posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:22 PM
Two pages on this? Really?
...nope, I'm not going to waste anymore time on this, it is so absurd.
............................. read some books on your federal government, and how it works, especially the Judicial Branch.
....oh and a bit of advice, You are as likely to understand the Constitution by reading it all on your own as you are the Bible. You need context,
you need to research old case law that answered Constitutional questions, you need to see how those questions and answers got either clarified,
tweeked, or just plain took a 180 over time.
Read the Dred Scott case for a good example of some bad jurisprudence.
But lets say you don't have time or the inclination to do all that digging just to understand how the Supreme Court works or how they even have the
power to decide the constitutionality of a law.
Then the one case....or any book that is about this one case....is Marbury vs. Madison. The back story is as good as it gets and CJ Marshal was one
brilliant problem solver.
Don't be one of those people that ever says, "Hey, I know my rights." You don't until a court decides what they are. You read things in the
Constitution that prohibits, "Shall not be infringed." you know that isn't literal, in practice. Or, "You have the right to bear arms"....sure
you do....but only this kind, that kind, this many, and so on. They decided they could "regulate" and that isn't "infringing" or if it is
"infringing" then it "isn't unreasonable" or is "necessary to further a compelling state interest"
Don't be one of those people that claims they know what the Constitution "means". None of us attorneys can ever be sure, and neither are the big
shot federal district judges. They get over-ruled from time to time.
Sound intelligent when arguing about the constitutionality of something. You certainly can state the amendment(s) you think are at issue. You should
pick out a specific question regarding the debated issue and then pull a case out of your hat which the Supreme Court has answered that question
Or certainly feel free to give your own opinion from your gut...but you shouldn't claim that you "know" something is unconstitutional simply
because you read the amendment and have decide that you are clearer on its meaning then at least 4 of the SC justices. (meaning, it is very common to
have 5/4 decisions from SCOTUS) If the questions or the Constitution was so clear, why don't we have more 9/0's? (Rhetorical question
If you keep that stuff in mind.....you will never be tempted to believe a story like this again...and read the Marbury
case. You need to understand how the Court "created" judicial review.
((((when I say you....I mean almost all of the posters on this thread and others over the years that I have seen post over and over again, how they
"know" what the Constitution means and how it is being shredded by recent politicians....It has been manipulated since day one, it is a "living
breathing document" if you subscribe to Justice Thurgood's view...But hell to the yes there are tipping points and I am very concerned with how it
is being treated by those that have sworn to protect it.....but that is just my opinion.))))