Pfff! You want to talk about "implying"?!?! I never said (or implied) that you said the people have the authority to interpret anything. You're reading comprehension is by far the worst I've ever seen.
You are the one implying that I did simply because you've had your ass kicked with facts. How can a citizen abide by a law if a law is open to interpretation? They can't. It is literally impossible. If I think a Supreme Court justice will say "x" and you think that same Supreme Court justice will say "y" - one of us is going to be wrong and violating the law.
A prime example is how Candy is intentionally trying to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment. Lets say she's right and Hillary Clinton is elected president and then appoints a Supreme Court justice for the express purpose of being a political activist instead of a justice and they ultimately rule that the 2nd Amendment means that only "militias" have the right to keep and bear arms. That would mean for over a quarter of a century, I've been breaking the law as I have firearms and carry them with me everywhere I go. And don't even say "the law changed" after the ruling because it didn't. The Constitution would not have been amended in that scenario and the wording would still be exactly the same (plus, the judicial law is not empowered to create law from the bench).
Liberals refuse to say that lower laws such as rape and speed limits are "open to interpretation" but then try to pretend like the highest law in the land is. It's the epitome of stupid. A law that is "open to interpretation" cannot be obeyed. It's literally impossible. Which is why the law is not "open to interpretation" - from the U.S. Constitution all the way down to a local ordinance.
Portions of your last post examined Rot:
You are the one implying that I did simply because you've had your ass kicked with facts.
I have stated my opinions backed up by substantive
facts proving the validity and correctness of my opinions. You have utterly FAILED to do that. You have only presented your opinions with NO substantiation or proof of merit to your baseless
OPINIONS! That you claim you have somehow "kicked ass" is totally and absolutely absurd to the Nth degree.
You did cite and present ONE (1) item over this entire exchange which Jefferson wrote in a letter in 1820 stating;
It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.… The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves. – Thomas Jefferson (September 28, 1820)
But 32 years earlier Jefferson in another letter to James Madison wrote this which is in absolute and total conflict with his later position;
With respect to the Federalist [Papers], the three authors had been named to me. I read it with care, pleasure and improvement, and was satisfied there was nothing in it by one of those hands, and not a great deal by a second. It does the highest honor to the third, as being, in my opinion, the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written. ~~ T. Jefferson, Nov 18, 1788~~ <
Letter to James Madison | Teaching American History >
Both the former and the latter are merely opinions albeit in distinct contrast and contradictory and have no legal standing, they do go towards displaying the fact that at the time of ratification, Jefferson agreed in full with the intent of the framers of the Constitution which by inclusion would be the full scope of Federalist #78 and the breadth of Judicial review.
How can a citizen abide by a law if a law is open to interpretation? They can't. It is literally impossible.
A private citizen can't lawfully interpret a law and act upon it in violation of that law because that is the province of the Courts pure and simple. That is also true of the other two branches; they are not authorized to extend their reach beyond their separate powers granted by the Constitution. However, you have proven that a person like yourself can do that very thing with this thread throughout our "discussion" by violating the laws of common sense and logic. However, to assert that, "It is literally impossible" is wrong by your own exemplar with your interpretation of Amendment II. Your logic, or whatever you try to pass off as a logical conclusion is rather harebrained.
If I think a Supreme Court justice will say "x" and you think that same Supreme Court justice will say "y" - one of us is going to be wrong and violating the law.
How in the Hell did you ever come up with that notion? SCOTUS issues ONE (1) decision in a case and that is all. That decision is binding upon ALL when issued. Again your neural pathways used for logical processing are HOSED! What the Hell are you smoking or shooting up?
A prime example is how Candy is intentionally trying to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment. Lets say she's right and Hillary Clinton is elected president and then appoints a Supreme Court justice for the express purpose of being a political activist instead of a justice and they ultimately rule that the 2nd Amendment means that only "militias" have the right to keep and bear arms. That would mean for over a quarter of a century, I've been breaking the law as I have firearms and carry them with me everywhere I go.
Commenting strictly on the premise directly above you have presented, you have just again drawn attention to your gross deficits in your depth of knowledge of the Constitution. Your declaration that you're some kind of Constitutional scholar is once again proven to be baseless and inane. Article I, § 9, Clause 3 clearly states, "No bill of attainder or
ex post facto Law shall be passed." If a law changes, one cannot be held accountable/in jeopardy for previous actions which were lawful in an earlier time. Chalk that up to yet another fail owing to your ignorance of the Constitution.
And don't even say "the law changed" after the ruling because it didn't. The Constitution would not have been amended in that scenario and the wording would still be exactly the same (plus, the judicial law is not empowered to create law from the bench).
In the scenario you laid out, the wording of the Constitution DID NOT CHANGE, of course. The interpretation would be what had change IF the Court majority opinion decided that was the interpretation! But your scenario does not indicate there was any such majority opinion, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that that was your
INTENT. And what, exactly, is "judicial law"? In over 70 years I've not come across that term.
Liberals refuse to say that lower laws such as rape and speed limits are "open to interpretation" but then try to pretend like the highest law in the land is. It's the epitome of stupid. A law that is "open to interpretation" cannot be obeyed. It's literally impossible. Which is why the law is not "open to interpretation" - from the U.S. Constitution all the way down to a local ordinance.
That is absolutely absurd. Where is your source for that information to make such an assertion? And who is pretending? And why can re-interpretation not be obeyed given folks are immune for prior actions which were lawful at the time? Why would that be impossible as you assert!
It is fact that the Anti-Federalists lost the argument of non-ratification of the Constitution when the Document was ratified. But even the Anti-Federalists understood what the scope of Article III, §2, Clause 1 which reads in part;
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;
The Anti-Federalists interpreted that same Article, Section and Clause this way in Brutus #11, Jan 31, 1788 when responding to what was written in the proposed Constitution;
The cases arising under the constitution must be different from those arising under the laws, or else the two clauses mean exactly the same thing.
The cases arising under the constitution must include such, as bring into question its meaning, and will require an explanation of the nature and extent of the powers of the different departments under it.
This article, therefore, vests the judicial with a power to resolve all questions that may arise on any case on the construction of the constitution, either in law or in equity.
What the Anti-Federalists determined through their own analysis was that the Constitutional
INTENT was contained within Article III, §2, Clause 1, meaning the scope of judicial powers was, indeed, written within the four corners of the Document and part of the Constitution. Further yet, the Anti-Federal analysis AGREES with what A. Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78. These are all
ACTUAL FACTS which can be gleaned through research and a knowledge base to work from. Chalk that up to yet another fail owing to your ignorance of the Constitution.
I can't understand why any rational person would post their opinions only, fail and refuse to provide a single shred of verifiable and authoritative evidence and facts in the process of an exchange on this forum, disregard actual verifiable authoritative evidence and facts at every turn and then take victory laps declaring them self as the victor when it is obvious they don't know what the Hell they're talking about except their firmly held opinions. Unbelievable!!!!
Given the Anti-Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that the Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists concur in their belief that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that even Jefferson's letter to Madison during the ratification process agreed that the proposed Constitution was, "...the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written" which would obviously include Article III, §2, Clause 1 of the proposed Constitution at that time defined by Federalist #78 AND that SCOTUS recognizes Article III, §2, Clause 1 stemming from Federalist #78 as authoritative regarding the Framers intent of the full scope of Judicial Review, you are in error AND you are a loser, Rot! Q.E.D.
