Replies

Ironically, you’re guilty of the exact things you accuse me of.

You have utterly failed to show how our Constitution authorizes a system in which the judicial branch is supreme, or in which the other two branches don’t have a co-equal duty to interpret and enforce the Constitution.

Like most lawyers, you’ve had common sense educated out of your head. You strain at gnats, and swallow camels.

You think we’re governed by the courts.

Conversely, I know that we are governed by God, ourselves, and the Constitution. The courts are subservient to God, His laws, the people, and that Constitution.

The courts have their role, their rightful sphere. But, it is one that has practically ceased to be checked or balanced by the Executive and the Legislative branches, to our country’s great harm.

Because of people who think like you do.

Your broad, sweeping assertions have been easily shown to be wrong, but you’re just too proud of your exalted education to admit it.

What color is the sky in your world? I've repeatedly told you to read Article III of the Constitution. You've obviously not done that. This is what the relevant portion states:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . . The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

I also told you that you obviously don't understand the holding in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) which is the seminal case confirming the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. The relevant language from Marbury states:

The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. . .

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. . . .

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. 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. . . .

For over two hundred years, it has been recognized that the Supreme Court possesses the final authority to determine whether the conduct of the executive branch comports with the Constitution. Thus, in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 117 S.Ct. 1636 (1997), the Supreme Court held:

First, we have long held that when the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law. Perhaps the most dramatic example of such a case is our holding that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation's steel mills in order to avert a national catastrophe. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Despite the serious impact of that decision on the ability of the Executive Branch to accomplish its assigned mission, and the substantial time that the President must necessarily have devoted to the matter as a result of judicial involvement, we exercised our Article III jurisdiction to decide whether his official conduct conformed to the law. Our holding was an application of the principle established in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), that "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Id., at 177.

In the most recent session of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts, citing Marbury, again confirmed the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. In the case of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 126 S.Ct. 1854 (2006) he stated:

Chief Justice Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), grounded the Federal Judiciary's authority to exercise judicial review and interpret the Constitution on the necessity to do so in the course of carrying out the judicial function of deciding cases. As Marshall explained, "[t]hose who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule." Id., at 177.

I've repeatedly challenged the asininity of your position by pointing out that if it were correct, as you claim, it would have eliminated the need for the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments. You didn't provide any response to that point. You also didn't provide any response to my observation that if your position were correct, Clinton could have rejected the Bush v. Gore decision and entered an executive order requiring all the votes to be counted which would have created chaos and anarchy.

You (and your supporter MHGINTN) are embarrassing yourself with this absurd contention that the President has authority under the Constitution to reject a pronouncement of the Supreme Court. Your argument is so ridiculous you sound like a "jailhouse lawyer" or one of those tax seminar gurus who claims that the income tax laws are unconstitutional.

I have now provided you with both the actual text of the Constitution and several citations/quotes from Constitutional jurisprudence which clearly state that it is the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

It is now time for you to "put up" by identifying both the actual text from the constitution and constitutional jurisprudence for your asinine position or shut up.