Of, By, and For the People.......

But that is not what they have been doing. They have been twisting the meaning of the Constitution to make it match their own misguided view of society. Then they declare unconstitutional any legislation passed to correct their prior misinterpretation.

In effect, there has been a concerted effort by liberals on SCOTUS to usurp the rights of Congress to make law. IE Legislating from the bench. Making rulings agreeing with the outlawing of free speech, as they have done, is hardly what I'd call following the Constitution.

 

Which is, in effect, interpreting the law. The judiciary is working exactly how it was intended. :laugh:

 

Your view of how the 14th Amendment has been used is naive, to say the least.

I recommend some reading for you:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0865971447/?tag=baptis04-20

"Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment"

If you don't begin to see the light, you are willfully blind.

 

First, why are you so certain that I have not read this book? Second, I do not need to read other people's opinion on Constitutional history to understand the scope of the judiciary, and certainly not constitutional law. I would rather go directly to the source, i.e., the actual cases. Afterall, they are all that really matters. SCOTUS decisions mold the framework of society. These cases are, in fact, the law, regardless of the opinions on either side of the issue.

Oh, and please elaborate on "my view" of 14th amendment case law. It should be quite entertaining.

 

Either the founders screwed up or intentionally gave SCOTUS ultimate power.

 

What part of the initial
'S' = Supreme
are you having problems with?

 

Your posts reveal otherwise.

Makes me wonder how you feel about the SCOTUS 2000 decision that cut off the lawsuits resulting in Bush's election.

 

I read this twice and i still can't figure it out. If there is an issue the Consitution does not speak to the courts have no business dealing with it. They should say it is not covered by the constitution and defer the isue back to the legislation to address it by creating the law for it. The courts cannot address or interpret that which has nothing on which to base an interpretation. It is like trying to build a house on air. It has no foundation on which to stand.

 

The best insight into the abuse of power by the Court is to compare its early rulings against those of recent times. They have established their own precedence over time that departs from the original intent of the people and their representatives.

 

No doubt.:thumbs:

 

Oh really? By all means please elaborate. This should be quite interesting....

I have some reading for you as well, Carpo.

1. Constitutional Law for a Changing America Third Edition by Lee Epstein and Thomas Walker, 1998

2. The American Constitution Its Origins and Development Seventh Edition Volume I by Kelly, Harbison, and Belz, 1991

3. The American Constitution Its Origins and Development Seventh Edition Volume II by Kelly, Harbison, and Belz, 1991

I have some more, but this should keep you busy for awhile. Please note these books are in depth surveys of constitutional case law, and not superfluous opinion.

The SCOTUS broke from almost 200 years of precedent to determine a political question. In Marbury Marshall wrote "The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court." See also Chief Justice Taney's majority opinion in Luther V. Borden, (1849). With that being said, the courts decision is still binding. It is the law, point blank. If you do not believe the SCOTUS was to exercise judicial review perhaps you should read the FP's more carefully, especially Hamilton. Remember, our SCOTUS was based on the well entrenched principle of English common law, and judicial review has been dated all the way back to Dr. Bonham's Case, (1610), in England. Coupled with the fact that there was not a huge outcry after Marbury.

 

The final sentence was supposd to be:

Coupled with the fact that there was not a huge outcry after Marbury we can glean the framers always intended the SCOTUS to exercise judcial review.

 

The SCOTUS has the sole purpose of interpreting and defending the US constitution. Perhaps you need to reread the FP's, not to mention case law. In our ever changing world there are issues which fall under the purview of the Constitution, but never outright addressed in the original document. Internet commerce is certainly a prime example, as is public education. The framers never dreamt of a public education system, but as soon as the legislature instituted one, the SCOTUS was called on to determine a variety of constitutional questions, again not outrightly addressed, but nonetheless important.