"There is NOTHING wrong with the Constitution, it is beautiful in it's simplicity.
The problem is with the black-robed bastards that decided THEY have the authority to 'interpret' it, and REFUSE to uphold the principles on which it was founded!"
But it does not have a mechanism to protect itself against what the Supreme Court has done, does it?
If judges have taken this authority, as you have suggested, they did so well over a century ago. But they have never been defied since the American Civil War.
Which indicates to me that the system as it exists, with judges doing the things that you heartily oppose, is actually the US Constitutional system. It's not in the written Constitution, I agree, but that has been a dead letter for a long, long time, hasn't it? Judges have been doing precisely what they are doing now in America since they provoked the American Civil War with their Dred Scott decision. The President Lincoln defied them directly, but no official since has, for generation after generation.
So, there's the document, which perhaps held sway until 1857, which is to say 68 years. And then there is the modern structure in which judges behave as they do, for the last perhaps 132 years at least.
The written document is beautiful and simple, I agree.
But it is not the law in the land of the United States.
What the Supreme Court says is the law of the land in America, and this is nowhere made clearer than when the Supreme Court of the US makes laws that more or less directly contradict the language of the Constitution document.
The Supreme Court has never been defied, never been overruled, never been directly struck down, not since the Civil War.
It seems to me that reality is that what the Supreme Court says the US Constitution is, is the Constitution, and that whatever the piece of paper says, there has been nobody in America since Abraham Lincoln who has directly overruled the Supreme Court in defense of a different interpretation of the Constitution or the law.
I understand your anger, but what is the solution?
[What the Supreme Court says is the law of the land in America, and this is nowhere made clearer than when the Supreme Court of the US makes laws that more or less directly contradict the language of the Constitution document.]
Well then, why do we even need a legislature for? The Supreme Court has turned into a communist run doddering old fools who suffer from the mental delusion of liberalism and marxist doctrine. The judges who voted for this should be thrown out of AMERICA Forever.
"I understand your anger, but what is the solution?" Impeach and remove judges who do not follow the Constitution but instead add to it their own social biases. This current sludge is a prime example of judges adding where the Constitutional language limited. Impeach and remove the smarmy slugs for doing something unConstitutional, changing the Constitution without the prescribed votes.
No, not really. I don't imagine the Founders ever foresaw a day when all three of the separate but equal branches of government would conspire to strip Americans of their natural, inalienable rights.
What the Supreme Court says is the law of the land in America, and this is nowhere made clearer than when the Supreme Court of the US makes laws that more or less directly contradict the language of the Constitution document.
No. Any decision that is contrary to the Constitution or the principles for which it stands is automatically null and void upon it's inception.
I understand your anger, but what is the solution?
The Founders said their were three boxes in freedom, the ballot box, the jury box and the ammo box.
The first is chancy at best - finding someone worthy to elect is hard enough. Having them stick to their principles once elected is harder still.
The jury box at this point I believe is our best bet. Jurors have the right to judge the person AND the law, whether government likes it our not. That is how alcohol prohibition was finally repealed. People flatly refused to convict the patrons of the local speakeasy.
The ammo box, while a viable option, should certainly be used only as a last resort. We have a RIGHT to rebel against our government in order to keep it within it's Constitutional boundaries.
Personally, I will continue my study of law. The Founders based our country on the power of the individual, and I believe this power is available to everyone IF you have the knowledge to go about it properly.
Might I ask you a question? Are you an American?
Not that it makes a difference to me, I like accents :)
But you have an amazingly firm grasp of the Constitution and it's role in our history....one that Americans (with a few FReeper exceptions) usually lack.
Yes it does. In fact several exist. Congress can make Law, every single time the black robes pull this crap, not to mention Impeachment. There is the Amendment process, not saying it will work. Lastly, Constitutional Convention. I wouldn't necessarily trust our current goobers to go that route and would likely fight tooth and nail if they decided to. The point being, the Constitution has built in powers of protection. Blackbird.
Yes it does. In fact several exist. Congress can make Law, every single time the black robes pull this crap, not to mention Impeachment. There is the Amendment process, not saying it will work. Lastly, Constitutional Convention. I wouldn't necessarily trust our current goobers to go that route and would likely fight tooth and nail if they decided to. The point being, the Constitution has built in powers of protection. Blackbird.