Posted on 02/03/2011 10:29:26 PM PST by Citizen X_Area 51
That is a common myth, one of the most destructive there's ever been.
But you might want to go read Marshall's decision for yourself.
Never does he argue that the court is the only one that can decide constitutionality. He simply argues that the court must follow the constitution.
The mere suggestion that the court is the sole arbiter of constitutionality makes a mockery of the oath of office of every other officer of government, in every other branch.
If I had to name one thing that I think is doing more to destroy our free republic than any other thing, internal or external, I would name the judicial supremacist fallacy as the major culprit. And it's rampant throughout the political and legal elites today.
Seemingly, even most folks who call themselves conservatives have been sucked in by it.
-——Just imagine what the Feds can force you to purchase from the private sector.-——
If the decision is not upheld by SCOTUS there will be no Feds. The disruption in Egypt will be trivial in comparison.
Nothing that rises to the level of a useful contribution at this time. I am not being dismissive, just admitting my own analytical barriers. There is a milestone I need to get past in my work project before I can focus well on this and the other matter. It’s not like an ordinary FR comment, and I don’t want to put out a legal opinion without giving it the requisite thought.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to declare a law uncontitutional and have it enforced, then who does? As much as I hate judicial activism, I much prefer the USSC decide Constitutionality than Congress. After all, why would they declare a law unconstitutional that they themselves passed.
Fair enough.
Of course, these questions impinge on many important battles that are being fought for the survival of our free republic.
So, when your decks clear, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Courts can only rule in individual cases that are before them. They were not granted the veto power by the people via our Constitution. Were they? Can you show me the provisions? Because I just can’t find it.
Correct me if I am wrong but did not all the RATS take an oath (including Obama) to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. In my opinion, they could be removed from office for perjuring the oath.
Only the officers of the executive branch have the power to execute the law.
I’m no lawyer, but isn’t contempt of court technically a crime of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” variety ? You know, crimes that would get a President impeached ?
Yes, in November 2008.
Never get in the way of an enemy that’s destroying himself...
Like I’ve stated earlier: “High crimes and misdemeanors...”
Only if Congress says it is.
Well if this ever does create a Constitutional crisis, I’d vote in favor of changing the laws to include that power. You really want Congress in charge of deciding Constitutionality?
Isn’t that in the Democrat Party’s platform ?
Every officer of government has to decide constitutionality. Otherwise, their oath of office is a joke.
Because I’m sure that the Nancy Pelosi Congress would have loved to decide the Constitutionality of a bill outlawing Conservative Radio, coupled with the Obambi rubber stamp.
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
So you’d have a government where every officer has to decide constitutionality? So if the Obama “truth minister” decided banning right wing radio was constitutional, that’d be ok?
And that ain’t happening with people like L’il Dick running the show in the Imperial Senate.
Still, it was a fun thought to start the day with....
It’s common sense. Do you think the oath of office is a mere formality?
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.