Posted on 06/06/2007 8:05:15 AM PDT by tpaine
” Any amendments that violated those principles would be null, void, and repugnant.’
No. Constitutional amendments are not subject to judicial review. The court can invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution, but constitutional conventions and ratified constitutional amendments are outside the jurisdiction of the court.
The function of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution — as amended.
The 18th was 'reviewed'. You are wrong.
The court can invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution,
Correct.
but constitutional conventions and ratified constitutional amendments are outside the jurisdiction of the court.
Wrong.
In the National Prohibition Cases (1920), the Supreme Court heard lengthy arguments that the 18th was unconstitutional.
Afraid to explain their decision, they refused to comment, and simply rejected the issue. - A very unusual case.
The function of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution as amended.
Read much? Article III section 2 says different. Any case "arising under this Constitution" is the applicable wording.
” Read much? Article III section 2 says different. Any case “arising under this Constitution” is the applicable wording.’
Can you not keep snideness out of your responses?
And ‘this Constitution’ means what? Everything but the amendments? Only the first ten amendments?
An amendment is an amendment. The newly amended Constitution is then the basis for USSC operations. The USSC can be overridden by amending the document it must enforce. But the amending process is so tedious and all-encompassing that it acts as a check on changing the constitution into something abhorrent. But it’s not a perfect check, as the Volstead Act proved.
Saturday bump.
.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
This is fantastic!
Brilliant post!!
HUh!
No way! We get ideas from certain collectives that create a stronger individual big difference.
Marines are stronger due to their training,but they are individually stronger not collectively,also big difference.!!
If an individual puts the needs of others ahead of his own he does it on an individual basis not on a collective basis, these are the strongest of all individualists.
When individualists join groups they do so as individualists standing on their own. They join groups from a common good standpoint but on an individual basis, and depending on no one but themselves.
Monday bump
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.