Homestead mailing list

["Melody O." <melody AT crecon.com>]

At 09:49 AM 7/6/05 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>The Constitution gives the Supreme Court final say on what is 
>>constitutional and that's all.
>
>Sounds good. How does one resolve that with nine justices being unable to 
>agree on what is constitutional?
>

The Constitution is straightforward and not difficult at all to
understand...the problem is when a person has an agenda and reads into the
Constitution what they *want* it to say.

Another problem is not having a deep understanding of *why* this or that is
in the Constitution.  Once a true study has been done to understand why the
Founders would have seen it important to include each point, since
everything in there was to ensure that tyranny could not occur.

>>  he said her appointment to the SC would be different because
>>appeals court judges "don't get to make new laws."  Even the senior 
>>senator views the SC as a law making body which it clearly is not supposed 
>>to be.
>
>Biden was stating a factual condition. Even Congress knows that it is 
>inferior to the Supreme Court, which fairly regularly strikes down newly 
>enacted legislation.

Congress is not inferior to the Supreme Court according to the
Constitution.  Many have aspired to have the SC be superior, but it is an
illusion.

The SC job is to ensure that only Constitutional laws get passed, however
it is also Congress' job to not pass obviously unconstitutional laws.  I
have heard more than once that Congress will say a kind of "Oh well, go
ahead and pass it and if it is unconstitutional the SC will reject it."
That is just plain lazy and wrong.

Best wishes,
Melody