Replies

One of the first things you learn in Constitutional Law class is that a lot of the things the Supreme Court decided about itself were not explicit in the Constitution, like having the power to declare statutes unconstitutional. That was something decided in Marbury vs. Madison (1803).

In theory, it didn't have to turn out that way, it could have turned out that the Supreme Court decided that it did not have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional. But if that were so, then Congress could do whatever it wanted and that would give Congress more power than the other two parts of the government.

So the Supreme Court has been doing it ever since, for the past 200 years. They don't always do what any particular person would like for them to do but that's the way litigation is. One side wins, the other loses.

And this is the greatest country on earth, the greatest country that ever was, and we have the greatest Constitution that ever was. Wanting to change the constitution because your side lost a case is just being a sore loser.

That's my opinion, anyway.

"That's my opinion, anyway."

And it's a good one. I would ask, though, how would you provide for redress where a large majority (i.e., 81 per cent in the case of the Monument) of the population felt in their bones that the supreme court was wrong on an issue and a constitutional amendment to over-ride the court's opinion was illegal?

Well, it proves that we are not a 'democracy' after all. But it also dis-enfranchises the will of We the People through representaive government in the resolution of hard grievances. Do we have a flaw in our system?

If we do, I would guess it would be in the unknown character and agenda of the appointed justices. Not only a flaw, but a time-bomb that could destroy our Republic. I can't believe the number of people who are split on this Monument issue. Not just politically split, but emotionally split. Some say, 'I agree, but the rule of law should prevail.' Others say, 'there is no rule of law on this issue. No law has been broken.' -- and they are both honest in their statements.

A dilemma, for sure. Puts me in mind of the two factions arguing the law two thousand years ago. One group following the rule of law when they enforced the penalty for blasphemy (and rightfully so), and the other group willing to suffer the penalty for following an unwritten, but higher law felt in their bones and unknown to the former.

It appears 'these bones are rising again' in Alabama.