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

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
"But, that is NOT "our system"! NOWHERE in the constitution is it written that the supreme court can "interpret" the constitution itself. That is itself a matter of case law since Marbury vs Madison, "

As I said, it's also been a part of our judicial system that judges can interpret law (and the Constitution is the law of the land) since before the Constitution. Much of the way our judicial system is built isn't in the Constitution, it goes along common law. In our system of law, precedent is law, case law is law. You are thinking Napoleonic Law, where what is written, and only what is written, is law. Move to France if you like that system.

But let's say you have your way, and the Supreme Court cannot interpret the Constitution. Take the cases of the precedent I quoted and the current case of Fast Track should it be passed and declared Constitutional. In both cases, the Supreme Court upheld (or will have upheld) the will of Congress, so whether they can or can't interpret, the results would be exactly the same.

Under your system, Congress passed a law, and it went into force. If that law did something that you think is unconstitutional (delegating trade authority), too bad -- it's law.

Your only hope is for a Supreme Court that has the ability to interpret the Constitution, thus striking down Fast Track.

108 posted on 12/07/2001 12:34:48 AM PST by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]


To: Quila
"Under your system, Congress passed a law, and it went into force. If that law did something that you think is unconstitutional (delegating trade authority), too bad -- it's law."

Q, Where do you see that in my writing or in the constitution? THAT is the ONLY duty of the supreme court. To throw out unConstitutional laws passed by Congress or anybody else. Our Constitutional form of government has not been seen before or since it was developed. WHERE in the Constitution do you see that "judges are to 'interpret' the constitution"? Are you saying, "Well... they just didn't put it in there." WHERE do you see that judges opinions after the constitution was written could supercede the document itself? WHERE do you see that "case law {precedent} is law?? Now, I understand that the "courts" {Judges} HAVE made themselves above the law with this method. "THEY ARE THE LAW!!! BUT, is it legal UNDER the law?? Or is it merely the whims of man given the color and force of law withOUT legitimacy?? The Founding Fathers knew one thing that few judges seem to understand today. That the whims of even the most high are fallable. Even themselves, so they put provisions in the Constitution to facillitate changing the law itself. Just because that has been corrupted, are you in the opinion it should remain so??

You might consider changing the word "Congress" to "The Court" in the following phrase. Peace and love, George.

"Under your system, Congress passed a law, and it went into force. If that law did something that you think is unconstitutional (delegating trade authority), too bad -- it's law."

114 posted on 12/07/2001 4:04:47 AM PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

To: Quila
Precedent, or case law is not law at all for two entities in our judicial system. Two entities in our system are unbound by the doctrine of stare decisis. Do you know which entities those are?
126 posted on 12/08/2001 3:58:54 AM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | 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