From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Jul 02 2002 - 10:40:03 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> >>Sorry but the Supreme Court does have final authority to
> >>interpret the Consitution and judge whether or not it is
> >>violated by any act of the legislature. Yes, the constitution
> >>can be amended but not simply to overturn a decision of the
> >>Court. That would be frivolous.
> >
> >
> > That would be history. Go read a book.
> >
> > The 1850 Dred Scott case, which forced the hand of the north and south
> > toward Civil War a decade later (and the 13-16th amendments thereafter,
> > which overturned Dred Scott). I'd not call freeing the slaves a
> > frivolous matter, and it took a Constitutional Amendment to do it to
> > overturn the Supreme Court's own ruling.
>
> Re-read what I said. I said the Court has final authority to
> *interpret* the Constitution. I never said the Constitution
> could not be amended in such a way as to lead to a quite
> different interpretation.
What you said was that to pass an amendment in order to overturn a court
decision would be frivolous. I say it is a matter of history, because
the anti-slavery amendments specifically nullified the Dred Scott
ruling.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:09 MST