Ad Hominem attack. What is your legal education? My bet is that mine is far better; in fact from your post I would say you have no legal education at all. Understand that Constitutionally the Congress can completely remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to hear cases in an area making them, in a practical sense, the superior power in Constitutional law. As far as the 13th - 15th Amendments go, how do they remove the duty of Congress and President to protect the Constitution? I think no one is responding because they don’t understand the argument.
Do a thought experiment. What is the duty of President if the Supreme Court upholds a law that Americans are no longer entitled to free speech on about politics prior to an election? What is the duty of the Congress if the President jails people for speech and the Court upholds it?
Ad hominem attack? You're joking right?? Is this the bait and switch method when you're unable to substantively respond to the post?
I graduated with honors from a respected, accredited law school whereas it is apparent by your utter lack of citation to legal authority and the asininity of your arguments that you obtained your legal education from a mail order company.
You have provided no citations to any constiutitonal jurisprudence to support your inane assertion. On the other hand, I provided several citations, beginning with Marbury and continuing down to the last term of the Supreme Court. Obviously, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Let me simplify:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)
That the task of interpreting the great, sweeping clauses of the Constitution ultimately falls to us has been for some time an accepted principle of American jurisprudence.
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 108 S.Ct. 2687 (1988)
In the last term, Chief Justice Roberts 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.
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 126 S.Ct. 1854 (2006)
Let me simplify further. You mail order lawyers claim that Congress' passage of the law in 1862 outlawing slavery in the territories and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation effectively freed the slaves in supposed derogation of the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857). If, as you claim, these actions were a legitimate exercise of their constitutional authority, there would have been no need for the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments since the President and Congress had, in your warped view, already accomplished the purpose of these Amendments.
Finally, you continue to ignore the elephant in the room. I have repeatedly commented that if your asinine position were embraced, it would have allowed Clinton to repudiate the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore and issue an executive order requiring all votes in Florida to be counted. It didn't occur because Clinton, thankfully, didn't possess such power as President.
Try to get the law repealed.
What is the duty of the Congress if the President jails people for speech and the Court upholds it?
Pass a law forbidding the president from doing it.