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.
I think they skipped class when the concept of judicial review was discussed.
Judicial review has to apply the Constitution as is. It cannot change it. Changing the Constitution has to be done via the Amendment Ratification process, described explicitly in Article V.
Go back to history class and study the ramifications of Marbury vs. Madison regarding judicial review.
You're 200 years behind the times. Try to catch up.
I don't need to "catch up." I'm well aware of Marbury v. Madison.
Does it not seem strange to you that the Supreme Court (which was created by the Constitution) claims for itself the role of interpreting the document that created it? Madison, called "The Father of the Constitution," knew very well the meaning and intent of every Article and Section of the Constitution. Yet, the Supreme Court gave itself the power to be the sole arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, even though it had no hand in the creation of that Contract.
No, that's not its job. That's part of its job, but it's also part of the job of the legislative and executive branches, and the Supreme Court's opinion is no more valid then the opinions of members of the other branches.
The Supreme Court, like the lower courts, renders an OPINION. It does not make law. The Court's "opinion" is not binding on any one except the Party's to the case ...those in the court room.
The Supreme Court cannot make law. It's "opinions" therefore are not law.
Whatever ...dude. Harp away...does not change the facts...that the Constitution is a living document...and that is the prevailing view . You appear fixated on my misstatement. ..ok. CU is a game changer and only a fool would think otherwise.
No, it is not the prevailing "view" that the Constitution is a living document. The "living document" thing is just a lie told by people who want to ignore the Constitution. No one actually believes that; or, I should say, no one's actions are consistent with such a belief. Ultimately, moreover, it's impossible to believe that it's a "living document" (i.e., a changing or evolving document), because "living document" or "changing document" or "evolving document" is an oxymoron.
A "document" is a record of something from the past. The past can't change.
Last edited by hbdwihdh378y9; 09-06-2017 at 07:43 PM..
Indeed, it did. "The necessary effect," "present for determination the single question," and "whether a child born in the United States," not just namely and specifically Wong Kim Ark. The ruling stipulated that parents must have been permanent resident aliens at the time of their child's/children's birth in the US order for their child/ren to qualify for birthright US citizenship.
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
The USCIS concurs: Illegal aliens are NOT permanent resident aliens.
Except for the WKA ruling regarding the US-born child/ren of permanent resident alien parents, that's true.
Rulings don't stipulate, parties do. The parties stipulated--i.e. agreed to a set of facts, to present a question for review.
As such, the Court did not rule that parents must be permanent resident aliens. The Court answered the question based on stipulated facts. It says that, based on the facts presented, the child described must be considered a citizen at birth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
The Supreme Court, like the lower courts, renders an OPINION. It does not make law. The Court's "opinion" is not binding on any one except the Party's to the case ...those in the court room.
The Supreme Court cannot make law. It's "opinions" therefore are not law.
Are you familiar with common law and stare decisis?
If the state supreme court where you live made a ruling and you were sued under similar facts and issues, what do you think happens when you go to court?
A "document" is a record of something from the past. The past can't change.
You do know the difference between a verb and a noun, right?
The term "document" in the context of the constitution means that it serves as an official record. It's not "recording" something in the sense that it's a window into the past. It's a set of laws. As in, it's relationship to the past is pretty much irrelevant.
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.
