Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
That's not the problem. I understand the constitution and constitutional law a damn sight better than most people here. The problem is that YOU and a whole host of others around this country think that there are only 9 people who wear black robes and sit on a bench that are qualified to interpret the constitution. This is why we end up with ass backwards and flagrantly illegal decisions like dred scott, cruikshank, and kelo.
|
It's their job to interpret laws, and their interpretation is the way to interpret the law. That's the whole story. If you disagree, then that's your prerogative, but what they say is the interpretation of the law. You, dk, are not a justice, therefore your interpretation is not law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Again, you are taking ONE single case that has been repeatedly misinterpreted and perverted by at least 8 circuit courts and trying to declare that those particular idiots know something about the constitution. The time period is irrelevant and whats really amazing is that you think the further AWAY from the period that the constitution was written, the more clearly these idiots in black robes have the ability to know what the founders intended. The part that I bolded? check marbury v. madison.
|
You can call them idiots, but at the end of the day it's their interpretation that matters, not yours. Don't like it? Become a justice.