Defensive Carry banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,298 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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?
A treaty cannot alter the constitution.
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.

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?

Michael
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,298 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
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.

Michael
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top