Dred Scott WAS law. I can go on about how it was a bad law, that it was a travesty OF law, but the fact that it was law until the Constitution was amended to supercede it is fact.

You don't really get it. Law, like facts, are set. You don't get to toss either one out because it contradicts what you think. You can work to change it, and I encourage you to try.

But it doesn't change a thing that you may not like the law at all.

*unconstitutional

Thats exactly what I'm advocating

By definition, the Court determines what is Constitutional, and what is not.

If you say they don't, then you are disregarding the Constitution and over 200 years of cumulative jurisprudence. But hey, I'm sure you're more qualified to tell us what is Constitutional than those people... who spend their entire careers studying the law.

Sure.

I'm saying that the Supreme Court is misinterptreting the Constitution. The constitution gave them instructions, and they are putting their own interpretation into law. Very sad.

You don't get it. The Court defines what is constitutional and what is not. Thats their ENTIRE purpose.

So again, if you don't think they can do that, then you aren't following the Constitution yourself.

The court could, according to you, take away the women vote, right? "The court defines what is constitutional and what's not"

Give me a break.

sbyvl36 how can you prove you exist

Using the Constitution as a guide, yes. But there is an amendment that explicitly states that. No Supreme Court justice would do so. If a court were to do something like that, we call that a "constitutional crisis".

But please, explain how the Court has ruled against the Constitution? Please cite cases, and arguments for and against.

I already have.

By the way, did you read Section 8?

Basically, saying the Court would rule in such a blatant violation of the letter of the law is basically saying "The President could order the Army to declare martial law, and rule as a dictator"

Its simply unthinkable. Its now how the system works, and until you can show they've actually done that, you need to be fitted for a tinfoil hat and go sit with the other lunatics.

No, you've proved that your opinions are ill formed, and ignorant.

Go take a con law course at your local college. It'll help.

My point is that theyve already violated it, so what can stop them?

What is it with Liberals is that they always have to degrade you?

already proved you exist? no you didn't. still waiting for solid proof.

How do we know you exist? have you shown proof?

Both parties degrade each other, Sbyvl. Try watching a campaign commercial every now and again.

i dont actually exist though is the thing. i have nothing to prove.

What I'd like to know from Sbvyl is on what basis he can call the taxes in question unconstitutional, in light of the 16th amendment, which reads, in its entirety:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

It seems to be a solid constitutional basis for the Supreme Court decisions you challenge.

@jack_klein:

"Actually, hecks, the court packing plan failed to pass. No new justices were added."

I stand corrected. I had thought Roosevelt expanded to the current nine justices, but the number of justices has been as follows:
1789 - 6
1807 - 7
1837 - 9
1863 - 10
1866 - 9
1867 - 8
1869 - 9

Thanks for the correction.

"The Court defines what is constitutional and what is not. Thats their ENTIRE purpose."

That's not 100% correct Jack. Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that the Supreme Court is charged with determining what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. That power was assumed Chief Justice John Marshall when he outlined the concept of "judicial review" following Marbury v. Madison. Although, there is a president for JR in English common law.

"Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that the Supreme Court is charged with determining what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. That power was assumed Chief Justice John Marshall when he outlined the concept of "judicial review" following Marbury v. Madison. Although, there is a president for JR in English common law."

That's debatable. Article III, Section 2 says, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."

While you could argue that Marshall defined this article as meaning that the Supreme Court is charged with reviewing constitutionality of passed laws, others would view it as explicit within the quoted text, and would view Marshall's precedent as a simple assertion of that charge.

But you're right, of course, that it was with Marbury v. Madison that the Court claimed its role as supreme arbiter of the Constitution, whether you view the Constitutional authority for that role as explicit or implicit.

Also, Jack_Klein's assertion that "Thats their ENTIRE purpose" isn't technically correct. They're also charged with original jurisdiction on all cases involving ambassadors and consuls of foreign nations and suits brought by or against states, as well as appellate jurisdiction in suits between residents of different states, regardless of whether those cases have constitutional bearing.

Good ole' Justicibility...brings back nightmares of 1L :))

I can't speak for the American constitution but the Canadian charter (same thing, almost) was specifically designed to change and be interpreted differently depending on modern day values.

My impression of the constitution is that in some ways this is also true. If this is the case then the judiciary is charged with interpreting the constitution with common day values in mind.

Right or wrong, I believe the American judiciary has done this and that this practice has been accepted.

If the judiciary interprets something "wrong" the legislation in theory could over rule a judges decision. In theory.