Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FreeFromContract
More distortion, opinion and misdirection from the quatloos crowd. Thanks lapdog.
|
Oh yes. If you consider quoting the decisions of the courts to be distortion, opinion, and misdirection. The fact of the matter is, they are NOT my opinions. This is what the courts have said. Their decisions and opinions matter. Mine do not. As the Supreme Court put it:
Quote:
|
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
|
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 at 177-178 (1803).
This case is over 200 years old. The concept is hardly new. If you don't like the idea that the courts get to interpret the law and expound upon its meaning, then you need to either try to get the Constitution changed, or find another country to live in.