From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:50:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.142847.19633@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI
(Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

> In article <1992Oct3.085046.23065@newstand.syr.edu>, greeny@top
> (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
> >Rather, one should fell completely free to cite SC interpretation as *the*
> >meaning of the Constitution.
> 
> I am saying that one shouldn't and the SC doesn't have a monopoly to
> interpret the Constitution since it isn't given such a monopoly in the
> U.S. Constitution.

    "You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
     constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and
     one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy....
     The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         Thomas Jefferson, 1820.

    Thomas Jefferson, 1789:  "The new Constitution has secured these
    [individual rights] in the Executive and Legislative departments:
    but not in the Judiciary.  It should have established trials by
    the people themselves, that is to say, by jury."

    "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by
     which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        - Thomas Jefferson

     As the courts are generally the last in making the decision
     [on laws], it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to
     execute a law, to stamp it with its final character.  This makes
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^
     the Judiciary dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     was never intended, and can never be proper.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         James Madison, 1788.

It looks like Jefferson and Madison disagree with Greeny.  (there are
others, if these aren't enough... ;-)

    "If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed
     power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence ... and the
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     courts must abide by that decision."
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      - US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006

I assume this means a Grand Jury could overrule the supreme Court?...
(on Constitutional issues, too!)

> >Where an individual disagrees with the SC as to the "proper" interpretation

But Madison (a proponet of a strong central government) says that this
is not "proper"!

BTW, supreme is not capitalized, only Court is capitalized.  The
capitalization rules look much like modern German.  I suspect that
a reference to God (pick your god of choice) would be referred to
as a "Supreme Being", while the SC is the "supreme Court".  I'm sure that
they would *like to be* the "SUPREME COURT", however....  (god-like in
origin, and all that... ;-)

> >of the document, he or she should feel free to say "According to the SC..."

This is reasonable, however.

> >And where one provides one's *own* interpretation, it should be prefaced
> >with something to the effect of "IMHO..."
> 
> Best would be to use to use both, but to make a point it is IMHO
> sufficient to say "The Supreme Court says that censoring obscenity is
> constitutional, while the Constitution itself doesn't prohibit
> obscenity and thus the prohibition on obscenity is unconstitutional".

I like your notation better, Jyrki.  It's certainly reasonable for a
Citizen to state, expound, or complain that the Federal government is
passing laws in excess of their Constitutional powers.  The supreme
Court's decisions are no more valid than mine.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser