Constitutional Law, important question #2 ,important!?

Question

If a supreme court decicion adversely affects the Constitution or Bill of Rights or the American people's rights(all people) should it require ratification, in Congress etc.esp. as related to pornography, and non-peaceful assembly.(motor-cycle outlaw gangs and such)

I don't suggest that every or even any decision be ratified, but that where life ,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and Constitutional(human rights) accountability are sacrificed for non-constutionally spirited purposes there should be recourse for accountability(particularly where civil rights are concerned)

Answer 1

coragryph: Your answer contradicts itself. Your state that the Supreme Court is GIVEN the authority to interpret the Constitution. Then you admit that the court claimed the authority by itself. Both statements can not be true. That aside, the Supreme Court can and does issue rulings that are unconstitutional by any rational interpretation. The question is, what can be done when they do. There is no clear answer. The best answer I can find is from the Declaration of Independence. The second paragraph states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by there Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, ... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it ...

Answer 2

No i do not agree that it should require ratification because that gives too much power to the legislative branch. If something that the Supreme court decides on does not agree with the public, the public can start legal cases where the supreme court would have to override their past decision (this has happened many times; ex. Brown vs Board of Education overrode Plessy vs Ferguson), or congress could write an amendment to the constitution that would override the supreme court's decision.

Answer 3

Steven F, you are actually incorrect. Coragryph is correct.Coragrphy's answer is wholly consistent and accurate.

The US Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to give itself the final authority on interpreting the Constitution. Thus, their interpretations do not and should not have to be ratified by the other two branches of government. If Congress disagrees with the interpretation, it can pass a Constitutional amendment to change the precedent.

Answer 4

Sometimes a supreme court decision is hugely unpopular. In that case, congress can often act to do something about it.

In the case of Kelo vs. New London, the supreme court upheld a decision that said that a city can use eminent domain to take a private person's land and give it to a developer if that developer's plans will generate more tax revenue.
The decision was wildly unpopular, and in response, Sen. Feingold introduced the 'Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005' to the 109th congress. The bill aimed to restrict the use of eminent domain through Congress's power to wield federal funds.
Unfortunately the bill never passed.

Answer 5

No way. That would completely destroy the separation of powers doctrine in the Constitution. Keep in mind that for a bill to become a law it must be ratified by Congress. Requiring Supreme Court decisions to be ratified would leave the high Court powerless.

Answer 6

Such decisions are made with the constitution at the forefront. The problem is that so many people think the constitution allows them to interfere with the constitutional rights of others and when that happens there are two things that need to be understood.


The constitution was intended and is applied to protect the vast majority.

The actions of the pornographers, biker gangs etc should be controlled by the laws as made under the constitution.

Answer 7

No.

The Supreme Court is given authority to interpret the Constitution, and has the final say on that subject -- if Congress disagrees, Congress (and the states) can amend the Constitution.

Interestingly, the Constitution didn't give the Supreme Court that authority. The Court claimed it by itself in one of the biggest power grabs of the 1700s.

Answer 8

nope