The commerce clause has been intentionally misinterpreted as well. It is in the constitution to prevent taxation of goods and services between the states. The contemporary reading of the commerce clause is insincere and obviously in conflict with the 10th among others.
Gun rights and nullification
- Thread starter TanklessPro
- Start date
- Status
No, it's your interpretation of the Constitution. You may have a right to your opinion, but your opinion is not The Truth. It's just your opinion, and others have the right to their opinions. And that means that with respect to any given matter there can be a dispute about what the Constitution means and how it applied.ConstitutionCowboy said:
Courts exist to resolve disputes, and the Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts the responsibility, among other things, to resolve disputes arising under the Constitution (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
That's how thing are done in real life -- without regard to your opinions. You of course have the same right the rest of the body politic has to change things, but there's no guarantee that your vision will be accepted.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Frank,
That word "under" says it all. One doesn't need to "interpret" the Constitution. One simply needs to read and obey it just as the Justices in Marbury v. Madison did:
I don't see any room for, or mention of, "interpret" there.
To interpret something is to apply one's own biases, prejudices, feelings, and conceptions. Interpret means too many things to be applicable to an instrument as concise as the Constitution. As an example, look at where we are with all the gun control laws on the books that are allowed to stand because of interpretations that misconstrue what the Second Amendment says. A good example is the interpretation that the right is collective and only applicable to a militia.
Woody
That word "under" says it all. One doesn't need to "interpret" the Constitution. One simply needs to read and obey it just as the Justices in Marbury v. Madison did:
From Marbury v. Madison said:
I don't see any room for, or mention of, "interpret" there.
To interpret something is to apply one's own biases, prejudices, feelings, and conceptions. Interpret means too many things to be applicable to an instrument as concise as the Constitution. As an example, look at where we are with all the gun control laws on the books that are allowed to stand because of interpretations that misconstrue what the Second Amendment says. A good example is the interpretation that the right is collective and only applicable to a militia.
Woody
Of course that is not the meaning of "interpret" which is:ConstitutionCowboy said:
Of course you don't -- apparently for a couple (at least) of reasons.ConstitutionCowboy said:
- You don't understand the meaning of "interpret", especially in the context of the exercise by a federal court of the constitutionally assigned role os exercising judicial powers in cases arising under the Constitution.
- A court exercises judicial power to decide cases and controversies (disputes) brought to it by parties seeking the court's resolution.
- Law (including statute, decisional law and the Constitution) is the tool used by a court to decide those disputes.
- Courts use the law by first determining the applicable facts (that's the purpose, for example, of a trial) and then applying the applicable law to those facts. And to do so, a court must necessarily interpret (explain the meaning) of the law in the context of those fact to determine what conclusion or resolution the law leads to.
- So law (including the Constitution) does not operate in a vacuum -- but as applied to particular circumstance. The application of law to those circumstances requires the interpretation of the law with reference to those circumstances.
- And of course since many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers, they understood the exercise of judicial power in such terms.
- A court exercises judicial power to decide cases and controversies (disputes) brought to it by parties seeking the court's resolution.
- You didn't read Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) carefully.
- See Marbury at 177 (emphasis added)
- So in applying the Constitution to a case, a court must necessarily interpret the the Constitution in the context of that case.
- See Marbury at 177 (emphasis added)
In any case, the courts have been deciding cases arising under the Constitution, and in doing so have been interpreting the Constitution, for over 200 years. They may have been doing so without your blessing, but I don't think that has troubled the judicial system any. And of course will no doubt continue to do so.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
The whole paragraph you excerpted the follwing from: ...
Basically, the Court said it must determine which law has supremacy, the Constitution or the legislation. The court said it must "interpret that rule," meaning the Court must decide to follow either the rule that the Constitution is supreme or a supposed rule that the law should be adjudicated regardless of its constitutionality. The "rule" that is the subject of the paragraph you excerpted a portion from is the "rule" mentioned in the previous paragraph. You have created a non sequitur.
Therefore, your statement, "So in applying the Constitution to a case, a court must necessarily interpret the the Constitution in the context of that case," is itself a non sequitur, it being based upon a non sequitur.
I would say misconstruing the Constitution in many cases should also be noted.
Woody
...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each....
... in its entirety is as follows, with the previous paragraph added to keep it in context:If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule*. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
(* Interpret that "rule," not the Constitution or a law.)
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule*. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
(* Interpret that "rule," not the Constitution or a law.)
Basically, the Court said it must determine which law has supremacy, the Constitution or the legislation. The court said it must "interpret that rule," meaning the Court must decide to follow either the rule that the Constitution is supreme or a supposed rule that the law should be adjudicated regardless of its constitutionality. The "rule" that is the subject of the paragraph you excerpted a portion from is the "rule" mentioned in the previous paragraph. You have created a non sequitur.
Therefore, your statement, "So in applying the Constitution to a case, a court must necessarily interpret the the Constitution in the context of that case," is itself a non sequitur, it being based upon a non sequitur.
Frank said:
I would say misconstruing the Constitution in many cases should also be noted.
Woody
Except you still can't seem to understand how the Court does that.ConstitutionCowboy said:
As the Court says (Marbury, at 177 -- 178):
So the Court must decide the operation of the Act of Congress and of the Constitution under the circumstances of the case. That involves deciding the meaning of each in the circumstances of the case, i. e., interpreting each. And then the Court, based on its interpretation of each, concludes that they are in conflict. Without going through that analysis, i. e., the interpretation of both the Act of Congress and the Constitution, the Court can not identify a conflict.
The exercise of judicial power necessarily involves interpreting law -- be that law statute, decisional law or the Constitution.
No doubt you would, but so what? The Founding Fathers assigned the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution to the federal courts, not to you. So the opinions of the federal courts on such matters trumps yours.ConstitutionCowboy said:
ConstitutionCowboy
member
That's already set for them in Article VI, Clause 2. No determination necessary, especially since there is no rule that makes a law superior to the Constitution. Just reading and obeying the Constitution is all that is required.
Not while I'm one of We the People and can vote for representatives and senators who can impeach them.
Woody
You are sadly mistaken. Until the people vote for representatives and senators who DO impeach them then their opinion most certainly does trump yours.
Basically this boils down to one of two possibilities.
The first possibility is that you are genuinely unable understand the difference between the following things.
1. The way you believe things should be.
2. The way things actually are.
The second possibility is that you are basically arguing for the sake of arguing.
More of your fantasy and your chronic inability to understand how things work.ConstitutionCowboy said:
The question isn't necessarily the supremacy of the Constitution. The question will be whether and how the Constitution applies to the subject and circumstances of the dispute before the court.
I have been describing the real life function of courts and exercise of judicial power. It's been thus since long before the birth of our nation. You have been describing a process which exists only in your imagination and has never existed in the real world.
Balderdash. You must get enough other people to go along with you to have that effect. You of course have the right to try, so knock yourself out. I'm not holding my breathe however.ConstitutionCowboy said:
JRH6856
Member
ConstitutionCowboy said:
Just read and do? No need to understand what is read? The men that drafted it and asked "We the People" to ratify it thought it needed some interpretation so that We the People could understand what they were being asked to ratify. They wrote 85 articles called The Federalist Papers to explain/interpret it.
I, as one of We the People, hope the Courts operate with some understanding of what they are doing.
tomrkba
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,370
The other option that SCOTUS could have taken in Marbury is to interpret the law against the static Constitution as described by original intent. The Founders told us what the parts of the Constitution mean; the courts know this. Why is it that they decided they could interpret both the law and the Constitution?
Look at how they have abused the Commerce Clause. The Founders stated its purpose was to keep trade between the States regular; interstate trade wars were not to be permitted. Yet, suddenly after the Great Depression, the government could reach into a state and control everything from gun sales to how doctors perform their work. I guarantee that the Founders never considered it would be misused in this manner.
So, while Frank presents the reasoning behind the interpretation of the Constitution, I do believe SCOTUS has issued many corrupt decisions that have changed the Constitution from its original intent to a device used to justify tyrannical laws.
This word was taught in public school a long time ago. I never thought I would ever see it used
Nowadays, I am certain it is a "lost" word in public education.
For a separate post from Frank:
If all rights and parts of the Constitution of of equal weight, how is it that The Commerce Clause can be used to force a background check upon me? How can DC force me to register my guns in that territory and why can't I carry there? The 2A states I can bear arms in DC, yet their city law states I cannot.
Maybe Frank could address this in another thread here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9478177#post9478177
Look at how they have abused the Commerce Clause. The Founders stated its purpose was to keep trade between the States regular; interstate trade wars were not to be permitted. Yet, suddenly after the Great Depression, the government could reach into a state and control everything from gun sales to how doctors perform their work. I guarantee that the Founders never considered it would be misused in this manner.
So, while Frank presents the reasoning behind the interpretation of the Constitution, I do believe SCOTUS has issued many corrupt decisions that have changed the Constitution from its original intent to a device used to justify tyrannical laws.
This word was taught in public school a long time ago. I never thought I would ever see it used
Nowadays, I am certain it is a "lost" word in public education.For a separate post from Frank:
If all rights and parts of the Constitution of of equal weight, how is it that The Commerce Clause can be used to force a background check upon me? How can DC force me to register my guns in that territory and why can't I carry there? The 2A states I can bear arms in DC, yet their city law states I cannot.
Maybe Frank could address this in another thread here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9478177#post9478177
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
tomrkba said:
I read something (I believe by Akhil Reed Amar) that said that SCOTUS recognizing that they were not an elected body, operates under the principal of seeking to find accommodation in the Constitution for the actions of those who are elected. IOW, they seek to stretch the Constitution to fit the law and only reject the law (or EO) when it can't be stretched far enough.
It means we have a flexible Constitution that can be shaped to fit current needs and wishes, not a rigid one that defines what those needs and wishes can be.
Whether or not that is what was originally intended is probably what we are really talking about here.
HankB
Member
IANAL so I don't know the legal ins and outs, but I was thinking . . .
What if a state decided to create a state militia, separate from the National Guard which, IIRC, was deemed to NOT be the constitutional State Militia per SCOTUS in Perpich vs. DOD back around 1990 . . .
And if the state militia members were issued firearms like the Swiss, which included select fire arms, as part of their state militia duties - and were required to keep them at their homes for immediate availability should they be called up to state militia duties. (Independent practice being encouraged.)
Has this been tried already with an adverse SCOTUS ruling, or is there some existing Federal law (NFA '34? GCA '68?) which would prohibit this even for a duly constituted State Militia?
(Or have the Feds simply said "Do this, and you'll lose $$$ for all these other programs.")
What if a state decided to create a state militia, separate from the National Guard which, IIRC, was deemed to NOT be the constitutional State Militia per SCOTUS in Perpich vs. DOD back around 1990 . . .
And if the state militia members were issued firearms like the Swiss, which included select fire arms, as part of their state militia duties - and were required to keep them at their homes for immediate availability should they be called up to state militia duties. (Independent practice being encouraged.)
Has this been tried already with an adverse SCOTUS ruling, or is there some existing Federal law (NFA '34? GCA '68?) which would prohibit this even for a duly constituted State Militia?
(Or have the Feds simply said "Do this, and you'll lose $$$ for all these other programs.")
Corrupt as in perverted or the product of bribery or the selling of favors? You'd need to have some actual, solid evidence to support such allegations. It's possible that a few decisions could be thus tainted, but certainly there have been decisions that haven't been well liked by certain interests.
Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests. There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the public Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.
And even when you and I can agree that the courts have permitted Congress to over-stretch the Commerce Clause, others do not agree. And when that disagreement leads to a justiciable dispute it will be up to the courts to resolve things. That's what courts do. And those favoring one side of the question will not like the result, while those favoring the other side of the question will.
It's not the role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. It's the job of a court to apply the the law and applicable precedent to decide the case. The result of applying the law and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory to you. We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could be entirely within the power of Congress to enact and perfectly constitutional. Being constitutional does not guarantee that a law is a good thing.
On the other hand, it's not necessary to legislate at the outer-reaches of constitutionality. We could work at electing thoughtful legislators who will exercise some restraint. Things like that have happened -- checks and balances at work. Not long ago there was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result (a very broad interpretation of "public use") was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.
In general, laws are enacted by elected legislative bodies in response to perceived support or pressure from those who elect them. And they remain in effect and enforced until repealed in response to perceived support or pressure from the body politic or tossed out by a court.tomrkba said:
While it's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws, politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected.
So we can't forget that it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough enough people don't like guns, don't trust the rest of us with guns, and are afraid of guns and people with guns, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).
In short, you can't carry a gun in Washington, D. C. because enough voters don't want you to be able to carry a gun in Washington, D. C.; and that courts haven't yet overturned the law.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Corrupt as in perverted or the product of bribery or the selling of favors?"
What does 'self-serving' qualify as? As in, issuing a State-favorable ruling so as to not be at odds with the State and invite retribution/undermining by the other branches? Just a theory of mine, but I suspect if the High Court issued something too radical (light ham-fistedly striking down the entirety of a 2 trillion dollar bill) the Congress and Executive would find some pretense or excuse to effectively ignore the ruling and go about their business as desired. The ATF claiming the T/C SBR-convertability ruling applied only to the particular model of Contender ruled on in the case for a good ten years or so is a great example; they weren't ready to accept the Court ruling at that time, so they didn't
TCB
What does 'self-serving' qualify as? As in, issuing a State-favorable ruling so as to not be at odds with the State and invite retribution/undermining by the other branches? Just a theory of mine, but I suspect if the High Court issued something too radical (light ham-fistedly striking down the entirety of a 2 trillion dollar bill) the Congress and Executive would find some pretense or excuse to effectively ignore the ruling and go about their business as desired. The ATF claiming the T/C SBR-convertability ruling applied only to the particular model of Contender ruled on in the case for a good ten years or so is a great example; they weren't ready to accept the Court ruling at that time, so they didn't
TCB
Which is why the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article III, Section 1):barnbwt said:
krupparms
Member
I am very confused! Frank its your statements about federal law & state law. You stated that federal law & the constitution trump state law. That being the case, how can the state pass a law that gives protection to a group from prosecution for violations of the constitution? Would not federal law & the constitution trump that state law? Just asking to be clear.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
JRH6856 said:
That is a skill I learned in grade school when I was taught how to read and comprehend what I read. Some of the justices on the Supreme Court should have learned that skill before I did and some after I did, depending upon when they were in the grades. As for the Federalist Papers, not everyone went to school back when the Constitution was written. Even now, those papers seem to have no effect on around half of those on the Court. They follow a path not of the Constitution.
JRH6856 said:
They all do, but as I alluded to in my last paragraph, not all(around half) follow a path not of the Constitution. Interpretation is a big part of their modus operandi. Emotionalism and populism are other paths they follow as well, not to mention socialism, National Socialism, Fascism, communism, and lately a large dose of dictatorship.
There is another aspect of all this that needs clarification, and that is the scope of the word "interpret" and the scope of the word "interpretation" from back when the Constitution was written. Interpret is a verb, and interpretation is a noun.
From Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1755:
To INTERPRET verb
INTERPRETATION noun
To explain; to translate; to decipher; to give a solution; to clear by exposition;to expound.
INTERPRETATION noun
1) The act of interpreting; Explanation.
2) The sense given by an interpreter.
3) The power of explaining.
2) The sense given by an interpreter.
3) The power of explaining.
I point this out because neither definition when the Constitution was written contained the word "construe" that appears in newer dictionaries. Back then "construe" was defined as to "range(arrange) words in their natural order; to disentangle transposition." Nowadays, "construe" is defined as "to translate word for word; to analyze gramatically; to take in a particular sense, to interpret."
Ergo, one cannot rightly read and obey the Constitution in the context of what many words have evolved(devolved?) into, and must read and obey the Constitution in the context of the definition of the words as when the Constitution was written.
Today, "interpret" is defined as "to explain; to translate; to give one's own conception of, as in a play or musical composition.
Nowadays, "construe" and "interpret" are used synonymously.
To add proof of the different meanings of "interpret" and "construe"back then, one need only to look at the Nineth Amendment. The Founding Fathers chose a word that conveyed their intent by choosing "construed" instead of "interpreted". Back then the definition of what "enumeration" meant was not in doubt and needed no interpretation, but "construed" meant that it was their intent that said enumeration was not meant to be a list limited to those specifically mentioned(enumerated) rights and that there are other, non-enumerated rights that shall not be disparaged or denied as well.
Frank said:
tomrkba said nothing about perversion, bribery or selling of favors. Maybe he meant dishonest, rotten, putrid, all or a combination of two or more. (Taking bribes and selling favors would be the same thing.) Without a response from tomrkba, I'll venture a guess that he meant dishonest as in following an agenda other than the Constitution. It has been admitted by one or more Justices that they believe foreign law ought to play a role in their adjudications.
Oh, and there is another way to reign in the Court: Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, second sentence: "In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions and Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Woody
krupparms
Member
My question is still on the table. Can I please get an answer? Please respond in simple words as I am not an attorney.
Red Wind
Member
Woody is doing very well. At this rate, he'll win the Triple Crown at The Belmont!
Standby, Krupp. There will be answer, Let it Be.
Standby, Krupp. There will be answer, Let it Be.
JRH6856
Member
krupparms said:
To be clear: A state cannot do as you suggest, because as you note, federal law and the Constitution trump state law.
Actually, a state legislature can pass and the governor can sign anything they want, but it must bein accord with the US Constitution to be valid.
A state can make a federally prohibited action legal under state law. All that means is that the state will not consider the action to be illegal. But the state cannot prevent federal enforcement of a violation of federal law, or prevent federal courts from hearing cases arising under the Constitution. (and I hope that is clear enough)
tomrkba
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,370
1) DC
So what happened to "An unconstitutional law is no law at all"? The DC gun law clearly violates my right to keep and bear arms and I don't need to have a court tell me so. Is this a legal fiction because it certainly seems like it was a rule that has been ignored or discarded.
And, we're supposed to be a republic. The government is supposed to protect my right despite a bunch of idiots in a city voting one particular way. In short, if 99% say no, but 1% says yes, then isn't the government is supposed to protect the rights of that 1%? (No, I'm not referring to the 99% with regard to wealth).
2) Corruption
Is it not obvious? The original intent of the 2A is clear and it was explained prior to ratification. We have several rulings now that place limits on the 2A despite the words "shall not be infringed." I'm not flipping out over this; I just want a solid answer as to why Heller and McDonald comply with original intent when they clearly do not.
So what happened to "An unconstitutional law is no law at all"? The DC gun law clearly violates my right to keep and bear arms and I don't need to have a court tell me so. Is this a legal fiction because it certainly seems like it was a rule that has been ignored or discarded.
And, we're supposed to be a republic. The government is supposed to protect my right despite a bunch of idiots in a city voting one particular way. In short, if 99% say no, but 1% says yes, then isn't the government is supposed to protect the rights of that 1%? (No, I'm not referring to the 99% with regard to wealth).
2) Corruption
Is it not obvious? The original intent of the 2A is clear and it was explained prior to ratification. We have several rulings now that place limits on the 2A despite the words "shall not be infringed." I'm not flipping out over this; I just want a solid answer as to why Heller and McDonald comply with original intent when they clearly do not.
The Constitution (in fact no law) is self-executing.krupparms said:
What the Constitution, our laws, and our system give us are resource and remedies. We can associated with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests.
And we can seek redress in court. The supremacy of federal over state law becomes material in court.
We live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as you do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government.
So while you may be pursuing the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give you to promote your vision of how things should be, others will be using those same tools to promote their visions. Their can be no guarantee that your vision will prevail.
What makes you think that was ever the case? And anyway, it begs the question of who decides whether a law is unconstitutional? You might have an opinion, but your opinion doesn't have any impact on real life. The opinion of a court on matters of law, including whether a law is constitutional, will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.tomrkba said:
Again, not everyone will share your view. And disagreements as to the application of law are the province of courts to resolve.tomrkba said:
And as to "corruption", it's common to vilify those who disagree with you. It's seems to generally be the product of looking at the world through a lens badly distorted by one's strong passions and prejudices.
It's a usual enough trait and an entirely human one. But it does limit one's effectiveness in dealing constructively in the real world. Being effective in the political and legal arenas requires a clearer, more objective understanding of reality.
And we very badly need to be more effective -- both in the political and the legal arenas. A natural consequence of living in a pluralistic, political society is that the preservation and promotion of the RKBA will be a never ending struggle. How successful we will be will depend on how adroitly we build and use political power and how effective we can be in court. That means having a solid understanding of how things work in the real world.
You won't like this (I don't either, for that matter), but the answer is that they comply with the original intent because the Supreme Court (the organization created to provide the official interpretation of the Constitution when there are differences in interpretation that need to be reconciled) says they comply with the original intent.
Even though what you and I believe about original intent may be correct, and the Supreme Court's opinion may be wrong, for all practical purposes, their interpretation wins because that's how the system was designed to operate.
Arguing over whether they're right or wrong is an interesting exercise, but even if one manages to "prove" that they're wrong using history, legal precedent, logic, or all of the above, it won't change reality. What they say goes even if they get it wrong because that's the way the system works.
It's still true. But you must understand that "unconstitutional" actually means "inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution". It doesn't mean "inconsistent with tomrkba's/JohnKSa's interpretation of the Constitution".
The idea that the man on the street (or a number of people, or a local government, or even a state legislature) can declare a law to be unconstitutional and thereby nullify it, is roughly equivalent to the idea that a person can declare the moon to be made of green cheese and expect the strength of that pronouncement to actually alter the material composition of the earth's satellite.
Last edited:
- Status
