XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: misc.education   
   From: Then-Destroy-Everything@Blackhole.NebulaX.com   
      
   On 10/22/2010 3:12 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:   
   > Beam Me Up Scotty    
   > wrote:   
   >> On 10/22/2010 2:20 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>> On 10/21/2010 10:47 AM, cpt banjo wrote:   
   >>>> On Oct 21, 11:01 am, Peter Franks  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/21/2010 8:11 AM, cpt banjo wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Oct 21, 9:05 am, Beam Me Up Scotty>>>>> Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com>    wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Doesn't it read that way?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Or do you simply interpret what ever you want....  The fear was of an   
   >>>>>>> all powerful Federal Government like a KING.  States still had   
   >>>>>>> "rights"   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> That's the way it was in the beginning, but the 14th Amendment changed   
   >>>>>> things.  States no longer have the right to deny due process or equal   
   >>>>>> protection of the laws.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Neither of which is relevant to the topic at hand.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Of course it is, per the Supreme Court.  You have never accepted the   
   >>>> fact that it's the Court's opinion that determines what the law is,   
   >>   
   >> The court has no determination on what the law "is".....  they can rule   
   >> on the constitutionality of the law.   
   >   
   > They decide what the law *MEANS*, i.e. how to apply the law to cases   
   > put before them.  That is *part* of determining what the law "is".   
   >   
   >> The law is what it is, when it is voted on in congress and given to the   
   >> President for his signature.  There is no court involved in MAKING a   
   >> law.   
   >   
   > The courts don't make *a* law, but they do make LAW in the form of   
   > decisions, which in turn serve as the basis for judicial precedent.   
   > Judicial precedent has the full force of law for later decisions.   
   >   
   >> The courts read and use the laws or reject them as unconstitutional.   
   >   
   > They also *interpret* the laws by applying them to cases.   
      
   And that's in the constitution?   
      
      
   Interpret is in your copy?   
      
   Cause I'm not seeing it....   
      
      
   What you are saying is that the courts interpreted the constitution to   
   say that they have a "power" to interpret the constitution?   
      
   That seems to be a Paradox.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)