Why Supreme Court Opinions Are Not The “Law Of The Land” & How To Put Federal Judges In Their Place

[rangerrebew]

Why Supreme Court Opinions Are Not The “Law Of The Land” & How To Put Federal Judges In Their Place

Why does everybody say, as we heard during the Kavanagh confirmation hearings, that Roe v. Wade is “the Law of the Land”?  Because Americans have been conditioned to believe that the Supreme Court is superior to our Constitution; that their opinions about our Constitution are “law”, and we are bound by them unless and until they issue new opinions which release us from their previous opinions.
Publius Huldah — November 16, 2018


Central to the silly arguments made by the “Convention of States Project” (COSP) is their claim that 200 years of Supreme Court opinions have increased the powers of the federal government (as well as legalized practices such as abortion); that all these opinions are “the Law of the Land”; and we need an Article V convention so we can get amendments to the Constitution which take away all these powers the Supreme Court gave the federal government.

But the text of Article V contradicts COSP’s claim.  Article V shows that our Constitution can be amended only when three fourths of the States ratify proposed amendments. The Supreme Court has no power to amend our Constitution.  And it’s impossible for an amendment to take away powers our Constitution doesn’t grant.

https://freedomoutpost.com/why-supreme-court-opinions-are-not-the-law-of-the-land-how-to-put-federal-judges-in-their-place/

[RetBobbyMI]

So what’s their point?  It states: “It may not annul the superior authority of the States which created the Judicial Branch when they ratified the Constitution”. But it has. Think Roberts opinion on Obamacare as one example.

The article tries to use the theoretical argument, but looses on reality.

[Bigun]

So what’s their point?  It states: “It may not annul the superior authority of the States which created the Judicial Branch when they ratified the Constitution”. But it has. Think Roberts opinion on Obamacare as one example.

The article tries to use the theoretical argument, but looses on reality.

Really?  When was the last time anyone actually tested?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The attorneys which populate this site will invariably argue the article is nonsense, and reality is what the Supreme Court says it is, not the Constitution.

They also argue that ONLY the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution, effectively making our elected Congress and Executive cede all authority to 5 unelected black robed persons appointed for life.