Repeating (which is all you ever do) "SCOTUS is not the constitution" is of no relevance. The constitution itself grants SCOTUS the power of judicial review, by which it has the authority to determine the meaning of the constitution and how it can (and cannot) be applied. Your attempt to portray yourself as desirous of a govt that adheres to the constitution is betrayed by the ease with which you ignore Art III.
WRT UVVA, it matters not what it says about homo sapiens. The constitution only protects "persons" and ZEF's are not persons
SCOTUS does not need to be a legislative body in order to shape the law. It has all judicial powers, which includes the authority to determine the meaning and intent of the constitution.
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal ... - Jonathan Elliot, James Madison - Google Books
Ha ha ha, too funny....It is hardly all I ever do,
but it is something I do have to keep doing, as you keep avoiding acceptance of reality, this one in particular. SCOTUS, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IS NOT NOW AND NEVER WILL BE THE CONSTITUTION. SCOTUS can
ONLY make decisions about the Constitutionality of a current law and judge its application, they are simply not allowed to create law... that son, is what the Constitution, as quoted earlier, states.
Please quote from Article III where, as you say its says, that the judicial branch create...or even shape... law. I have asked this before... numerous times. Your next post will say you have already proven that it does... there is that difficulty dealing with reality thing again, inconveniently raising its ugly head, huh? Just cannot accept that you are dead wrong, eh? Accept it, move on, learn something.
So I actually use the Constitution, you do not, whats new? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
As to relevance? The one, the Constitution, is a written document, which are the rules by which we are governed. Rules for governing, not absolutely permanent rules, but ones that are pretty well set, that can only be amended in a couple of ways...that way the game is fair, the rules known and in continuance. If not amended, whatever law, or action, is required to be within the parameters of that written framework of governing.
Now the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES are 9 living persons [ who were once, themselves, children in utero ] who are constantly growing, changing, getting smarter or less smart, constantly aging and will one day no longer be with us, while the Constitution lives on, changing very little with age... so not even close to being similar as the Constitution does not have to follow the Court, the Court, and this is absolutely mandatory,
must follow the Constitution. That you cannot fathom the difference is comical.
Regarding the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which you say is about mothers, what a laugh again, as you are now avoiding that you adamantly stated the UVVA was about crimes towards a mother. You also have not answered the question, are you or are you not a member of the species homo sapiens? Should not be that difficult of a question, altho some might question the answer.
They, the Supreme Court, cannot shape [ that would be changing] the Constitution and thus the laws, they
can do, are allowed to do, what the current justices have done in the recent, Roberts, Court and that is to strike down a law and make recommendations, should they care to, on what might be needed to make the law Constitutional. They have no right to just make up a new law of the land.
And your google books link is not to the actual Constitution, its to a book,
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. This book is
NOT the Constitution, as noted by its title, it was written after the Constitution was drafted and describes the debates about and leading to ultimate ratification.
Please show me in the actual Constitution where it gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
Marbury vs Madison established the power of judicial review... the power of judicial review is nowhere in the Constitution, just like separation of Church and State is nowhere in the Constitution. Nobody that I know of, especially those knowledgeable on the subject, disputes this FACT. Anybody else having a problem seeing this?
