This wouldn't be the first time the Supreme Court would be wrong. The term "natural-born citizen" was a term of art in the international law of the time. It had nothing to do with where one was born, but had everything to do with the requirement that one's parents had to be U.S. citizens. The Constitution must be understood in terms of its original language.
And, as I said, they have been famously wrong in the past. If they decree that 2 + 2 = 5 are you going to accept it? What is important is the truth, and that needs to be understood and argued at all times.
Only over the questions that come before them, but they have no power to dictate law or otherwise function as an oligarchy. Are you asking the question seriously, or are you just being argumentative? Do you want to bow your head and surrender your firearms if the Supreme Court concluded that the signers only mean to refer to flintlock weapons? (You are aware that the Congress can direct how the Supreme Court should decide cases? And that the Executive, like President Jackson, can say "That's your verdict. Enforce it, if you can.")
This wouldn't be the first time the Supreme Court would be wrong. The term "natural-born citizen" was a term of art in the international law of the time. It had nothing to do with where one was born, but had everything to do with the requirement that one's parents had to be U.S. citizens. The Constitution must be understood in terms of its original language.
The interpretation of the constitution is assigned to the supreme court, though.
And, as I said, they have been famously wrong in the past. If they decree that 2 + 2 = 5 are you going to accept it? What is important is the truth, and that needs to be understood and argued at all times.
If we pick and choose what the SC says is valid and not, then why do they hold any power at all?
Only over the questions that come before them, but they have no power to dictate law or otherwise function as an oligarchy. Are you asking the question seriously, or are you just being argumentative? Do you want to bow your head and surrender your firearms if the Supreme Court concluded that the signers only mean to refer to flintlock weapons? (You are aware that the Congress can direct how the Supreme Court should decide cases? And that the Executive, like President Jackson, can say "That's your verdict. Enforce it, if you can.")