Quote:
Originally posted by Radar
I'd be more than happy to talk about congress and the supreme court. In fact the first supreme court said that any laws that are contrary to the constitution are null and void (Marbury vs. Madison).
|
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that only the supreme court would/should be able to "null and void" laws. Otherwise, there would be no law because it would all be open to interpretation. Take the bible, for instance. No one can agree on what that damn book means. Are we to make the U.S. constitution into another bible? Do you see where this line of reasoning takes you? Anarchy!
It's all well and good to try to change the supreme court's mind, but I think there has to be a final arbiter of interpretation. Otherwise, there is no rule of law at all!
As to the other arguments, there has been an impressive amount of research that's gone into that stuff. I'm not even gonna touch it. :)