Message from @Pyro
Discord ID: 514313193095561218
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
don't say you read it
I have
actually read it
no, you haven't
It's not written there
Its implied
I dont believe in implied powers
...
macaroni v. pasta (2018)
Hints why I'm a constitutionalist
This was a huge debate back then too
Strict v implied
I'm a strict constitutionalist
no, you just have an incredibly strange interpretation of the constitution
It's not written down
So they have zero authority
I don't know what to say except that these are not arguments sustaining the notion that the supreme court is not entitled to decide questions concerning the constitutionality of acts of the United States
they don't have authority in any power sense really anyway, they are arbitrators not enforcers
u know how irritiating it is to change the constitution everytime some jackass does something that isnt stated in the constitution?
Even back then it was debated, sadly the loose assholes won
The Supreme Court has one power: answer questions as an authority on the constitution
Oh Avenatii...
The Supreme Court is the constitution