Posted on 01/26/2012 12:44:24 PM PST by jmaroneps37
So you admit that you do not possess an understanding of constitutional law and the concept of stare decisis, While your elaboration on the federalist papers and other founding documents and writings is quite relevant, the actual nuts and bolts of how the Supreme Court was left with the task of filling in the blanks and answering the un-answered questions left by our founders (such as the definition of natural born citizen) is where your understanding lacks.
Once the USSC makes a determination in caselaw it stands as the law of the land and may only be changed by the USSC in subsequent case law (think Dredd Scott as an example of bad case law and Brown v Bd. of Education as an example of the USSC subsequently overturning their own prior bad case law), or by legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
As for the ACLU wisecrack, do you really think I’d be on this board if I were a member of that cabal? Again, let me enlighten you on your lack of understanding, if all lawyers were liberals and members of the ACLU, would they not win every single case they present to the courts? Don’t you think it possible that institutions such as the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Mises Institute just might have some conservative lawyers on staff and some conservative lawyers on retainer capable of making the fight for them in court?
This is the best you have - a wild swing that is way off the mark?
No reason for your bitterness here.
Thus endeth the lesson.
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.