the process of interpreting law, new law is created......inadvertently.
Completely wrong. The role of the courts is simply to enforce the Constitution first and the laws second. Activist judges ignore both to get to the outcome of their preconceived desires.
You don't seem to understand the nature of our gov't. Every branch of the gov't......Congress, the judiciary and the executive........can create new legislation. However, only Congress, the state and local gov'ts can turn that legislation into law. However, the Judiciary can force the creation of a new law through its interpretation of the Constitution or when a state or federal legislature violates the Constitution, or in the instance below:
"Although both the Constitution and statutory law supersede common law, courts continue to apply unwritten common law principles to fill in the gaps where the Constitution is silent and Congress has not legislated."
Early on, the judiciary assumed the role of interpreter:
"Obviously the power to interpret the less precise delegations is extremely important. Early in the young republic's history, the judiciary branch assumed this role and thus secured an additional and extremely vital role in the U.S. legal system."
This is how new law can be created through the court's interpretation of the Constitution or because a law violates the Bill of Rights:
" second judicial power emerged in the Republic's early years. As explained in Chapter 2, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) interpreted its delegated powers to include the authority to determine whether a statute violated the Constitution and, if it did, to declare such a law invalid. A law may be unconstitutional because it violates rights guaranteed to the people by the Constitution, or because Article I did not authorize Congress to pass that kind of legislation."
usinfo.state.gov
Because the courts don't interpret the laws the way the right wants, they are looking for ways to invalidate or limit the role of the courts
Actually, our Constitution gave the three branches of government different roles. Each was to be a check on the other two. Under the weakened Nixon, the legislative branch seized significant control from the administrative branch. Now the judicial branch is attempting to seize control from both.
I am sorry but that's nonsense. The right wing media has you guys all fired up over nothing. The courts are doing what they've been doing for centuries. Judge Greer and all the judges on the Schiavo case did an excellent and thorough job of applying the law correctly.
interpretation of the law may well lead to new laws. That is the province of the courts.
"No it is not."
Yes, it is! Deal with it!
Wrong, it is simply to enforce the Constitution and the laws on the books.
Nope. Look up above.......the powers of the courts are much broader than you describe.
If a constitutional amendment is written unconstitutionally, its unconstitutional no matter how many states approve it.
If a Constitutional Amendment is ratified it becomes part of the Constitution, and thus takes precedence over other laws and the desires of activist judges. If it is poorly written it may be open to interpretation, but it is still take precedence.
If a Constitutional Amendment is deemed unconstitutional, it will be invalidated. It can not exist under the Constitution. That is one of the checks in the checks and balances system. If Congress implements an inconstitutional amendment and 2/3rds of the state ratify, its left to the courts to stop it. The courts check Congress.
I studied Constitutional law and the gov't in school. They are an incredible piece of work......much like a Stradivarius violin or a masterpiece. There may be more effective gov'ts in the world but none as comprehensive and as well thought out as this one.
You guys don't know with what you're playing.
ted |
