SCOTUS is saying that it, too, must interpret Constitution to carry out its functions. Read the opinion. It is not claiming exclusive power.
-
-
The executive discretion is narrow. otherwise Rule of law is at the whim of the person in power.
-
Under your view, if Congress passed Japanese internment law, then president would have to execute unless and until SCOTUS holds otherwise.
-
Under your View 'The Purge' could be made real at any time by Executive Fiat/Order.
-
In both views, there would be court challenge. But my view is more consistent w/ constitutional structure, sep'n of powers, and basic logic.
-
And the situation would remain until judicial review? which basically means until a new whim strikes. There is no check on power there.
-
Situation you describe is possible under either view. Tyrants don't care about laws. But your view requires a good pres to violate Const'n.
-
Is he? If he interprets murder to be unconstitutional it should be good right?
-
Under your view he's fine till a court tells him he's wrong or Congress makes another law.. at which time.. at whim ..new interpretation.
- 31 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Constitution conflict is resolved either by a) Judicial review b) Congressional revision or c) Amendment.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Which is what you seem to be advocating.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
yes but that isn't the same as independent nullification.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.