No, they do not have that power. If it were somehoew in conflict with another part of the Constitution that conflict might be resolved against the term limits but "reasonableness" is not a cause for something specifically written into the Constitution. That IS how the Constitution was written. The USSC determines conflicts with and with in the Constitution and interprets said Constitution. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf
KDs is absolutely correct. It was held up in court and if reading my response below makes one understand that better I will be delighted. I did not think it was right for the USSC to make the decision for our President but it seems as though Americans try to follow the decision to the letter of the law whether they agree or not. That is what is great about our Constitution and being an American. Now you are talking about those Justices being human beings and, as such, are subject to prejudices and emotion. Hum, that is exactly what I stated when I talked about one walking into a courtroom or courthouse seeing a religious document hanging or placed. Why would a person not believe that the person making the decision, the Judge, would not use their religious beliefs they display in a decision, which I still contend is illegal? I believe they would. Take aside some real heated political debates…how about protesting during class. What if the Judge has the Ten Commandments on the wall behind him? If the protest was against that certain religion and protests were not allowed on school property would you get nervous about how he/she would decide if you decided to sue the school system as the parent? Damn well I would! Sincerely, Sherry
But you said they did. Specifically you said that, if the Supreme Court ruled, it was by definition Constitutional. And who decides if it is in conflict? Here it is in a nutshell... What I have been saying is that the decision of the Supreme Court is not always true, right and correct. You either agree or disagree. Which is it?
Yes, they rule on written legislation they do not write ne legislation nor can the change the wording of the legislation. The case is brought before the USSC by someone with legal standing, which means they have some legal connection and the USSC determines if there is actually a conflict and the preference if there is aconflict. That may be in anyones personal opinion, but when you say it is not Constitutional you are wrong. The Constitution does not have to be true, right, or correct either. It was not for most of our history and there are still improvements to be made.
They define what the founding fathers actually meant when they wrote the Constitution. How they choose to define it is what's at question. And they rule. Then, what of they are wrong? Who do they answer to? I tire of this. Answer or don't. This is my last post in this thread.
Article III of the Constitution is very short. Federal judges serve "during good behavior" and are essentially answerable to no one; although judges can be impeached, it rarely happens. If the members of the Supreme Court believe a previous decision is in error, they can overrule it, but that is extremely rare. What they usually do instead is find a way to distinguish the current case from the precedent that they don't like. Certainly anyone who pays close attention to such things finds an occasional case where they think the Court really blew it, but there's not much we can do about it. One such case that comes to mind is Plessy v. Ferguson, which was finally overturned more than 50 years later. Another was the Dred Scott case, which was superseded by the 14th amendment. I can think of a few recent cases that I disagree with, but nothing of that magnitude. I can believe in my own mind that the court should or should not have ruled something unconstitutional, but their rulings are the law of the land until they overrule themselves or we pass a constitutional amendment. And I must confess that they are far more competent scholars of the law than I, so I could be the one who is wrong.
No, they define the Constitution as it has been defined in the past and with the CHANGES made to it in the interim. They do not answer to anyone after that ruling. If the ruling is not agreed there can be additional legislation to define the situation more clearly or in the worst case scenario another amendment would be required to change the ruling.
If you don't believe in Christ, then why would you celebrate Christmas? Pick a day for non-christian children and call it Big Bang day or something of the like. Its hipocritical for people who don't believe in Christ to celebrate Christmas.
Well if they don't belive in Christ then if follows that they don't believe in the Christ centered Christmas that you explained in the other thread and would therefore be only celebrating the secular Christmas. So it's true that they wouldn't be hypocrits because they aren't even celebrating the religious Christmas at all, right? I think Thomas just needs to read your other thread. :cheers: (Which KDS just posted reading my mind!)
It would have been nice for Christians to have done the same thing. Christians tried to wipe out the religions that celebrated this time of year by acquiring the holiday.
But that's not what was implied by doubtingthomas. S/he suggested that one could not celebrate Christmas, period, unless one believed in Christ.
If the Westboro Baptist Church has a problem with "Xmas" it can't be all bad! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neNy8rT7Als Courtesy of Steve from another thread.
