ugh I hate the cardinals, LOL :)
Thanks again for another great response.
It looks like under the system, the courts and the legislature could just battle back and forth indefinitely till one gives in to the other.
I was just wondering because if the massachusettes governor and legislature are going to disregard the supreme court’s ruling re speech zones, then what’s to stop another more conservative legislature/governer from disobeying a courts “gay marriage is unconstitutional” decision or perhaps defying roe v. wade itself?
then again tho, if that were to happen the media would go after them like rabid dogs, and most likely they’d fold under the pressure.
As far as checks and balances I guess one branch has got to be on top. It seems like marbury vs madison (sort of) settled that by the court jumping in and saying effectively “it’s us”. (looks like a power grab to me)
I can safely say this tho, the ability of just one circuit court judge to nullify a governor plus a legislature, or even a president plus a congress on a whim is absurd. There’s nothing co-equal in that.
The too-rare assertion of these powers is, of course, due to the almost complete gutlessness of legislatures, federal or state.
There were a couple of flaws in the Constitution as drafted, the first observed in 1800 and corrected by the 12th Amendment, but the principal flaw -- still exstant, dammit -- is the Constitution's making of the removal of ANY federal official so difficult. Impeachment and removal by supermajority ONLY?? Faugh!
On the simple and accurate presumption that 5% of people, at minimum, are either corrupt or incompetent, the Constitution should have embodied some sort of provision calling for the culling of such federal officials every year or every other year. The problem here, of course, is how to keep such provision from being "gamed" by the corrupt bastards in DC to, by design, cull the honest and competent folks.
Any ideas?