Washintonian_For_Liberty
Regular Member
imported post
sv_libertarian wrote:
(1) It does not stand to reason... sorry...it does not say they can read into the Constitution words, phrases or meanings that are not there. The wording of the Constitution is quite simple. They are not to go beyond those boundaries.
(2) Ninth but mostly Tenth Amendment which says if it isn't in the Constitution... the Federal Government (includes the Courts) cannot do it. If the constitution seems vague in some areas.... use the Amendment process as enumerated in Article V to clarify much as they did in the 14th Amendment and the 21st Amendment. At times, our government actually respected our Republic... but most of the times, they've resorted to becoming authoritarians.
The SCOTUS is no different. Self important pompous blowhards who have usurped the Congress's rolein making national laws and by national laws, I mean Constitutional Amendments. There is a reason that it was supposed to be hard to make laws.... because if it was easy (like it is now), the government would spiral out of control and rob us of our Freedom and Liberty much like it is doing now. Yet you argue in protection of this bastardization of our Constitution... strikes me as odd considering your moniker.
sv_libertarian wrote:
Ok, Article III section 1, US Constition.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section II
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to[/size][/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States; --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. [/size][/font]
So... we see that the judicial power of the United States is through one supreme Court, and that court may rule on all cases arising under the Constitution. (1) So does it not stand to reason that they have to be able to rule on the constitutionality of laws? (2) Keep in mind, there is nothing FORBIDDING SCOTUS from ruling on constitutional issues.
(1) It does not stand to reason... sorry...it does not say they can read into the Constitution words, phrases or meanings that are not there. The wording of the Constitution is quite simple. They are not to go beyond those boundaries.
(2) Ninth but mostly Tenth Amendment which says if it isn't in the Constitution... the Federal Government (includes the Courts) cannot do it. If the constitution seems vague in some areas.... use the Amendment process as enumerated in Article V to clarify much as they did in the 14th Amendment and the 21st Amendment. At times, our government actually respected our Republic... but most of the times, they've resorted to becoming authoritarians.
The SCOTUS is no different. Self important pompous blowhards who have usurped the Congress's rolein making national laws and by national laws, I mean Constitutional Amendments. There is a reason that it was supposed to be hard to make laws.... because if it was easy (like it is now), the government would spiral out of control and rob us of our Freedom and Liberty much like it is doing now. Yet you argue in protection of this bastardization of our Constitution... strikes me as odd considering your moniker.