Originally Posted by
Flash
That means the courts are interpreting the Constitution by choosing to dismiss cases they interpret as based on an unconstitutional law.
That does not solve the problem of presidential actions and legislative laws that do not involve cases brought before the courts. If the president issued an unconstitutional executive order or Congress passed an unconstitutional governmental program (ACC) there are no cases brought to the courts.
The only cases would be suits challenging the constitutionality of those acts and that involves court interpretation of the Constitution.
executive orders that are unconstitutional, but bring no cases before a court, are checked by congress. they can impeach or pass a law that invalidates said order.
unconstitutional laws that do not bring cases before the court are checked by the executive by not enforcing them.
to interpret something, that something would have to be vague. the constitution is not. a law passed by congress might be, but the courts can invalidate the law for vagueness and that has nothing to do with interpreting the constituiton
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Bookmarks