Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye
I'll say again, the constitution is intended to restrict courts as much as all the other branches. How can it do that if the courts get to say what it means?
|
You know, that's a very good question. That seems like a problem with the Constitution more than my argument. There is the recourse that should a Justice(s) not act in "good behavior" and attempt to unduly expand their power, they can be impeached by Congress, a necessary check. Of course, the precedent for the expansion of judicial power would probably need to be overturned by the newly appointed Justice(s), since Congress, or anyone else, does not have the authority to overturn the ruling. As you have said, it's not perfect, but it's functional so far and must be accepted for faults as well as strengths if you want to argue the value of the Constitution.
Quote:
|
You still continue to evade the bigger point, how do you straight faced deny all the blatant violations of the constitution are in fact violations? Truth is not democratic, just because some people say they aren't violations doesn't make it so.
|
If that were the bigger question you should have asked it, so I could tell you that was not my argument. You asked how I could deny that people were blatantly ignoring the Constitution to get what they want. My response was that they believed to be upholding the Constitution, and even gave examples. They may be wrong, but that does not constitute blatantly ignoring the Constitution as much as having a faulty understand or interpretation.