No, it says that the Constitution is the law of the land.
In fact, they are not to be the most powerful branch
Each branch has their level of authority. Each acts as a check on the others.
You really should pay attention to the antics of the USSC...
Antics of the Supreme Court? I'm having enough trouble keeping up with the antics of you.
But if you have a problem with Justice Kennedy's decision in Lawrence v Texas, which cited dozens of U.S. precedents for each foreign reference, then you must really hate justices who issue rulings like this: "The practices of other nations, particularly other democracies, can be relevant to determining whether a practice uniform among our people is not merely an historical accident, but rather so 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' that it occupies a place not merely in our mores but, text permitting, in our Constitution as well. See Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937) (Cardozo, J.)." Or even worse, a justice who would dare write a decision like this: "We might also add to the list on the other side the legislatures of foreign democracies: Australia, Canada, and England, for example, all have prohibitions upon anonymous campaigning. See, e.g., Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, §328 (Australia); Canada Elections Act, R.S.C., ch. E-2, §261 (1985); Representation of the People Act, 1983, §110 (England)."
For the record the first one is from the minority decision in Thompson v. Oklahoma and the second is from the minority opinion in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. Both were written by Justice Scalia.
Jefferson had a somewhat different opinion of this.
I'm sure he did.
All three branches.
So what, the executive decides if their actions are constitutional and the legislative decides if their actions are constitutional? How does that work?
Why are you fine with allowing unelected lawyers to do as they wish? When there is no bound placed on their decisions - such as their unconstitutional use of foreign laws to “interpret” the Constitution and they may make up things as they go along, we have no checks and balances. We have no liberty.
At the risk of repeating myself I'll repeat, something is not unconstitutional merely because you say it is. And I'll trust the justices over elected congressmen or president or you. They aren't perfect. They come to conlusions that sometimes have me shaking my head. But far more often than not they issue decisions in keeping with the founder's intent of the Constitution probably was. And they're the system we've got.
Read some of Thomas and Scalia’s dissents sometime.
Like the ones above?
Considering they have assumed the power to do whatever they wish, that’s no longer true. The USSC is granted the power to judge limited cases under the US Constitution, not to make up their own sections of that document or use foriegn law.
“Each branch has their level of authority. Each acts as a check on the others.”
That’s not what we have here. Clearly.
“Antics of the Supreme Court? I’m having enough trouble keeping up with the antics of you. “
It’s a pity you can’t be bothered.
“But if you have a problem with Justice Kennedy’s decision in Lawrence v Texas, which cited dozens of U.S. precedents for each foreign reference, then you must really hate justices who issue rulings like this: “The practices of other nations, particularly other democracies, can be relevant to determining whether a practice uniform among our people is not merely an historical accident, but rather so ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ that it occupies a place not merely in our mores but, text permitting, in our Constitution as well. See Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937) (Cardozo, J.).” Or even worse, a justice who would dare write a decision like this: “We might also add to the list on the other side the legislatures of foreign democracies: Australia, Canada, and England, for example, all have prohibitions upon anonymous campaigning. See, e.g., Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, §328 (Australia); Canada Elections Act, R.S.C., ch. E-2, §261 (1985); Representation of the People Act, 1983, §110 (England).” “
Of course I have a problem with this.
“So what, the executive decides if their actions are constitutional and the legislative decides if their actions are constitutional? How does that work?”
Does the President take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? If he knows a bill is unconstitutional, he is duty bound to not sign it. If the member of Congress knows a bill is unconstitutional, he has a duty to vote against it. You can’t have “checks and balances” with a single all-powerful arbiter. All three branches are supposed to act in tension, but due to their appointed nature, the USSC is supposed to have the most limited power. Considering we know have to worry who sits on that court because of their ability, thanks to both their usurpation and the surrender of the other two branches, to remake the country, this is a problem.
“At the risk of repeating myself I’ll repeat, something is not unconstitutional merely because you say it is.”
Something is not constitutional or otherwise just because the USSC says it is. If the USSC decided that the 2nd Amendment meant the State, in the person of the Federal government, and no one else had the power to arm itself. In fact, if they decided that “the people” actually meant the government in all the Bill of Rights, would that be Constitutional in your book?
“Read some of Thomas and Scalia’s dissents sometime.”