Message from @Pyro
Discord ID: 514312230024642570
im just giving you the benefit of the doubt
indeed
I know exactly what you're talking about
I just don't agree that the supreme court is manufacturing law out of thin air
Can I get a summary to catch up
@xorgy freedom of religon is in far more then just the 1st amendent as well. It's in the declaration of indepence as well
and you think that, but your example was an excellent example of straightforward constitutional law
Or any number of cases where the scotus decided it was unconstitutional even though the constitution never specifically says so
involving no particularly difficult arguments
same, i never got that summary earlier
Wait. It would be good for both sides to summarize their points
Besides even if judicial review was in the constitution
@Misomania yeah, I chose the 1st because it also has two other clauses relevant to the example
It's still too much fucking power for 9 unelected officials
Luckily it's not and can be curb stomped
here we go again with the "judicial review" boogeyman
actually the reason for it is because it would make the supreme court completely useless
you give me permission to boil pasta, and now you're upset I'm boiling macaroni
I don't find this mode of debate helpful
Be back in a few
"the word 'macaroni' doesn't appear _anywhere_ in my letter of permission for you to boil pasta"
The court was meant to be useless, it was meant to delegate between 2 parties as an unbiased 3rd party
> the court was meant to be useless
What part of the constitution says, "review by the US Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act."
the part where the U.S. is a party
in any question concerning the constitutionality of a legislative act
I need exact words
Not implied phrases
read it a couple times
I have
It's not in there
now try to imagine you're not somebody arguing against the institution's purpose
because clearly that's not what the authors of article III meant
a judicial review isn't really all that powerful anyway iirc, to stop one branch they need the agreement (or at least passivity) of the 3rd branch. If both agreed against the judicial branch then they get their say instead
and you'll understand how cases where the U.S. is a party, including all questions about legislation, are subject to the judicial power
executive orders though.... god damn they expanded that to much
Where does it say that
section 2
just read it, please