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

To: rollo tomasi

Specifically, I think you would need to use the powers to amend to Constitution, per Article V, to make changes to the judicial powers provided for in, I think, Article III, so that those legal interpretations of either existing law or the Constitution itself could somehow be “reversed” by an act of Congress.


40 posted on 07/11/2014 10:00:28 AM PDT by zencycler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: zencycler
Nope, you add an Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court could not rule on squat against that since that new amendment is now part of the Constitution and the supreme law of the land (In theory, we are waaayyyy past adhering to the original intent of our Republic though).

13th Amendment overrode the precedent set in the Dred Scott decision along with several other Amendments which "took care" (Some for the worst like the 16th Amendment) of some Supreme Court decisions.
41 posted on 07/11/2014 10:23:35 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | 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