Your argument is frivolous, as it is like other frivolous arguments in its frivolity.
When states are required to settle controversies in court, that means that they are required to settle controversies in court, not by pretending they don’t want to play any more. There is not a special power for “I don’t like that part of the constitution, so I will ignore it”. No such power can be reserved to any state, so long as you have a constitution.
As for the connection of the supreme court with the amendment process, the SCOTUS decides on the meaning of the texts, which texts have precedent, for amendments just as any other legal text. That is what it means to be a judge in a court room, or to be an appeals court judge, or a justice of the supreme court.
No, parties to the suit don’t get to decide what part of the law applies to them. If you have that, then you have no law at all, because, as we see here, parties or partisans will take the interpretation that favors their cause. The legal system takes that interpretation away from the parties, but leaves the parties or partisans with the opportunity to advocate their position. The Judge can select from the positions advocated, or can present his own position.
The wonderful thing is, when a court makes a decision that is not in line with a supermajority, the decision can be overridden by law or amendment, such as the 11th amendment with restored sovereign immunity to the states, or the 13th 14th, and 15th amendments.
Then please rephrase my argument; as your objection makes little sense in relation to my previous post.
When states are required to settle controversies in court, that means that they are required to settle controversies in court, not by pretending they don’t want to play any more. There is not a special power for “I don’t like that part of the constitution, so I will ignore it”. No such power can be reserved to any state, so long as you have a constitution.
Um, you do realize that that is exactly what the federal government is doing, no? (“I don’t like that part of the constitution, so I will ignore it”)
As for the connection of the supreme court with the amendment process, the SCOTUS decides on the meaning of the texts, which texts have precedent, for amendments just as any other legal text. That is what it means to be a judge in a court room, or to be an appeals court judge, or a justice of the supreme court.
That is not a part of the amendment process; that is applying the amendment. The two are totally different; that you cannot discern that casts much doubt onto the veracity of any of your assertions regarding law and jurisprudence.
No, parties to the suit don’t get to decide what part of the law applies to them. If you have that, then you have no law at all, because, as we see here, parties or partisans will take the interpretation that favors their cause.
Which is *gasp* what we see in federal courts regarding limiting government agents via 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th amendment suits.
Honestly, Kelo, Wickard, ACA and so forth show that the USSC is not immune to that power. (And if you assert Kelo as being good law I reserve the right to laugh you to derision: 'projecting' tax revenue-increases and using those imaginations as justification for filling the "public use" requirement of the 5th is simply ludicrous.)
The legal system takes that interpretation away from the parties, but leaves the parties or partisans with the opportunity to advocate their position.
Except in the case of the federal government, which sits on its own cases and tells everyone that they are under their decrees.
The wonderful thing is, when a court makes a decision that is not in line with a supermajority, the decision can be overridden by law or amendment, such as the 11th amendment with restored sovereign immunity to the states, or the 13th 14th, and 15th amendments.
"Objection, this assumes facts not in evidence."
Really? I point out evidence that the 14th is not actually valid and you use it in a description asserting your position?
A question assumes facts not in evidence if:
It presumes unproved facts to be true.
Example: "When did you stop beating your wife?" This question assumes that the person has beaten his wife.