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.")
That's literally what they were created to do by the constitution.
I am very much asking this questions seriously. I'm not saying that the SC is infallible, but what evidence shows that what they're saying here is wrong? You say it was a term in international law at the time, but is it confirmed that's what is meant here?
No, the Constitution created the Supreme Court to try cases arising either as appeals or as challenges to the Constitution. They get to make their decisions. But Congress can circumscribe the decisions they can make, and the Court has no power of enforcement. The Court was not created to legislate from the bench, although they have been doing so by the allowance of a corrupt legislature and executive. (For example of a wrong decision, the Dred Scott case was decided in violation of the language of the Constitution.)
The "evidence" is the plain language of the Constitution AND the legal terminology of the time. Or do you believe in an "evolving" Constitution that tracks what the popular fads are in the meaning of words?
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.")
That's literally what they were created to do by the constitution.
I am very much asking this questions seriously. I'm not saying that the SC is infallible, but what evidence shows that what they're saying here is wrong? You say it was a term in international law at the time, but is it confirmed that's what is meant here?
No, the Constitution created the Supreme Court to try cases arising either as appeals or as challenges to the Constitution. They get to make their decisions. But Congress can circumscribe the decisions they can make, and the Court has no power of enforcement. The Court was not created to legislate from the bench, although they have been doing so by the allowance of a corrupt legislature and executive. (For example of a wrong decision, the Dred Scott case was decided in violation of the language of the Constitution.)
The "evidence" is the plain language of the Constitution AND the legal terminology of the time. Or do you believe in an "evolving" Constitution that tracks what the popular fads are in the meaning of words?