Something I’ve never quite figured out...

How do you discuss Judicial overreach with someone who refuses to read Article III?

Comments

  • Is there a specific part it seems they've not read?
  • edited June 16
    Section 2

    It’s the old argument about the constitution never actually giving the Supreme Court the right to interpret law; as opposed to just invalidating law which is inconsistent with the constitution.

    Some broad was lecturing me about my lack of education and asked me to point out where the constitution says they can’t do that.
  • "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
    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."


    "All cases in law and equity" would require more than merely invalidating and upholding laws. It also requires adjudication of controversies between parties. In order to adjudicate those controversies, a court needs to read and apply, i.e. interpret, those laws.
  • That depends on your definition of “interpret”.
Sign In or Register to comment.