Posted on 07/30/2004 8:17:31 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
It's not a matter of appointment. This third branch of government simply said that they, too, have a place in determining what is constitutional law.
The legislature, when writing a bill, is cognizant of constitutional considerations, as is the President when he signs it. Both branches have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and both branches may contest the constitutionality of a proposed piece of legislation.
The USSC only sees the legislation after it becomes law and is contested. One can say that they are the "final" arbiter, but that is only because they are the last signatory. Marbury v Madison established the USSC as one of the three branches making a constitutional determination.
I thought, "So at what point are we justified in concluding that a court opinion is wrong?" was a rhetorical question so I didn't bother to answer it.
I have no idea when we're justified. I know when I am.
Maybe that's your take on it, but what they said in Marbury is simply that they must follow the Constitution. That's virtually a direct quote. The holding was phrased not in terms of what the courts had the power to do, but in terms of what they lacked the power to do - namely, enforce unconstitutional laws.
The didn't claim that the meaning of the Constitution is to be determined by their rulings. They said that they must determine their rulings by the meaning of the Constitution.
I thought, "So at what point are we justified in concluding that a court opinion is wrong?" was a rhetorical question so I didn't bother to answer it. I have no idea when we're justified. I know when I am.
Actually it wasn't a rhetorical question, but that was a rather rhetorical objection to the question. So substitute "you" for "we" in the question, while considering the points I raised at #564.
Now that I think of it, before you do that, perhaps you can answer if there's ever any justification at all for concluding that a SCOTUS opinion is incorrect, even if the legislatve and executive branches haven't objected to it.
Why do you ask?
I mean, millions of people think SCOTUS opinions are incorrect -- take abortion, for example. And they firmly believe they're justified in feeling that way. So?
I believe the justices deliver an opinion.
BMG = Browning Machine Gun
50 caliber = 0.5" diameter round
BMG = Browning Machine Gun
50 caliber = 0.5" diameter round
BMG = Browning Machine Gun
50 caliber = 0.5" diameter round
BMG = Browning Machine Gun. It was the primary heavy machine gun for US forces in the 20th Century. It fired the .50 cal BMG round and that round is being used in bolt action rifles today. They are popular with long range target shooters in the civilian world and used with great effectiveness by military snipers in the USA and USMC.
I wish I could get a response like this whenever I ask about fishing gear . . .
You going somewhere with this? Please get to the point.
OK. I see.
No, I disagree. Granted, there are parts of the Constitution that are not subject to interpretation or opinion. But many areas are.
For example: The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, The Due Process Clause, The General Welfare Clause, The Commerce Clause, The Necessary and Proper Clause, etc. These are all subject to interpretation and are not objective fact.
Meaning that they are not objective fact.
Hi. Can you explain what the definition of caliber is. Is it the width or length of the bullet.
Fact is, matters of objective fact can still be "subject to interpretation". It just means that there can be a (single) correct interpretation, and (many) incorrect interpretations, of the evidence under examination.
Well, there's a statement for the books. 2 + 2 = subject to interpretation.
I'm done playing word games.
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.