Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (136034)	4/19/2010 10:48:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543200

First, some of the wisest minds this country has ever produced have served on the US Supreme Court Irrelevant to the point. and your hypothetical is outlandish. In practical terms yes, but as an examination of the idea that the constitution is whatever the supreme court says it is (not that it will be treated as if it was, but that it actually is), not at all. If the idea is true, it would also hold for outlandish decisions. there is a branch of government empowered to finally and conclusively resolve any questions with respect to constitutional interpretation and the highest court in our land has the final say The final say in our government for determining how the constitution will be applied. That doesn't mean if they say the constitution says the opposite of what it actually says that they are right. In such a case, while the government will act (absent a constitutional crisis) as if the constitution said what the court says it said, it doesn't actually say what it does not say. So, if the Supreme Court interpreted the 13th Amendment to allow slavery then the constitution would mean that the 13th Amendment allowed slavery No it wouldn't. Its that simple. No more than if we had a constitutional highest authority on math, that such an authority saying 2+2 equals three would make the real answer anything other than four.