Again, hardly.
The judicial supremacist fallacy is the most destructive fallacy of our time. Upwards of sixty million innocent little children have been slaughtered now on its altar.
And again, Mr. Levin's proposed amendment presupposes judicial supremacy. And it would end, if he succeeded, with the enshrining of that fallacy in the Constitution, thereby officially overturning our republican, constitutional form of self-government, with its absolutely essential checks and balances.
> “And again, Mr. Levin’s proposed amendment presupposes judicial supremacy. And it would end, if he succeeded, with the enshrining of that fallacy in the Constitution, thereby officially overturning our republican, constitutional form of self-government, with its absolutely essential checks and balances.”
You need to start making sense but I don’t think you can so you probably won’t because you’ve been asked before and you haven’t answered.
Judicial Supremacy is related to the notion of federal and state government deferral to decisions of the federal judiciary. What you need to talk about is the other side of that notion without resorting to theoretical arguments based on wishful thinking.
Here’s the question you are not answering:
How would Mark Levin’s suggested amendments in his book “The Liberty amendments” somehow as you say “enshrine” the hysterics of ‘Judicial Supremacy’?
Let me make it clear as a bell, how would Levin’s suggested amendments ***strengthen*** the federal judiciary?
Here’s the answer to the question you will not answer. You are a ‘Nullification’ proponent. That’s it. And yet you cannot account for the lack of support for Nullification or the clear authority in the US Constitution for Nullification other than passing quotes and theories.
WHEREAS, Article V is CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY and that in a nutshell is why the Article V movement is growing while the Nullification movement barely registers if at all on the radar of political support.
I and others know what Congress and the States are capable in theory of doing to check the federal judiciary but the fact is it’s not happening. Nullification is a red herring designed to persuade that Article V is not necessary yet it is clear that Nullification is not happening because there is no clear authority to support and sustain it. If conservatives saw merit and success in Nullification, it would be everywhere.
But under Article V authority, the federal judiciary can be checked; that is not a theory, that is a fact.