Obamacare

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Anyway...my argument is whether or not 'Obamacare' is Unconstitutional, is for the Supreme Court to decide (I don't think it is ) However, what pissed me off was his Narcisstic comment about the Supreme Court being 'un-elected', when it's obvious that this supossed 'Professor of Law' doesn't understand the Constitution and its protections for The People. He also doesn't understand that the Supreme Court is doing 'exactly' what it is mandated by the Constitution to do. Interpret the Constitution in order to rule based on Constitutional Law on any given case to appear before it.

The Supreme Court is NOT instructed by the Constitution to decide upon the constitutionality of a federal law. You are speaking of the practice commonly knows as judicial review. Judicial review was established in the case Marbury v. Madison (1803). In this case, Marbury was suing the federal government for refusing to give him his authorization to practice as a judge. Chief Justice John Marshall and the rest of the court ruled that the Marbury had a right to the documents but that the High Court did not have the power to force the executive branch to give them to him. In doing this, and in reviewing some laws, he established a precedent that would forever become a part of the Supreme Court, a power NOT enumerated in the Constitution, however.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Anyway...my argument is whether or not 'Obamacare' is Unconstitutional, is for the Supreme Court to decide (I don't think it is ) However, what pissed me off was his Narcisstic comment about the Supreme Court being 'un-elected', when it's obvious that this supossed 'Professor of Law' doesn't understand the Constitution and its protections for The People. He also doesn't understand that the Supreme Court is doing 'exactly' what it is mandated by the Constitution to do. Interpret the Constitution in order to rule based on Constitutional Law on any given case to appear before it.

The Supreme Court is NOT instructed by the Constitution to decide upon the constitutionality of a federal law. You are speaking of the practice commonly knows as judicial review. Judicial review was established in the case Marbury v. Madison (1803). In this case, Marbury was suing the federal government for refusing to give him his authorization to practice as a judge. Chief Justice John Marshall and the rest of the court ruled that the Marbury had a right to the documents but that the High Court did not have the power to force the executive branch to give them to him. In doing this, and in reviewing some laws, he established a precedent that would forever become a part of the Supreme Court, a power NOT enumerated in the Constitution, however.

Not QUITE right Pepsi. Its one of those catch 22's or a self fulfilling prophecy. Marshall declared that implicit in the Constitutionally defined role of the Supreme Court to hold "judicial Power" (Article III, Section 2) was the power to be the sole arbiter of the definition, meaning and intent of the document granting them that power. This simply from the word "judicial" (an empowered arbiter) and the capitalized "Power" denoting final authority. (Article III, Section 1)

Bottom line, by saying that it is, in-fact, enumerated, it therefore was. propter hoc, ergo est hoc