In article , Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

SNIPPING all kinds of silliness from all sides

More Supreme Court bashing. I'm sure that when you get your case in
front of them they're going to be real impressed with "You should rule
this to be unlawful because you are irrelevant".

Hint--the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to decide
what is and is not lawful under the Constitution. It gives you no
such power.

I have read the document thoroughly, including all amendments thereto
and just can't seem to find that part of the document that gives the
Supreme Court that power. Seems to me that the Supreme Court "found"
that power in deciding the case of Marbury v. Madison, and has used it
ever since.

Seems to me that it's not necessary to look very hard to find it, either: "The
judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution..." [Article III, Section 2]

Only one President seemed to clearly choose to ignore that
concept - Jackson, when he simply ignored the Supreme Court ruling
regarding removal of indians from tribal lands. What the SC says is
meaningless if ignored by the executive who is not then impeached by
the legislative branch or is ignored by the legislative branch which
answers to nobody (until the next election). Oh, how easy the whole
deal could crumble if the various branches ever decide to really push
an issue against one another.

Certainly one problem is that the checks and balances on the power of the
Supreme Court are few and far between. Perhaps a solution would be an
amendment granting the President the power to veto a Court decision, with
Congress able to override the veto as they can now in the case of a bill.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.