Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

[Flash]

They serve as a check on Congress and the President, NOT the Constitution!

It is a check on unconstitutional actions by the president, Congress, and the states. That requires interpreting what powers the Constitution grants or prohibits.

[Flash]

They do not have power to interpret it either. Only the States themselves have that power, collectively.

The states have no power to interpret the Constitution. They only have a role in amending it.

[Flash]

The purpose of that 'bank' was not to act as a bank, but to act as a payment system for foreign debt.

Nevertheless, those involved in writing the document believed they had given Congress that power. That is probably a more accurate judgment than yours.

Hamilton was successful in creating the national bank. How was he rebuffed? The Supreme Court later upheld that law.

[Flash]

It is not a power. Hamilton did not write the Constitution. Jefferson and Adams did.

I think you mean Madison. Jefferson was not even a delegate at the constitutional convention.

[Into the Night]

It is a check on unconstitutional actions by the president, Congress, and the states. That requires interpreting what powers the Constitution grants or prohibits.

No it doesn't. The court is not authorized to interpret the Constitution.

[Into the Night]

The states have no power to interpret the Constitution. They only have a role in amending it.

They have every right to interpret the Constitution. They own it. They are the ONLY ones that can interpret it or amend it, collectively.

[Into the Night]

Nevertheless, those involved in writing the document believed they had given Congress that power.

Lie.

That is probably a more accurate judgment than yours.

Lie.

Hamilton was successful in creating the national bank.

Lie.

How was he rebuffed?

The 'bank' was just a payment system for foreign debt. It was not an actual bank.

The Supreme Court later upheld that law.

The Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

[Into the Night]

I think you mean Madison. Jefferson was not even a delegate at the constitutional convention.

No, I mean Jefferson and Adams.

[Flash]

No it doesn't. The court is not authorized to interpret the Constitution.

It is according to Federalist No. 78.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

"W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . "

This recognizes the principal of judicial review and the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution which is supreme over laws and the will of the people.

[Flash]

They have every right to interpret the Constitution. They own it. They are the ONLY ones that can interpret it or amend it, collectively.

The Constitution gives no role to the states to interpret the Constitution as that is the role of the courts (Federalist 78). They have a role in amending the Constitution but not without the joint involvement of the federal government.That is the point of the document--the Constitution cannot be amended without both federal and state action.

[SmarterthanYou]

It is according to Federalist No. 78.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

"W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . "

This recognizes the principal of judicial review and the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution which is supreme over laws and the will of the people.

there is no way you can reconcile the debates of the framers to mean that they gave the power of their newly built government to define it's powers. They were adamant about the new government being restricted as much as possible with the few prescribed powers that they were given.

[Flash]

No, I mean Jefferson and Adams.

Jefferson did not even know why they created a bi-cameral legislature. Washington had to explain it to him after the fact.

[SmarterthanYou]

The Constitution gives no role to the states to interpret the Constitution as that is the role of the courts (Federalist 78). They have a role in amending the Constitution but not without the joint involvement of the federal government.That is the point of the document--the Constitution cannot be amended without both federal and state action.

you've heard of the 9th Amendment, no?

[Flash]

there is no way you can reconcile the debates of the framers to mean that they gave the power of their newly built government to define it's powers. They were adamant about the new government being restricted as much as possible with the few prescribed powers that they were given.

Of course, that is the purpose of the courts. Without them the president and Congress would be completely free to determine their own powers and there would be no check on those powers (including jury nullification).

[Flash]

you've heard of the 9th Amendment, no?

Yes, and it has nothing to do with amending the Constitution since that process was defined in Article V.