• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can a supreme court ruling be unconstitutional?

Poll


  • Total voters
    54

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,658
Reaction score
58,024
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If the supreme court decides on what is constitutional and what isn't in their rulings. Can their rulings be unconstitutional?
 
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 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.
 
Taking into account them being able to reverse decisions I would have to agree.
 
We all get things wrong. The Supreme Court is no different.
 
This is like a rainbow horseman nightmare!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.

.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom