Posted on 03/15/2017 8:10:26 PM PDT by Signalman
Asked and answered. It doesn't have to be written out in explicit words for you to read. It follows from the basic function of the court. Courts have to resolve cases where two different laws are in conflict with each other. If a statute is in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution wins, and the court will decide that the statute is unenforcible. This is inherent to the process, it can't be otherwise.
Can't believe you're a 98er...
You have a lot of patience, sergeantdave. 😀
According to you, the judiciary can usurp the constitutional authority of the president because the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government.
If that’s the case, then a judge can stop the president from sending troops into Iraq and instead send the troops to Syria, because judges are a co-equal branch of government.
If that’s true, than a congressman from Idaho can issue an opinion that Roe v Wade is illegal ,and overrule the USSC because that congressman is a co-equal branch of government.
Please continue. I’m amused.
Continue following this thread. It’s getting both interesting and amusing.
That has no bearing on anything I've said. We are talking about cases the courts hear, not cases that they don't hear.
"Can't believe you're a 98er..."
97er. I lurked for a year.
I don't make my opinions of what is conform to what I wish would be. What is, is, regardless. Unfortunately that's not so common.
I would be saying exactly the same thing if I were on a forum with people complaing about the many times the courts overturned Obama.
Obama Has Lost the Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President
Nowhere have I said I thought this current decision was correct. In fact I think it is terrible, and Trump is clearly within his authority, there are no valid constitutional issues at stake, and that it will be reversed. I am only responding to the notions that the President has the right to ignore the courts and do what he wants anyway. He doesn't, and it's a horrible idea.
I see this as a national security issue. I hope the courts don’t have any authority over that.
No, that is not according to me. I've said no such thing. Go back and read for comprehension.
“According to you, the judiciary can usurp the constitutional authority of the president because the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government.”
No, that is not according to me. I’ve said no such thing. Go back and read for comprehension.
Really? Here’s you:
“The Constitution does make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of what the law means, and the Constitution is the law. Even though it might not spell that out, it doesn’t really work any other way.”
Your own statement on FR shows that you’re a liar.
You believe that a bunch of unelected black-robed fascists are the final arbiter of the law. Your own words betray what you are - a judicial fascist.
It just won't quit, having lost the argument. Last-worder?
You have mis-attributed the quote in your post to me. I didn’t say it; SoCal Pubbie was the source (see post #39).
I was thinking earlier on this. Trump: How are you going to I force this. I’m the one with the army.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.