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

To: MeanWestTexan
That said, we have, for right and wrong, allowed the Supreme Court to be the arbitor of what is, and is not, Constitutional.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't that the role of the Supreme Court?

17 posted on 07/20/2005 7:14:19 AM PDT by Bluegrass Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Bluegrass Conservative

Actually, no. It is a role that the court assumed for itself in Marbury v. Madison, but nowhere is that power enumerated in the Constitution. The Founders envisioned a Court system to settle disputes between the states and also provided not for 3 co-equal branches, but for a Legislature that would be the more powerful branch, with a reasonably strong executive branch as a partial check and with a judiciary that was subservient to the Congress, since Congress can decide what matters fall under its jurisdiction as per Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2: In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


28 posted on 07/20/2005 7:25:53 AM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Bluegrass Conservative

If I'm not mistaken, isn't that the role of the Supreme Court?


Not entirely. The US Constitution is a contract between the Federal Government and the various State Governments. To be meaningful there must be a balancing force which works on behalf of the states.


45 posted on 07/20/2005 7:41:16 AM PDT by freedomfiter2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | 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