LAWS


Sgt Fluffy said...

The Constitution is a set of rules, it is meant to be strict, though the Foundin Fathers did put in the provision for the Constitution to be Ammended, but once the Constitution has been ammended, that Ammendemnt becomes as rigid as the original document. Also, the ammendments can be repealed as was the case of the 18th or (Prohibition Act), but until that happens, the Ammendment is just as strong as the Constitution is and is not subject to interpretation beyond its literal meaning. This is were people get tripped up because Judges have taken it upon themselvs to look for a hidden meaning in the rights set forth in the Constitution and its Ammendments. The Constitution does not Live, Breath, dance around, take up arms or anything. It is a set of instructions as to how this country is governed and when you ammend it, it takes either 2/3 of both houses and then sent to the states or a Constitutional convention. That way everyone is Damn sure that the change is necessary. That is the way to ammend it, not some judge turned legislator forcing that change upon us denying us a vote (Abortion, Immenent Domain) I can go on and on. That is why a lot of the things lately have been so controversial, we the people do not have a say in what goes on. The judges in effect deny the people and states the right to vote, thus forcing their beliefs on us without going through the legislative process. Therin lies the Living Breathing documnet belief. Tada.....Calss is over, go forth and spread the knowledge, because knowledge is power.

Section 4 of Article 1 gives the states power over the conduct of federal elections but permits the Congress to alter such regulations at any time. In 1842 the Congress imposed the district system on the United States. In 1962 the Supreme Court dealt with proper apportionment of election districts and in its decision in Baker v. Carr allowed voters to go into a federal court to force equitable representation in a state legislature. This decision was, however, based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Later, the court ruled (1964) that state legislative apportionment must reflect the one-person one-vote principle.

The courts re-enforced the "one-person-one-vote rule.

Section 8 of Article 1 lists the enumerated powers of the Congress. The clause of this section, the "commerce clause," which grants the Congress the right to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States," has, in the 20th cent., been used as a strong argument for the expansion of government power. Since the historic case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the commerce clause has been the battleground over which much of the struggle for and against increased federal regulation of private enterprise has been fought. Until the late 1930s Congress exercised its powers under the clause solely with reference to transportation. But after a series of dramatic reversals by the Supreme Court, Congress began to enter areas that had previously been controlled only by the states. The commerce clause is now the source of important peacetime powers of the national government and an important basis for the judicial review of state actions.

The case of Gibbons v. Ogden was about steemboats operating between NY and NJ. The state of NY gave license, (if you will) to Ogden to be the sole steamboat company to operate between the two states. Gibbons sued and it went to the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice John Marshall stated that NY had over stepped their bounds. Only Congress can regulate commerce between two states, not the states themselves.

So, again I have shown where, yes the Constitution is the law of the land, cases that appear before the Supreme Court can have effects that change the Constitution.