Neotrotsky
Council to Supreme Soviet
- Thread starter
- #41
Actually, it is their job....
Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the US in their duties (that means in passing laws)
The courts handle disagreements between the different branches over what is and what is not constitutional.
Then you are all for Congress passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional?
but they are not the arbiters of what is constitutional. courts don't agree. scholars don't agree. that's why there's a process. so the 'rule' is pretty bogus... notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists think. there are different levels of courts. if there is a disagreement, ultimately the high court decides. i don't always agree with *this* court, but at least they are smart enough to know that for two hundred years, real scholars have discussed these issues. they aren't simplistic and don't lend themselves to subliterates like michelle bachmann deciding what is and isn't constitutional. that's what courts are for.
or do you want congress to usurp the court's role?
The more I read these threads...the more I wish civics were taught in Elementary School.
Yes, they would have helped you a lot
But, since Congress is suppose to passing laws that support the Constitution, it should not be a big deal.
Do you really want Congress passing laws that it has no vested interest in believing they are constitutional?
Pass the laws, constitution be damned, let the courts worry about it
Not a campaign slogan I suggest running with...