grimesg@magic (George Grimes) (05/04/89)
In article <594@cvman.UUCP> gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) writes: >I really think the Consititution and its Ammendments mean "exactly" what >they say. And if we don't like it we shouldn't use the argument of >changes in society to justify a "more modern interpretation". I don't >belive English to English is "interpretation". I think that if people >want the Consititution to say something else they should follow the >procedures outlined for ammending. This bull of the courts making >law by "interpretation" is just that... BULL. IMHO a significant >number of SC rulings violate the concept of separation of powers and >are, on their face, unconstitutional. (As I feel are many of the laws >passed by the Congress under the "Commerce" provision.) 8-{ > The problem will not just go away though. The BULL will continue until enough of us are fed up sufficiently to do something about it. If I recall my college government correctly the supreme court wasn't even granted the authority to interpret the constitution. They just took it upon themselves and nobody stopped them. Now there is a precedent but the constitution does not give them this right and I am not aware of any legislation that gives them the right to interpret the constitution. (Thereby effectively making law.) George Grimes ~r.signature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DOMAIN: grimesg@sj.ate.slb.com | George Grimes UUCP: {decwrl,uunet}!sjsca4!grimesg | Schlumberger Technologies INTERNET: grimesg%sjs@sdr.slb.com | 840 Avenue F #108 PHONE: (214)422-7200 | Plano, Tx. 75074 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ddb@ns.network.com (David Dyer-Bennet) (05/06/89)
In article <930@snjsn1.SJ.ATE.SLB.COM> grimesg@magic.UUCP (George Grimes) writes:
:If I recall my
:college government correctly the supreme court wasn't even granted the
:authority to interpret the constitution.
The purpose of the supreme court was to be the final arbiter of the law of
the land. The constitution is part of (the basis of!) the law of the land.
QED.
(NOT saying that I like some of the things they've passed off as
"interpretation", though!)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ddb@terrabit.fidonet.org, or ddb@ns.network.com
or ddb@Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb
or ...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb
or Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 9600hst/2400/1200/300jat@hpsemc.HP.COM (Joe Talmadge) (05/09/89)
David Dyer-Bennet writes: > In article <930@snjsn1.SJ.ATE.SLB.COM> grimesg@magic.UUCP (George Grimes) writes: > :If I recall my > :college government correctly the supreme court wasn't even granted the > :authority to interpret the constitution. > > The purpose of the supreme court was to be the final arbiter of the law of > the land. The constitution is part of (the basis of!) the law of the land. > QED. Nope. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power of judicial review. The case that set the judicial review precedent is Marbury vs. Madison (during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson). I've moved this to misc.legal in case anyone has anything to add. I'll provide more detail there if you want. Joe Talmadge hplabs!hpda!hpsemc!jat jat%hpsemc@hplabs.HP.COM