Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?
It's a liberal thing.
Misinterpret words until they mean what you want them to mean...like "marriage".
I love how they say the second amendment did not apply to the "individual".
And after 96 years of existence...all of a sudden the 14th amendment means drop a baby on our soil & it's automatically a US citizen.
The 14th amendment didn't mean that for it's first 96 years...but then a liberal came along (you know the rest).
Marbury v. Madison - WikipediaI haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?
Sorry- I still don't see in the Constitution where that is a power granted- there are 13? Correct? Intentionally misinterpreting isn't one of them- words mean things- we're either a country governed by the rule of law or we're a country ruled by the edict of man- The Supreme Law is written in simple English, and nowhere does the constitution grant the power to intentionally misinterpret or reinterpret the words ratified- words have definition- without definition interpretation doesn't exist-[Marbury v. Madison] is a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of Marshall's capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it. ... The danger of a head-on clash with the Jeffersonians was averted by the denial of jurisdiction: but, at the same time, the declaration that the commission was illegally withheld scotched any impression that the Court condoned the administration's behavior. These negative maneuvers were artful achievements in their own right. But the touch of genius is evident when Marshall, not content with having rescued a bad situation, seizes the occasion to set forth the doctrine of judicial review. It is easy for us to see in retrospect that the occasion was golden, ... but only a judge of Marshall's discernment could have recognized it.
— McCloskey, Robert G. (2010), The American Supreme Court, revised by Sanford Levinson (5th ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 25–27.
Wow! Did you figure that out all on your own?That's not an authority- it's a restriction for what congress can't do.I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?
Sorry- I still don't see in the Constitution where that is a power granted- there are 13? Correct? Intentionally misinterpreting isn't one of them- words mean things- we're either a country governed by the rule of law or we're a country ruled by the edict of man- The Supreme Law is written in simple English, and nowhere does the constitution grant the power to intentionally misinterpret or reinterpret the words ratified- words have definition- without definition interpretation doesn't exist-[Marbury v. Madison] is a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of Marshall's capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it. ... The danger of a head-on clash with the Jeffersonians was averted by the denial of jurisdiction: but, at the same time, the declaration that the commission was illegally withheld scotched any impression that the Court condoned the administration's behavior. These negative maneuvers were artful achievements in their own right. But the touch of genius is evident when Marshall, not content with having rescued a bad situation, seizes the occasion to set forth the doctrine of judicial review. It is easy for us to see in retrospect that the occasion was golden, ... but only a judge of Marshall's discernment could have recognized it.
— McCloskey, Robert G. (2010), The American Supreme Court, revised by Sanford Levinson (5th ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 25–27.
It can be found here in the Constitution:I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.Sorry- I still don't see in the Constitution where that is a power granted- there are 13? Correct? Intentionally misinterpreting isn't one of them- words mean things- we're either a country governed by the rule of law or we're a country ruled by the edict of man- The Supreme Law is written in simple English, and nowhere does the constitution grant the power to intentionally misinterpret or reinterpret the words ratified- words have definition- without definition interpretation doesn't exist-[Marbury v. Madison] is a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of Marshall's capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it. ... The danger of a head-on clash with the Jeffersonians was averted by the denial of jurisdiction: but, at the same time, the declaration that the commission was illegally withheld scotched any impression that the Court condoned the administration's behavior. These negative maneuvers were artful achievements in their own right. But the touch of genius is evident when Marshall, not content with having rescued a bad situation, seizes the occasion to set forth the doctrine of judicial review. It is easy for us to see in retrospect that the occasion was golden, ... but only a judge of Marshall's discernment could have recognized it.
— McCloskey, Robert G. (2010), The American Supreme Court, revised by Sanford Levinson (5th ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 25–27.
USSC is a creation of congress, and has greatly exceeded its due authority since Marbury, numbnutz.The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.Sorry- I still don't see in the Constitution where that is a power granted- there are 13? Correct? Intentionally misinterpreting isn't one of them- words mean things- we're either a country governed by the rule of law or we're a country ruled by the edict of man- The Supreme Law is written in simple English, and nowhere does the constitution grant the power to intentionally misinterpret or reinterpret the words ratified- words have definition- without definition interpretation doesn't exist-[Marbury v. Madison] is a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of Marshall's capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it. ... The danger of a head-on clash with the Jeffersonians was averted by the denial of jurisdiction: but, at the same time, the declaration that the commission was illegally withheld scotched any impression that the Court condoned the administration's behavior. These negative maneuvers were artful achievements in their own right. But the touch of genius is evident when Marshall, not content with having rescued a bad situation, seizes the occasion to set forth the doctrine of judicial review. It is easy for us to see in retrospect that the occasion was golden, ... but only a judge of Marshall's discernment could have recognized it.
— McCloskey, Robert G. (2010), The American Supreme Court, revised by Sanford Levinson (5th ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 25–27.
“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
That says absolutely nothing about the question I asked-It can be found here in the Constitution:I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.
You'll have to pardon our resident drive-by blowhard...He has a handful of canned responses, which feature mentions of case law and/or how wrongheaded, bigoted, racist, misogynist, and homophobic everyone who isn't a blood-shooting-out-the-ears leftist moonbat is.That says absolutely nothing about the question I asked-It can be found here in the Constitution:I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
It's a liberal thing.
Misinterpret words until they mean what you want them to mean...like "marriage".
I love how they say the second amendment did not apply to the "individual".
And after 96 years of existence...all of a sudden the 14th amendment means drop a baby on our soil & it's automatically a US citizen.
The 14th amendment didn't mean that for it's first 96 years...but then a liberal came along (you know the rest).
I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?
The Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it meansIt's a liberal thing.
Misinterpret words until they mean what you want them to mean...like "marriage".
I love how they say the second amendment did not apply to the "individual".
And after 96 years of existence...all of a sudden the 14th amendment means drop a baby on our soil & it's automatically a US citizen.
The 14th amendment didn't mean that for it's first 96 years...but then a liberal came along (you know the rest).