Gun control

This_person

Well-Known Member
Move the goal posts all you want. The bottom line is that the responsibility and JOB of the SCOTUS is to "Guard and interpret the Constitution." Which was stated earlier is NOT the job of the SCOTUS.

Not hard... someone posted a false fact. I proved it was false. End of story.
You proved it is some people’s opinion that it’s false.

I can provide other, contemporary to Marbury and preceding Marbury, that the opinion on which you rely is wrong.

That doesn’t make my sources more right. It makes them (us) all having opinions.

The constitution itself does not grant the authority of which you speak to any branch. That is not opinion.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Maybe read Article 3 Section 2 :whistle:
In its entirety:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Still don’t see anything like “arbiter of constitution”.
 

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
In its entirety:



Still don’t see anything like “arbiter of constitution”.
Funny you missed THIS part in your posting of it's "entirety"

The federal judiciary's power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, federal treaties, controversies involving multiple states or foreign powers, and other enumerated areas
 

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
Because that portion has been nullified by the 11th amendment.
This is getting old....

That amendment only prohibits the hearing of suits against states or disputes “between” a state and citizens of another state . It does NOT disprove the original argument that the SCOTUS does, in fact, interpret the Constitution.

I do, however, know enough that this will drag on indefinitely because of the inability to admit when there is even the slightest chance you may be incorrect.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
This is getting old....

That amendment only prohibits the hearing of suits against states or disputes “between” a state and citizens of another state . It does NOT disprove the original argument that the SCOTUS does, in fact, interpret the Constitution.

I do, however, know enough that this will drag on indefinitely because of the inability to admit when there is even the slightest chance you may be incorrect.
I will concede the point. Your opinion defeats my opinion, as you see it: I concede that.
 
Top