I can accept that much.
The topic was “prayer” and I assumed people with a working knowledge of the Constitution would read my post in that context. To that end let me rephrase my observations.
Do you disagree with this statement? The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to legislate religion therefore prayers at a local town meetings are not the business of the Supreme Court.
I can see your problem with this statement. The Supreme Court can only rule on issues that the Congress is empowered to legislate.
I’ll reword that to seek a more acceptable response. “The Supreme Court can only rule on legislation that Congress has passed whether Congress were constitutionally empowered to legislate or not and all other legislation to determine if that legislation conflicts with the Constitution.”
Article III charges the Supreme Court in Section 2 .to contain its judicial Power to the Constitution. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution…
I’m not in this to merely ‘quibble’. Your original assertion — “ ... The Supreme Court can only rule on issues that the Congress is empowered to legislate ...” — was and still IS the point I questioned.
The SCOTUS is NOT constrained to respond ONLY to issues originating in some act of Congress. That’s what you said and that’s what I questioned.
The issue you raised, as far as I am concerned, is NOT simply concerned with ‘prayer’ or ‘religion’. You may want to fold back around to that constraint but you opened this door and I’m walking in.
Consider something ELSE your amendment STILL overlooks: ANY case arising within a State or Inferior Federal Court which may, somehow, be ‘lawyered’ into an argument merely referring to a topic within the Constitution ( especially within the Bill of Rights or the infinitely ‘expansive’ 14th ) MAY very well end up calendared by the SCOTUS for review / appeal. I am unaware of a successful challenge to inhibit the working of this process since Marbury v. Madison.
How did y’all miss that’n ???
When you cite Article II, Section 2, you encompass ALL of it, not merely a phrase you ‘quote’ out of context. This Article outlines the scope of the Judicial Power and contains NOT one word or phrase indicating your preferred construction — ‘can only review laws enacted in Congress’. Mr Justice Marshall ruled explicitly that SCOTUS CAN review Acts of Congress and rule on their Constitutionality. That understanding was, previously, NOT operative and became the essence of the ‘system of checks and balances’ we understand the Constitution to have originated. Before then, some held that only Congress was the judge of it’s Acts and only the President was the judge of the means by which the Executive Power was exercised. Mr Justice Marshall thought otherwise.
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion