Contumacious
Radical Freedom
- Thread starter
- #61
Keep on lying. I QUOTED the relevant portion of Section 8 article 1 of the US Constitution which CLEARLY does give authority.
In the Chae Chang Pin case the SCOTUS ruled that fedgov could detain and deport foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, and who are consequently "dangerous to our peace and security" by simply USURPING the power. They did not, and could not cite, their Constitutional authority .
They merely created a new legal fiction - when there is an "emergency" the federal government can USURP powers. So that that is the reason we always have an emergency which "requires" federal intervention.
.
The Constitution also does not explicitly state that the power of the SCOTUS includes that of voiding acts of Congress where same are "found" to violate the Constitution.
It is inherent, however, or so the claim goes, in the powers which are explicitly granted.
There are other examples in Constitutional analysis where powers not explictly granted are nonetheless deemed inherent -- implicit components of the powers which are explicitly granted.
Pretend you can't grasp that.
Or, possibly, you are so fucking stupid you really cannot grasp it.
"The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
Supreme Court of the United States
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)