Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
You two are correct the gov't is meant to adhere to the Constitution I shouldnt have said that. What I was trying to do was point out the difference between different states and judicial jurisdiction and the impractically of enforcing one version of interpretation of the Constitution throughout the country.
This is also incorrect, given that all inferior courts are bound by the decisions of the supreme court and th eprecedents genererated therein.

And I've pointed out that the Constitution itself defines its interpreter as the SCOTUS
This is patently flalse - the Constitution grants no power of judicial review -- the court ave itself that power.

But many of you want to ignore precedent and ignore the established interpretation of the Constitution...
Giiven that the court can and does overturn its own decsions indicates that precedent can be challenged, and so a lack of supporting precedent, in and of itself, isnt indicative of an 'incorrect' position.

You instead what to force what you believe is the correct interpretation upon the rest of the country....
And you do the same thing...

without a full understanding of how to read law and precedent,
Speak for yourself.