" While this has always been true to a significant extent, it is now all the more true that the federal courts are a political playground where judges make rulings that reflect their political ideologies. "

While I agree with what the author has said, I truly believe that those that try to repeal the 2nd Amendment are playing with matches while standing in a deep pool of gasoline !!! After getting what they want, they might have very big smug smirks on their faces. BUT, they will not like the result !

This other method is used almost annually through landmark Supreme Court decisions that create new "rights" or re-interpret the Constitution,

The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller concluded that the second amendment protected the right of a citizen to keep and bear a handgun in the home for self-defense. Now, the second amendment may protect other arms for other purposes, but the court was silent on those.

My point is this. There is nothing to prevent a future liberal Supreme Court from ruling that the second amendment protects only handguns. Or that it doesn't protect semi-auto rifles. That ruling would then apply to all citizens.

The U.S. Supreme Court now defines "keep" and "bear" and "arms" -- and those definitions will apply to everyone. I warned about this years ago, but everyone was so exited that the court was finally going to rule that the second amendment protects an individual right that I was ignored.

In the 2008 case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Court expanded the Second Amendment to apply to state and local governments as well. Previous to this, state and local governments were far more unlimited in how they regulated guns.

Prior to the case, it was not quite clear, legally speaking, if the Amendment was subject to "incorporation" and thus applied to all levels of government.

In the 2008 case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Court (finally issued an opinion correctly stating) that the Second Amendment applied to state and local governments as well. Previous to this, state and local governments were (erroneously allowed) far more unlimited (powers) in how they regulated guns.

Prior to the case, it was not quite clear, legally speaking, if the Amendment was subject to "incorporation" and thus applied to all levels of government. --- It wasn't clear because many local and State governments have always fought against the clear intent of the Supremacy Clause, --- that all State/local laws contrary to Constitutional intent should not be enforced by officials sworn to support it.

We fought a civil war over this 'State Rights' controversy, and it still rages...

I warned about this years ago, but everyone was so exited that the court was finally going to rule that the second amendment protects an individual right that I was ignored.

Years ago on FR, misterwhite ADVOCATED against the concept that the second amendment protects an individual right.

He was not ignored. Others and I opposed him, and still do..

There is nothing to prevent a future liberal Supreme Court from ruling that the second amendment protects only handguns.

And there's nothing but institutional reticence to prevent that same future Supreme Court from overturning Heller completely, including hand guns.

Under our system as it is, the Rule of Five is what amends the Constitution.

You can get 2/3rds of each House of Congress to pass a bill of amendment, and then the legislatures of 3/4ths of the states to ratify the amendment OR you can get 5 Supreme Court Justices to write an opinion that says what the Constitution says.

THAT'S why control of the Supreme Court is critical.

And THAT'S why I accuse the Republicans of being so duplicitous about abortion. They have CONTINUOUSLY controlled the Supreme Court since 1969. They controlled in in 1973, and gave us Roe. They controlled it in 1986, and expanded Roe with Casey. And they've controlled it ever since.

Republican Presidents and Senators CAMPAIGN on being pro-life, but they have appointed and seated many pro-Roe Republican appointees.

This is THE signal reason why I call the Republican Party leaders lying snakes, and the Republican voters duped rubes. The GOP is the Lucy Party when it comes to abortion. They have ALWAYS had the power in their hands, RIGHT NOW, to end Roe. They control the Supreme Court. They already HAVE the Rule of Five.

They don't WANT to.

And when Republican Presidents: Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, appoint Republican Justices, they are careful to never let the clearly pro-life Republicans number more than 3, with a 4th ambiguous. They never want the court to actually have the Five that could overturn Roe, so that they can always motivate the duped rubes to keep voting Republican "to end Roe". The duped rubes, for their part, are tribal in their partisanship and attack ME and people like me when I point out this truth.

Trump is different. He appointed a pro-lifer. That makes two on the Court: Thomas and Gorsuch. Alito is PROBABLY pro-life. Kennedy is pro-choice for all practical purposes. The Chief Justice is completely untrustworthy. We know this from the Obamacare vote. So Trump needs to put three more pro- life justices up there, to be SURE - or we need to be lucky and find out Alito is, be willing to put the screws to Roberts, and appoint one more.

Then the vote will be 6-3 to overturn Roe, because if Kennedy isn't the deciding vote, he'll go with the pro-lifers.

misterwhite (#2)

There is nothing to prevent a future liberal Supreme Court from ruling that the second amendment protects only handguns. And there's nothing but institutional reticence to prevent that same future Supreme Court from overturning Heller completely, including hand guns.

Under our system as it is, the Rule of Five is what amends the Constitution.

You can get 2/3rds of each House of Congress to pass a bill of amendment, and then the legislatures of 3/4ths of the states to ratify the amendment OR you can get 5 Supreme Court Justices to write an opinion that says what the Constitution says.

5 Supreme Court Justices can write an opinion that says what (they believe) the Constitution says, and it doesn't change the Constitution a damn bit.

Why you two are so eager to swallow this leftist cool aide about Scotus opinions being enforceable law, -- is a mystery.

Please, can you explain yourself, in legal detail? (Misterwhite has never been able to do so)

Then the vote will be 6-3 to overturn Roe

Meaning the issue would go back to the states where it was before.

THAT'S why control of the Supreme Court is critical.

I agree. So why would anyone applaud when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment -- as five justices define it -- applies to the individual right of all citizens?

Meaning the issue would go back to the states where it was before.

Unless they say abortion itself violates the babies rights - then it's banned everywhere.

Unless they say abortion itself violates the babies rights - then it's banned everywhere.

They had the opportunity to do that in 1973 and refused. Probably because the country was split 50-50 on that issue.

The country is still split on the issue. Meaning the best we can hope for is that the court rules the issue is best decided by each state -- as it was before.

They had the opportunity to do that in 1973 and refused. Probably because the country was split 50-50 on that issue.

The country is still split on the issue. Meaning the best we can hope for is that the court rules the issue is best decided by each state -- as it was before.

Completely different justices then. That the country is split doesn't stop the court from doing what it pleases.

Is The Supreme Court Really The Ultimate Arbiter Of The Constitution?

Published on October 23, 2017 in History/Politics by Zachary Garris

Americans today consider the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of the Constitution. Politicians and voters alike will fight tooth and nail over legal questions facing the judicial system, even criticizing Supreme Court rulings when initially handed down. But give a Supreme Court decision enough time and Americans eventually acquiesce. The question becomes “settled.”

From the banning of prayer and Bible reading in public schools in the 1960s to the recent forced recognition of same-sex “marriage” in all 50 States, the Court’s decisions reign supreme.

However, the Supreme Court’s rulings do not enforce themselves. They carry weight because State officials and the people of the States submit to the Court, choosing to follow federal judges over State laws. This raises the question—why do we give the Supreme Court so much deference?

The Supreme Court Claims Ultimacy

The view that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution is one of its own making. The Constitution itself never says that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution. Rather, it identifies the Constitution as “supreme”:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land (Article VI).

Three things are listed as the “supreme law of the land”: (1) the Constitution; (2) laws made “in pursuance” of the Constitution; and (3) treaties. These things bind both State and federal officials.

What then of the Supreme Court? Article III of the Constitution vests “judicial power” in “one supreme Court,” as well as lower federal courts that Congress “may from time to time ordain and establish” (Article III, Section 1). This judicial power of the federal courts extends to all cases “arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,” with the specific cases that federal courts can hear listed in Article III, Section 2. In other words, federal courts are supposed to have limited jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court does not have authority over the Constitution. Rather, the Court is given authority to hear certain types of cases arising under the Constitution, U.S. laws, and treaties. The Court is supposed to apply the Constitution to the cases before it.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court began to claim more power for itself quite early in its history. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Supreme Court could determine the constitutionality of federal legislation (what is known as “judicial review”). Though not explicit in the Constitution, the founding generation expected that the federal judiciary would practice a limited form of judicial review as a check on the other branches of the federal government.

However, what was more controversial was federal judicial review of State legislation, a power that the Marshall Court claimed in Fletcher v. Peck (1810). Six years later, the Court also claimed the right to overturn State courts in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816). Only this time it was not Marshall (who recused himself), but Marshall’s ally Joseph Story who wrote the opinion.

Fletcher and Martin were significant cases in early judicial history because they expanded the power of the Supreme Court to include a veto power over the States, including both State legislatures and State courts. The Supreme Court was in essence claiming it had a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. For if the Court can veto both the federal government and the State governments, this leaves no other branch of government to interpret the Constitution. These decisions by the Marshall Court set the stage for the Supreme Court’s usurpation of State authority in the 20th century (under the guise of “substantive due process”), thus establishing a nationalist rather than a federal approach to the Union.

Black-Robed Despotism

Thomas Jefferson saw what was happening with the Marshall Court and warned against the Supreme Court’s ultimacy in his letter to William Charles Jarvis (September 1820):

You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy . . . They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Jefferson’s words read like prophecy, as the people of the United States have come to be ruled by a black-robed despotic “oligarchy” that is unaccountable to voters. In response to this concern, Jefferson stressed the importance of the “co-equal” branches. However, he concluded, “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves.”

This is a reference to the people of the States having the power to practice nullification or call an Article V convention. Jefferson made a similar statement in his letter to Judge William Johnson (June 1823) commenting on Marbury v. Madison—“the Chief Justice [John Marshall] says, ‘there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.’ True, there must; but . . . The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two-thirds of the States.”

The Court is Not the Only Interpreter of the Constitution

The Supreme Court’s claim of ultimacy finds no support in the Constitution. This is because neither the framers nor the ratifiers of the Constitution intended to give the Supreme Court a monopoly on the document’s interpretation. The expectation was that every branch of the government would interpret the Constitution—the three branches of the federal government (legislative, executive, judicial), as well as the States.

The right to interpret the Constitution by the other branches of the federal government can be demonstrated by the fact that the president takes an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”—not the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the document (Article II, Section 1). Further, Congress is only supposed to pass laws within the powers granted by the Constitution (Article I, Section 8), and the president is supposed to veto any law he considers unconstitutional (Article I, Section 7).

President Andrew Jackson affirmed this right of the other branches to interpret the Constitution in his veto message on the bank bill in 1832:

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others . . . The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both

Two bits our two scholars of the Constitution, (Vic and whitey) will NOT have the ability to even comment on the above article..

https://www.thelibertyconservative.com/is-the-supreme-court-really-the-ultimate- arbiter-of-the-constitution/

the ultimate arbiter is the people of the union

Now The

Mau mau
huTus
Amazons
homos

have Taken over

Love
boris

That the country is split doesn't stop the court from doing what it pleases.

It's not supposed to, no.

The Court is Not the Only Interpreter of the Constitution

the ultimate arbiter is the people of the union

Now The Mau mau huTus Amazons homos have Taken over

Certain defeatist's WISH that to be true, whereas informed citizens KNOW the truth.

SCOTUS opinions will never change our Constitution...

First comment: what you published there is scholarly opinion, not law. Law is what the courts and executive branch will enforce. It is theoretically true that the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the Constitution. A President could test the theory by directly defying a Supreme Court decision, either by doing what the Court profited, or refusing to do what the Court mandated. In either case it would provoke a constitutional crisis that might end in the Supreme Court being knocked down a notch and recognized as de facto no longer the final decider, that instead the President was the final judge of Constitutionality. Or the President who provoked the constitutional crisis might be impeached, with the trial in the Senate presided over by the Chief Justice.

Any President COULD HAVE tried this. Only Jackson actually didn’t, on one case, and Lincoln, who disregarded habeas corpus in the Civil War. Today, no one can saw what would happen.