Welding Rod said:
...Yes there are treasonus Americans who will viloate their oath of office, pervert the law through "interpretations" that directly contradict what the document says, and so on, but the letter of the Constitution has no ambiguity. There is no authority.
Balderdash. It's not your decision and you don't have the final say. There can be and often is disagreement about how the Constitution applies in a particular matter, and a resolution of that disagreement will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court.
Why do the courts get to decide such thing? Well, in the Constitution the Founding Fathers assigned that role to the federal courts (Constitution of the United States, Article III):
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.....
Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,....
The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute.
And, as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the decision in
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803):
....It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.....
Note also that many of the Founding Fathers (the delegates to the Constitutional Convention who signed the Constitution) were lawyers. They were familiar with English Common Law (the basis of out legal system) and that for a long time it had been customary for the courts, under the Common Law, to consider the validity of such matters as the Acts of Parliament and the actions of the Crown under the rather amorphous collection of statutes, court judgments, treaties, etc., that became understood in the Common Law to be the English Constitution. And thus there was Common Law precedent, as no doubt understood by the Founding Fathers, for the invalidation of a law as unconstitutional being within the scope of the exercise of judicial power. (And English cases continued to be cites by courts of the United States for many years after Independence.)
And while John Marshall may not have been a Founding Father, he wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, he should at least be entitled to be considered a founding uncle. He was a delegate to the Virginia Convention that would ratify or reject the Constitution and, together with James Madison and Edmund Randolf, led the fight for ratification.
tomrkba said:
No, they don't...but that won't stop them.
People accept the use of the Commerce Clause as a way to get around the Second Amendment. This only encourages Congress to continue passing unconstitutional laws.
Perhaps in your opinion. But your opinion really doesn't count.
This is a question for the federal courts and will be decided based on precedent and accepted principles of Constitutional Law. The opinions of the courts on such matters will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.