notorial dissent wrote:I'll go you one better, part in parcel with their claim about the Supreme Court case is their belief that Marbury vs Madison was decided wrongly. If you're really interested Krisanne Hall will be happy to give you lectures on it.
It always amazes me, although it shouldn't, that these morons, some of whom are actually licensed lawyers, don't seem to realize that, even if the SCOTUS decides a case "wrongly", it makes not difference. The ruling is still the law of the land. In our system, SCOTUS is, in some ways, the definition of right, in terms of the law. You can have a different opinion and believe that the court goofed, but your opinion is not what counts.
Now, if one ardently believes that SCOTUS got it wrong, there are means of changing their ruling. One can work for a constitutional amendment. One can bring another similar case, usually after a change in the court's makeup. While rare, SCOTUS has occasionally revisted a previously decided issue and reversed itself. Sometimes, SCOTUS objection to a law is based on one part of the law and not the whole thing. A new law can be passed that addresses the court's issue. An example of the latter would be the "Stolen Valor Act". The original act was struck down as an impermissable infringement on the individual's 1st Amendment right to free speech. Congress then passed a new version that made it a crime to falsely claim military honors, for profit.
Personally, I think that SCOTUS decided "Citizens United" wrongly. Not the "Corporations are People", but the part where they said that no limits could be placed on corporations political donations.
I also believe that SCOTUS overstepped their authority in the recent case that struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. Even though they had upheld the act a few years previously, they ruled that federal oversight of state's drawing of congressional districts was no longer necessary. In my opinion, SCOTUS can rule that Congress overstepped their authority in making a law, or that the law is anathema to the constitution. Deciding that a law is unneccessary is, to me, a policy decision. Just because a law is unnecessary, it is not unconstitutional. It is up to congress to decide what policies are necessary. It is up to SCOTUS to decide which policies are lawful or constitutional.
Nonetheless, I accept the fact that both these decisions are now the law of the land. Unless and until congress does something to change that, the issue is settled.
I just finished reading one of the Federalist Papers, in which the argument for Judicial review was made. Very interesting. I don't see how our system could function and remain as close to the founders' intent as it has, without judicial review. Without that threat, I don't believe that Congress would be able to refrain from passing all kinds of laws that pander to the political winds of the moment, without regard to their constitutionality.
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!
That being said, I sincerely doubt that half these wannabe's have the knowledge or expertise to operate/maintain one properly or could afford the cost of the assorted small parts (M2's eat small parts and you can burn out a barrel in two belts) or the ammunition at $500 per box milsurp.