SCOTUS Decisions and Constitutionality of Passed "Laws"Submitted by Zachnap Ω™ on Sat, 06/30/2012 - 20:32
I continue to run into a severe misunderstanding of our Constitution and its impact on our "laws" at the Federal level. Both Ron Paul and Rand Paul are incorrect on this issue. That issue is the ability of the SC to determine the Constitutionality of laws. The prevailing wisdom is that SCOTUS has constitutional authority to "interpret" meaning of the Constitution through court decisions. According to this argument, SCOTUS is able to take, for example, Obamacare and declare it Constitutional even though it clearly is inconsistent with the powers under Art. 1, Sec. 8. Accordingly, we are somehow required to follow such rulings even though it is clearly not Constitutional and until either SCOTUS reverses its decision or Congress passes a new law, we must abide. Let me say this very carefully: THIS. IS. TOTAL. BULL-SHIT! It is a complete lie. SCOTUS has no such power to declare unconstitutional laws constitutional under any circumstance. They have no power to decide what the Constitution says and doesn't say - we already know what it says. I have heard Rand Paul state that once a law is passed, it becomes the law until it is challenged in the courts - BULL SHIT! Any law which is repugnant to the Constitution is VOID! It is invalid from the time of its passing and not from the time the court rules on it.
All of the branches of government are to "overturn" unconstitutional law and they never have to be obeyed under any circumstance.
Now, I will simply refer you to the two articles below written by a retired lawyer going by the name "Publius Huldah" to explain precisely why what I said is correct and evidenced in the Constitution and Federalist Papers.