29 Mar 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLol!
Oh right. Only you can correctly interpret the US constitution.
The Supreme Court doesn't intrpret the Constitution, they dictate it!
When you pack it with the right people, the Constitution can be made to mean anthing. As I said earlier, a joke.
29 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarDoesn't the Constitution prescribe the way it ought to be interpreted, amended and implemented? So if that way is flawed, isn't the Constitution flawed? Woops.
It isn't the Constitutin that's a joke. It's the Supreme Court that's a joke and you were the one who brought it up.
29 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarSo right wing Christian Taliban types like yourself don't interpret words to fit your world view then, Jeezie peeps how unaware can a person be!
Lol!
For liberals words mean nothing. Anything can be interpretted in any way. It is a ridiculous point of view, but it allows you to rationalize anything.
I can only hope the 'snail' thing wasn't a terrible typo of 'anal'.
29 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarYour point is unclear to me. The Constitution establishes the SCOTUS; if you don't agree with the existence of the SCOTUS then the Constitution is flawed in your opinion.
Lol!
For liberals words mean nothing. Anything can be interpretted in any way. It is a ridiculous point of view, but it allows you to rationalize anything.
30 Mar 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDoes the Constitution give the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional?
Your point is unclear to me. The Constitution establishes the SCOTUS; if you don't agree with the existence of the SCOTUS then the Constitution is flawed in your opinion.
The answer to that question is no. The Supreme Court gave itself that power.
30 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarNow you're being silly - SCOTUS was established in 1790 and has had the power to declare laws unconstitutional since 1803 (at this time one of the Founding Fathers was President). Congress has had more than two hundred years to implement a Constitutional amendment that would diminish and/or clarify the role of SCOTUS in interpreting the Constitution.
Does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional?
The answer to that question is no. The Supreme Court gave itself that power.
30 Mar 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat does the amount of time that the Supreme Court has been allowed to step beyond it's Constitutional authority have to do with anything?
Now you're being silly - SCOTUS was established in 1790 and has had the power to declare laws unconstitutional since 1803 (at this time one of the Founding Fathers was President). Congress has had more than two hundred years to implement a Constitutional amendment that would diminish and/or clarify the role of SCOTUS in interpreting the Constitution.
The powers that be (the rich who pull the politicians strings) need an efficient way to control the country. The most efficient way to direct the country is through Supreme Court decisions that have the automatic rule of law and can't be overturned.
30 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarWithout the power of judicial review of Congressional acts, the limitations on legislative power in the Constitution are meaningless. The Framers knew this; the principle had been established in prior practice in the colonial and post-independence era and was acknowledged by the Madison, Hamilton and many others:
What does the amount of time that the Supreme Court has been allowed to step beyond it's Constitutional authority have to do with anything?
The powers that be (the rich who pull the politicians strings) need an efficient way to control the country. The most efficient way to direct the country is through Supreme Court decisions that have the automatic rule of law and can't be overturned.
The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would
declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution.
They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early
seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the
requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early
English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations
and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation
could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial
lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English
Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.
After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges
voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions.
The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void
legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Although a few
Framers worried about the power, they expected it would exist. As James
Madison stated, “A law violating a constitution established by the people
themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.”4
In fact, the
word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the
Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial
enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation.
Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase observed that although the Court had
never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws
contrary to the Constitution void, this authority was acknowledged by general
opinion, the entire Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court
Justices.5
http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/400%20Why%20We%20Have%20Judicial%20Review.pdf
30 Mar 13
Originally posted by no1marauderYah, got it. Blah, blah blah.
Without the power of judicial review of Congressional acts, the limitations on legislative power in the Constitution are meaningless. The Framers knew this; the principle had been established in prior practice in the colonial and post-independence era and was acknowledged by the Madison, Hamilton and many others:
The generation that framed the Constit ...[text shortened]... t
Justices.5
http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/400%20Why%20We%20Have%20Judicial%20Review.pdf
Now explain this:
How can there be a check and balance when the Supreme Court decision can't be checked?
The Supreme Court is the highest power in the land and the people in the court were not elected. Nice democracy we have. Total joke.