Can a supreme court ruling be unconstitutional?

[tacomancer]

If the supreme court decides on what is constitutional and what isn't in their rulings. Can their rulings be unconstitutional?

 

[digsbe]

I think so. I may be wrong but can't the supreme court take on old cases and reverse decisions if they believe that it was unconstitutionally ruled upon?

 

[tacomancer]

I think so. I may be wrong but can't the supreme court take on old cases and reverse decisions if they believe that it was unconstitutionally ruled upon?

I had considered that, but I wonder if that just means what is constitutional has changed.

Its an interesting question either way.

 

[Black Dog]

Taking into account them being able to reverse decisions I would have to agree.

 

[phattonez]

We all get things wrong. The Supreme Court is no different.

 

[Black Dog]

This is like a rainbow horseman nightmare!

 

[aps]

I think so. I may be wrong but can't the supreme court take on old cases and reverse decisions if they believe that it was unconstitutionally ruled upon?

Brown v. Board of Education. It's a perfect example of determining that a prior Supreme Court ruling was unconsitutional.

 

[Tucker Case]

Definitely.

One example: If a ruling occurs before an amendment is passed, and the amendment conflicts with the previous ruling, that ruling is rendered unconstitutional.

 

[Southern Man]

I had considered that, but I wonder if that just means what is constitutional has changed.

Its an interesting question either way.

The Constitution doesn't change, only libtards think that.

 

[Tucker Case]

The Constitution doesn't change, only libtards think that.

Amendments.

 

[Southern Man]

Amendments.

True, but I was referring to the retarded "living breathing" argument. Libtards no longer consider amendments necessary.

 

[Tucker Case]

True, but I was referring to the retarded "living breathing" argument. Libtards no longer consider amendments necessary.

"Conservatives" agree.

How else would the federal government have authority over alien residency? It's not like Naturalization = Immigration.

 

[Southern Man]

"Conservatives" agree.

How else would the federal government have authority over alien residency? It's not like Naturalization = Immigration.

And here I was thinking that the federal government was supposed to repel invasions. Silly me.:doh

 

[tacomancer]

True, but I was referring to the retarded "living breathing" argument. Libtards no longer consider amendments necessary.

I disagree. Look here and you will see six theories of constitutional interpretation. Judicial interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The origionalist approach, which is but one of six that have been used over the years is only one possible way to do it.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

True, but I was referring to the retarded "living breathing" argument. Libtards no longer consider amendments necessary.

What's a libtard?

 

[Tucker Case]

And here I was thinking that the federal government was supposed to repel invasions. Silly me.:doh

Are you one of those "reinterpret the wording of the constitution to suit your desires and ignore context" type of liberals?

Do you also support the Hamiltonian reinterpretation of the general welfare clause, or do you pick and choose which hamiltonian reinterpretations you support?

 

[tacomancer]

What's a libtard?

A word people use when they don't actually have an argument but want to give their opinion anyway.

 

[Southern Man]

What's a libtard?

Look in the mirror.

 

[tacomancer]

Look in the mirror.

A word people use when they don't actually have an argument but want to give their opinion anyway.

This would be an example LiberalAvenger. Notice that nothing of substance was added to the thread, however an opinion was given.

 

[zimmer]

Yes.
The court has become politicized. Roots going back to FDR.

It might be wise to have Congress be able to over rule the court with some form of super majority.

.

 

[Southern Man]

Are you one of those "reinterpret the wording of the constitution to suit your desires and ignore context" type of liberals?

Do you also support the Hamiltonian reinterpretation of the general welfare clause, or do you pick and choose which hamiltonian reinterpretations you support?

Hamilton didn't reinterpret the general welfare clause; that's an easily refuted myth. Besides, trying to justify your authority after the fact doesn't quite carry the weight of selling the Constitution to the People so that it may be ratified.

 

[Southern Man]

Yes.
The court has become politicized. Roots going back to FDR.

It might be wise to have Congress be able to over rule the court with some form of super majority.

.

That's why we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Tucker Case]

Hamilton didn't reinterpret the general welfare clause; that's an easily refuted myth. Besides, trying to justify your authority after the fact doesn't quite carry the weight of selling the Constitution to the People so that it may be ratified.

Then refute it.

 

[tacomancer]

Yes.
The court has become politicized. Roots going back to FDR.

It might be wise to have Congress be able to over rule the court with some form of super majority.

.

It goes back way further than that zimmer. A History Lesson On Supreme Court Appointments - Forbes.com

 

[Southern Man]

What's a libtard?

This would be an example LiberalAvenger. Notice that nothing of substance was added to the thread, however an opinion was given.

What a hypocrite. Pppfffttttt....