There are no illegal immigrants in America

TheMercenary · 01-01-2008, 11:19 PM

I cut out the most important part for you. I urge you to read the document in full which explains why you are wrong and that the court in fact does have the power afforded it by the Framers. You are mistaken and for some reason hung up on some issues that you need to disable the role of the SC and the Congress. What is your real issue? The election in 2000 where Gore lost? Some other issue, what's your beef?

Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review
was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice
John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief
Justice asserted that the Supreme Court’s responsibility to overturn
unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of
its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be
fulfilled any other way. “It is emphatically the province of the
judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared.
In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation
and application were made necessary by the very nature of the
Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that
document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration
to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted
in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own
application “would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced
by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should
be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose
those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.”
The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John
Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining
to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed
foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is
limited only to deciding specific cases.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

01-01-2008, 11:19 PM	#11
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	I cut out the most important part for you. I urge you to read the document in full which explains why you are wrong and that the court in fact does have the power afforded it by the Framers. You are mistaken and for some reason hung up on some issues that you need to disable the role of the SC and the Congress. What is your real issue? The election in 2000 where Gore lost? Some other issue, what's your beef? Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court’s responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared. In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application “would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.” The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)