This is a discussion on Who checks the checkers? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; In another thread the following statement was made. I have heard it many times before. But even if it is true does it mean anything ...
In another thread the following statement was made. I have heard it many times before. But even if it is true does it mean anything in reality?
Over the past 75 years or maybe more our Supreme Court has been willing to look the other way or even declare something Constitutional with no regard to the original intent of the law. If the SC can decide that the Commerce Clause can cover something that a person grows on his farm and never leaves his property is covered by interstate regulations, then I'm sure they can read a treaty to trump the constitution.A treaty cannot alter the constitution.
In Heller it was decided that some handguns were protected but not other weapons. Was this based on the Constitution? Was it based on original intent? Does the fact that because certain weapons have been regulated for years make it ok as some of our elected officials have said?
I would just like to know on what is a decision based on? I have heard the groups who say a law cannot or should not be declared invalid because we need it. But if it is outside of the powers given the Federal Government in the Constitution isn't the proper procedure to follow provided for in the Constitution? Didn't the Framers put in the Amendment procedure for just such a case?
What the SC rules is understood as law but is it truly "Constitutional? Who is there to check the checkers?
For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27
A treaty might not change the constitution, but it will trump it. Unfortunately it is written in the U.S. Constitution.
"Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The main question I am asking is what binds the Supreme Court to the Constitution? In my original question I pointed out cases where what they ruled could not be found in the Constitution. Neither could I find anything written by those who wrote it to imply that these ruling were what was intended by the authors of the Constitution.
Is the Court free to make whatever decision they want to? Other than the Oath they swear what actually do they answer to? I believe impeachment is not an option as most of the Congress wants the courts to impose laws as it shields them from having to act on sensitive issues.
The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are all supposed to watch each other. The People are supposed to watch all three. They are supposed to what gives the Constitution legitimacy; otherwise, what is it other than some old piece of paper?
Unfortunately, you're right. The SCOTUS has often failed it's most fundamental and ultimate mandate - to uphold the law, and the highest law in the land is the Constitution. Their job isn't to do what they "feel" like or to have "empathy." Justice is supposed to be blind. The law is the law. It's not "mean," it is just the nature of what is supposed to be an impartial system designed to govern emotional and fickle beings.