Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Second:It seems we have overlooked something. The Constitution spells out in exacting detail who has the ultimate authority, and the ultimate responsibility, for interpreting the Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States. If anyone wants to know how some part of the Constitution has been interpreted, read up on how the SCOTUS has interpreted it. Their decisions become the law of the land.
There's more, but I'll save that for later if needed.
Regards to all,
-- Nighteyes
Actually, the power of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution i.e. Judicial Review, is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Rather, it is inferred.
Ahem... that is the role of the Supreme Court, as defined/determined by the Constitution!
Frankly I don't know where you're trying to go with this, short of re-writing the Constitution. And, if such is your goal (not saying it is), good luck...
-- Nighteyes
Please cite the article or clause in the Constitution that grants SCOTUS this authority????
There isn't one, but as has been pointed out any number of times, the power still exists.
Yes I know. Nighteye's continues to claim that the Constitution expressly grant's the Supreme Court this authority though, so I am merely challenging him on this claim.
To me, the question is: should the US adhere to its Constitution or not?
In Constitutional cases, the Supreme Court, by definition, tries to apply Constitution as it interprets it. It can only try to interpret it as well and as faithfully as it can. If it didn't, it would either be using some other standard or no standard. Both are arbitrary, since there are infinitely many other standards and non-standards.
There can be alternative interpretations but there shouldn't alternative standards.
Democrat-Republicans felt that we should have a strict adherence to the constitution, or "constructionists" views.
The Federalists felt that we needed a strong central government which had "interpreted" powers not explicitly listed in the constitution.
The Federalists won. This argument was decided before 1800. I wish we would use the amendment process more, and use strict wording to limit federal power. The problem with that is we wouldn't have bought the land west of the Mississippi from Napoleon, the north probably wouldn't have won the civil war, and Roosevelt probably would have failed to help with the depression.
Democrat-Republicans felt that we should have a strict adherence to the constitution, or "constructionists" views.
The Federalists felt that we needed a strong central government which had "interpreted" powers not explicitly listed in the constitution.
The Federalists won. This argument was decided before 1800. I wish we would use the amendment process more, and use strict wording to limit federal power. The problem with that is we wouldn't have bought the land west of the Mississippi from Napoleon, the north probably wouldn't have won the civil war, and Roosevelt probably would have failed to help with the depression.
Pick your poison.
True. One of the justices during the civil war said the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was a habeas corpus case. Extreme conditions require extreme measures. But once normality returns, so should normal jurisprudence.
True. One of the justices during the civil war said the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was a habeas corpus case. Extreme conditions require extreme measures. But once normality returns, so should normal jurisprudence.
Thats the issue with judicial precedence. Let the federal government get away with it once, next time they'll do it again, and for a far lesser reason.
Lincoln ignored the Supreme court during the war, but he wasn't the first President to ignore the court and ignore the constitution.
To me, the question is: should the US adhere to its Constitution or not?
In Constitutional cases, the Supreme Court, by definition, tries to apply Constitution as it interprets it. It can only try to interpret it as well and as faithfully as it can. If it didn't, it would either be using some other standard or no standard. Both are arbitrary, since there are infinitely many other standards and non-standards.
There can be alternative interpretations but there shouldn't alternative standards.
Simply put, "BINGO!!!!"
We can gripe, moan and complain all we want. For any SCOTUS decision that seems wrong to us, the simple truth is that we can either (a) attempt to change it via new laws, Constitutional Amendments or SCOTUS nominations, or (b) suck it up and get on with our lives.
The SCOTUS doesn't make laws, but it sure-as-heck interprets/applies/overturns/affirms current laws based on its collective understanding of the Constitution.
In the past few years there have been a few SCOTUS decisions with which I absolutely do not agree; decisions that will significantly change the political landscape for the foreseeable future. My real-world choices are few, and they are carefully described above.
-- Nighteyes
Last edited by Nighteyes; 04-07-2014 at 05:32 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
