Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: philman_36
Then if no right is absolute which of the rights that you currently possess are you willing to give up/concede without a fight?

Uhhh, which right or rights are you claiming are absolute?

155 posted on 04/24/2006 4:43:54 PM PDT by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies ]


To: GLDNGUN
Uhhh, which right or rights are you claiming are absolute?
Uhhh, which right or rights are you claiming aren't absolute? ALL rights? Even the right to life?
Don't you have to do something wrong before you can have your life taken from you?

Or is "no law is a bad law" your creed?

CRS Annotated Constitution
“The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States;” Marshall began his discussion of this final phase of the case, “but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.”590 First, certain fundamental principles warranting judicial review were noticed. The people had come together to establish a government. They provided for its organization and assigned to its various departments their powers and established certain limits not to be transgressed by those departments. The limits were expressed in a written constitution, which would serve no purpose “if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained.” Because the Constitution is “a superior paramount law,” it is unchangeable by ordinary legislative means and “a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law.”591 “If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect?” The answer, thought the Chief Justice, was obvious. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. . . . If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
“So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
“If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”592 To declare otherwise, Chief Justice Marshall said, would be to permit a legislative body to pass at pleasure the limits imposed on its powers by the Constitution.593

158 posted on 04/24/2006 4:55:42 PM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson