True, the Constitution describes SCOTUS and its scope of power/authority. But the function of SCOTUS is to interpret/apply the Constitution when making judgements concerning the constitutionality of a law and other matters.
Incorrect courts can rule if the application of a law applied in a particular case is valid thereby setting precedent for lower courts.
Here's how checks and balances are supposed to work in the event of a bad law....
- Congress passes a bad law
- The executive is sworn by oath to uphold the bad law and arrests people
- Affected persons try their case before court who rules the application of said law violated that persons rights and dismisses the case
- Lower courts now rubber stamp dismissals as established precedent
- The people demand the costly law be repealed or at least the executive branch now has cause to not enforce
In no circumstance ever can the court determine that something not directly written is implied or interpreted. If you believe that you believe your subordinates can write your job description.
If you believe that you believe your subordinates can write your job description.
House and Senate can amend the Constitution, not the SCOTUS.
Abortion. Not mentioned in the Constitution so it had to be interpreted by SCOTUS to be found lawful under Bill of Rights via Roe vs Wade. Sketchy because this isn't really a Federal Issue.
Later repealed. Becomes a States Rights issue so each state can have their own law.
(post is archived)