Yurt
Gold Member
it is not right there in black and white...so i'll ask again, please point out "specifically" where it says what you claim:
Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.
Read section 2 - if you don't understand it, you don't understand it .... not much I can do about that.
Yurt on my first read through today it seems nodog is right about this.
then please point out the specific language/words that back up his point that the scotus is called upon to interpret the constitution and no one else