Message from @Cody
Discord ID: 514313451397578752
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
oh yea you can basically do anything with an EO
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
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
But doesnt mean it's weird to want a smaller government
I like smaller government
He is always stirring something up or causing some bad press for himself.
Codes, do you have any written proof they were 'assholes' as you claim?
the Supreme Court is very small
such a good male feminist, believe all woman and all that BS
it only has nine people
yea its just biting him in the ass at this point