Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marinerhodes Any way that you want to look at it, any way you wish to skew my words to suit your purposes, the fact remains that the Supreme Court has the final say on how to interpret and apply the Constitution and what laws to set forth that may or may not be deemed unsconstitutional without having to ratify an entirely new amendment. This is supported many times over by cases presented to the Supreme Court over the past couple hundred years.
Do some research of your own and bring some facts from reputable sources to the discussion table to refute what I say instead of trying to interpret my ideas and/or beliefs to suit what you want other to think I am trying to say.
As for taking my post out of context you did not include the statements that I referenced in previous posts and included only half of the entire post.
Here are some examples of how the Supreme Court can interpret and set down laws in direct conflict with the Constitution. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wb...eme_cases.html |
I have not skewed any of your posts, perhaps you just dont like what you wrote. So yes let's talk facts let's use reputable sources, how about the Supreme Court:
Quote:
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually
final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional
amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute,
new legislative action can be taken.
|
They do not have the power to change the Constitution or the ultimate final say (granted what they say is pretty powerful) this would nullify the checks and balances that where put into place, they can only interpret what is brought to them on a case by case process. They can not simply say I want to interpret the 2nd Amendment today. Even when they do interpret it it is only to make sure that current legislation does not violate it, they do not change the Constitution and they most certainly do not produce any laws or as you put it "set down laws".
Have a read through this
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf
I simply had a problem with your comment made about how the Constitution was only a guideline and not to be taken literally, you apparently didn't like it when I said then we should not take literally any of the other 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. Or for that matter the rest of it which describes the branches of government and what powers they, I would say it is far from a guideline.
Finally here is a site that discusses the only 5 cases to ever be brought about involving specifically the interpretation of the Second Amendment:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html