Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OneWingedShark

However the Supreme Court ruled in 1874 in Minor v Happersett that “the Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”

“Elsewhere” has turned out to be statutory laws passed by Congress and signed by Presidents.


103 posted on 03/12/2015 5:10:22 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Nero Germanicus
The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

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.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is, consequently, to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
Portions of Marbury v. Madison, this contradicts the notion that Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that. can include statutory law because statutory law is an ordinary act of the legislature.
111 posted on 03/12/2015 5:27:03 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]

To: Nero Germanicus
“Elsewhere” has turned out to be statutory laws passed by Congress and signed by Presidents.

Will you MAKE UP YOUR MIND? Congress can either amend the constitution by Statute or they can't. Now which is it?

136 posted on 03/12/2015 7:48:56 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson