I hereby rule

[A18]

That I'm the one that gets to decide what the Constitution means.

[John Dibble]

Well, I'd rather the Supreme Court do it than the legislature - the body that makes the laws certainly doesn't need to be the one determining constitutionality.

[A18]

Now, nowhere in the document does it actually say that I have the right to interpret the Constitution. But, as you correctly point out, the legislature can't be left unchecked, so I'll just have to do it.

I hereby rule all laws I don't like unconstitutional.

[Platypus]

It makes sense but it isn't sensible. I think. :S

[cwelsch]

Yes, I do believe in an independent judiciary and in judicial review.  The point is that the Constitution and law are supreme, not the Congress.

[A18]

The Supreme Court is supreme. The Constitution has become a pushover begging for its life.

[Alcon]

Who else would do it?

[A18]

The Constitution should be above any one department of government's interpretation. Prudence alone will make government tick.

[Trilobyte]

The Constitution should be above any one department of government's interpretation. Prudence alone will make government tick.

As good as the Constitution is, you still need somebody to interpret what it means. And I'd rather the Supreme Court do this than anyone else. A piece of paper can't rule on its own, which is what you're suggesting.

[A18]

Tell me. When Supreme Court justices rule, who interprets their rulings?

[Alcon]

Tell me. When Supreme Court justices rule, who interprets their rulings?

The problem with that this doesn't work with the Bible, and it won't work with any complicated work that people consider the ultimate law. There is no way there would be perfect constituational consensus. That's nuts.

[A18]

I didn't say there would be complete consensus. I said prudence would make government tick.

If not, a convention of the States should be called to amend the Constitution in whatever way the people thereof see fit.

[Alcon]

I didn't say there would be complete consensus. I said prudence would make government tick.

If not, a convention of the States should be called to amend the Constitution in whatever way the people thereof see fit.

And in another 200 years, we'd be in the same situation. Heck, earlier than that. "Prudence" and "government" are, and always will be, mutually exclusive.

[A18]

I don't know what you mean. Same situation?

[khirkhib]

In a society you will have conflicts.  We have laws to prevent conflicts.  When you have laws you need somebody to interpret those laws or society would colapse into anarchy.

I would rather have a judge interpret the law than a tyrant. I think every modern society would agree with me.

Laws and a constiution that explained everything in all situations would be very long, very complicated (and I think impossible).

Phillip where are you picking up all this extreme anti-american dogma.  What are you reading? Who is telling you this or are you coming up with all of this on your own.

You are so far right on the political spectrum that it scares me.  I think you just shifted past Muselini because even he gave a nod to judges every so often.  Maybe you should do some community service, read some Plato and chill out a bit.

[A18]

I'm not far right at all.

The reason you don't like my system is because you don't want the Constitution to actually be followed.

[Alcon]

I'm not far right at all.

The reason you don't like my system is because you don't want the Constitution to actually be followed.

You don't have a system. You have an ideal and can't understand why anyone would see Constitutional matters differently than you.