🚀 go-pugleaf

Gary James (gjames21@OMITlycos.com) wrote:
: On 14 Jun 2001 14:48:24 -0400, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker)
: wrote:
: 
: >Dave Simpson (nospam@newsranger.com) wrote:
: >: 
: >: Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
: >: 
: >: >Those who claim they and only they know what the constitution means, and
: >: >who condemn the courts for not adhering to their interpretation, are the
: >: >anti-Americans.
: >: 
: >: However, I'm not one of those people.  I do object to blatant misstatement of
: >: what something says, as well as the making of law by the judiciary (as well as
: >: the executive) rather than by the legislature of a government.  You should spare
: >: us with nonsensical replies.
: >: 
: >: > The constitution is what the courts say it is.  To deny that is to deny the very constitution.
: >: 
: >: You are wrong, of course.  Fortunately most of us aren't so stupid as to have
: >: belief in
: >: the infallibility of the Ruling of the Hour.
: >: 
: >: 
: >: Dave Simpson
: >: 
: >: 
: >: 
: >
: >How am I wrong?  The courts interpret the constitution.  That's a fact.
: >
: 
: This was first done by Marshall in 1801.   Totally not Constitutional
: but Jefferson got what he wanted so he didn't say anything.   20 years
: later he wrote a letter where he said the worse mistake he ever made
: was not to hang Marshall for the (illegitimate )  theory of Judicial
: Review.   

But it's an inherent power.  Say Congress passes a law forbidding
Methodists from worshipping.  So a Methodist is arrested and brought to
court.  The court must say the constitution overrides that law and let the
Methodist go free.

: 
: When FDRs appointed communists took over the court in the late 1940s,
: they destroyed everything decent in this country.  

Yeah, like segregation, which I know you long for.  (Heck, you long for
the return of slavery!)

: 
: Gary
: