the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee earlier this year, Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke for the rest of the justices by saying, "We feel very strongly that we have an intimate knowledge of the dynamics and needs of the Court, and we think that proposals which would mandate direct television in our Court in every proceeding is inconsistent with that deference, that etiquette that should apply between the branches."

But Chairman Specter's column wasn't the case of a politician failing to take the hint.  Rather, Chairman Specter flatly disagrees that the Congress owes the High Court any deference on account of the separation of powers set up by the Constitution.  In his column, Chairman Specter boldly asserted that "[n]o one has denied Congress's legislative authority to decide key issues governing the Supreme Court."  In support of his assertion, Chairman Specter noted that "Acts of Congress govern the federal courts regarding establishment of jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases."

Yes, of course, we agree.  But the Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the highest court in the land because Article III of the Constitution specifically states that the Supreme Court "shall have ... Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."  (Emphasis added.)  In other words, the Constitution explicitly tells Congress that the legislative branch has the power to set the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

More to our point, however, is what the Constitution doesn't say.  Nowhere does the Constitution tell Congress that it may determine the rules of the High Court's proceedings.  And, you would think if the Founders wanted the Congress to be able to tell the justices how to run their courtroom, they might have put that in writing in the Constitution.

Thus, while cameras in the highest courtroom in the land might provide greater public access, we do not think the Congress can impose "shining a television light on the justices."  Chairman Specter is undoubtedly correct that, "[i]f the public understood the extent of the court's power, perhaps the electorate would insist that Congress do its job."  But the Constitution does not include in Congress's job description the power to roll television cameras into the two other separate and independent branches of government.

If Chairman Specter doesn't see the folly of his suggestion when it comes to the Supreme Court, maybe he should think a little bit about whether the Congress could tell the President to install television cameras in the Oval Office, even if they would only be turned on for public events.  We imagine the President's reaction to such an instruction from Congress, much less an individual Senator or Representative, would be the same that Justice David Souter gave to a congressional panel in 1996: "the day you see a camera ..., it's going to roll over my dead body."  Constitutionally speaking, he was right.