Expansion
of the 1st Amendment via judicial meddling ought not be tolerated — all it does is erode the Constitution to allow the Judiciary to usurp power.
The Constitution very clearly says who has legislative power (Art 1, Sec 1) All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
; it also says how the Constitution may be amended (Art 5) — You'll note that the Supreme Court is conspicuously absent from both cited portions. (The big lie that they've forced on everybody is that the supreme court is superior in authority to the Constitution.)
So you agree that rulings in favor of the baker and against the Teamsters would be an expansion of the 1st Amendment?
You are correct, but Marbury v Madison is the toothpaste that, absent a Constitutional Convention, will never go back in the tube. In the 19th Century the power was used rarely, compared to today, and not always wisely, i e Dred Scott. In our time the calendar is filled with opportunities to remake the Constitution.
Wouldn’t this be the reverse of expanding the 1st Amendment? It seems to me if SCOTUS rules as intimated here, it would mark a return to the limits outlined in the Constitution. It would be the freeing of liberty from its judicial-activist cage .
>
“Expansion” of the 1st Amendment via judicial meddling ought not be tolerated — all it does is erode the Constitution to allow the Judiciary to usurp power.
>
15 posts before anyone brought up that little turd. Kudos
>
(The big lie that they’ve forced on everybody is that the supreme court is superior in authority to the Constitution.)
>
Yes, but it’s the big lie the unconstitutional govt(s) follows (Fed AND State).
Unfort, no even PDT is rocking THAT boat :S