George Costanza
A Friendly Liberal
Of course they (the courts) have that power....as long as it comports with the language and original meaning of the only document the people of the United Stated consented to be governed by.
And who determines whether or not the court (or a judicial decision on a constitutional issue) is "comporting with the language and original meaning" of the Constitution?
Post #30.
"Here's how it is done:
As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Randy Barnett, law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches constitutional law and contracts, and a legal theorist, examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’"
Really, Georgie, you should understand this.
1. The above. Scholarship should certainly not be beyond our hightest judicial experts....should it?
2. If the Constitution says nothing about the issue, then the question should fall back upon the decisions of the Legislature and President.
This my thinking when I predicted that ObamaCare would be held constitutional.
Had the Justices found against as healthcare is not in the enumerated powers, I would have been happier....but it is within their taxing power. So said the Court.
3. Your position is that of Justice Brennan, that of a 'living' Constitution wherein good outcomes (social justice) is the aim, and the basis of court decisions. Therefore, judges can claim what they wish...without homage to the Constitution.
I'm prepared to argue against that, too.
While there is nothing 'whacko' about my position....I find your the self-serving view of jurists who see themselves as the equal of the Founders.
And, they are not.
This is pure gibberish and has nothing to do with the question asked. You say that the courts must "comport with the original language of the Constitution." I ask you again: WHO determines whether or not the court (or a judicial decision on a constitutional issue) is "comporting with the language and original meaning" of the Constitution?
Answer that question in your own words, in a simple sentence. It isn't that difficult, although I doubt that you have the mental ability to do it.