Again, the Supreme Court interprets the constitution, you’re extremely wrong.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
You sound like a complete idiot and a pompous prick at that.
Results 6,171 to 6,180 of 7628
Thread: Covid-19
-
09-15-2021, 07:34 PM #6171
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Posts
- 14,802
-
09-15-2021, 07:40 PM #6172
-
09-15-2021, 07:40 PM #6173
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Posts
- 14,802
-
09-15-2021, 07:43 PM #6174
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Posts
- 14,802
Oh you mean this part:
The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
That means they interpret the constitution, since you apparently don’t understand.
-
09-15-2021, 07:51 PM #6175
How do they interpret it? What do they decide? They interpret whether the Laws made are in violation of it. I’m splitting hairs on purpose because “interpretation” in the modern sense has given the Court the power to rule outside of its authority and create law. The interpretation is whether the laws passed violate the Constitution and the Rights of the People/States not the other way around.
Much of the confusion over the Court’s power was created by the early/mid 20th C Progressive movement (not the same as the current one. Somewhat similar but different). The Courts seated by those Presidents began creating law through torturing the language to get it to say whatever they wanted to create laws/regulations that would never pass the Amendment process.Last edited by Strange Brew; 09-15-2021 at 08:06 PM.
Official XUHoops Resident Legal Scholar.
(Do not take this seriously)
-
09-15-2021, 07:53 PM #6176
No, I agree with that. It states they rule on whether the laws and other mandates violate the Constitution. Not that they interpret the Rights/limitations outlined within.
Oh, except the “living document” BS. It lives through the Amendment process. All other “living” changes are handled via the States and the People. The Court only has the power to rule if a State infringes Constitutionally protected Rights of the people outlined in the document. Which is why the 10 Amendment matters.Last edited by Strange Brew; 09-15-2021 at 07:58 PM.
Official XUHoops Resident Legal Scholar.
(Do not take this seriously)
-
09-15-2021, 08:28 PM #6177
Now that we’ve beat the power of the Court to death. Ask yourself. If you believe in precedent do you want to give the Federal government the power to mandate the medical treatments you receive and the tests you must take before you can earn a living or function in society? I’d love for more people to choose to get vaccinated but giving the Federal Gov’t and the Executive branch this amount of power could lead to future outcomes you may very much dislike.
Official XUHoops Resident Legal Scholar.
(Do not take this seriously)
-
09-15-2021, 08:54 PM #6178
Is it OK for a state government to mandate it, like they do for kids to attend public schools?
...he went up late, and I was already up there.
-
09-16-2021, 08:40 AM #6179
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Posts
- 14,802
You can think what you want about this, and I don’t think government should have a hand in it, but the reality is that it’s probably going to go effective. Think about aca and other rules/regs government has mandated to private businesses
-
09-16-2021, 09:32 AM #6180
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Springboro OH
- Posts
- 1,582
Bookmarks