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.
Congress has the right to initiate an amendment to correct what it perceives as an incorrect Supreme Court interpretation. The fact that it happens rarely seems to demonstrate to correctness of Marbury.
The interpretation of the Constitution is a matter that is the province of the judicial power - it is implicit in its provisions. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
I understand where the SCOTUS gave themselves a power that was never enumerated or even envisioned. In fact, them giving themselves power was something Hamilton warned about very directly and specifically in the Federalist Papers, which was rejoined by Brutus in the Antifederalist Papers.
Again, the interpretation of the Constitution is implicit in the grant of the judicial power. To say that the Constitution means what it says only begs the question of its interpretation. To put it simply: The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. Get used to it.
Again, the interpretation of the Constitution is implicit in the grant of the judicial power. To say that the Constitution means what it says only begs the question of its interpretation. To put it simply: The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. Get used to it.
Everyone interprets the Constitution. Those who claim the court shouldn't just don't like its decisions.
Again, the interpretation of the Constitution is implicit in the grant of the judicial power. To say that the Constitution means what it says only begs the question of its interpretation. To put it simply: The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. Get used to it.
We'll never agree, but your viewpoint is more popular than mine in the Brave New World we call the modern US. People don't mind tyranny anymore because they're comfortable and distracted.
But you defend your master well, I'll give you that.
Every time the federal courts come out with a decision that is contrary to popular sentiment, there is a great outcry about "liberal judges," "conservative judges," "activist judges" - not to mention a general call to "reform" the courts, or do away with them altogether. Such criticisms are hardly justified. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a more staid group than those that make up the federal judiciary. (One does not get ahead by espousing radical ideas, one way or the other, about the law: witness the failed confirmation of the appointment of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.)
Given the role of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) in the system of checks and balances provided in the Constitution, an independent judiciary is essential, for it acts as a curb against the encroachment of government on individual rights and liberty. Under the constitutional provision for separation of powers, federal judges are not supposed to be subject to political influence in fulfilling the court's role. A federal judge, who serves with life tenure on good behavior, can wield great power; which is why it is important to appoint "qualified" persons and not just political ideologues to the federal bench. That is why federal judges are appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate and not elected.
Our courts are the great levelers, for all men stand equal before the law. But while we are a nation of laws and not men, it is men who administer the laws and mete out justice. Most state judges are elected officials, and others appointed by executive authority; and there are few whose judgments are not influenced by politics, whether it be associated with getting reelected or avoiding impeachment from office. To make federal judges accountable in this way would turn the judiciary into courts of popular appeal, which is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
Given the role of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) in the system of checks and balances provided in the Constitution, an independent judiciary is essential, for it acts as a curb against the encroachment of government on individual rights and liberty.
And yet you probably endorse the use of eminent domain by the Keystone Pipeline.
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.
