Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "MSNBC"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nope -- it doesn't work that way. A little history illustrates:
Massachusetts-Bay tried twice to adopt a state constitution, the first effort being in 1777. The proposed constitution, as had been the fact with all the other state constitutions already adopted, was written and submitted for ratification by the General Court -- the state legislature. But opposition asked this crucial question:
Does that mean that the state legislature could amend, or even repeal the constitution, at its own whim? That question was decisive, and that effort was defeated. The answer to that question, the solution, was that the General Court established -- the first in history -- a constitutional convention, to which delegates were appointed, to draft a constitution. That constitution was submitted for ratification and was ratified in 1780.
The DIFFERENCE is the ratified constitution not only established separation of powers in three co-equal branches -- legislative, executive, and judicial -- but also placed ALL THREE, including the General Court, UNDER the constitution.
So, no: an unconstitutional decision -- which the "immunity" decision is -- does not instead render the Constitution unconstitutional: the Supreme Court is UNDER the Constitution, not ABOVE or "instead of" the Constitution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1