Fun fact, the Constitution doesn’t actually say that the US Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Constitution. That power was granted to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court in their decision on Marbury v. Madison (1803).
A classic example of how there’s actually no such thing as laws or rules in any objective sense, it’s just a bunch of people collectively agreeing to go along with stuff.
They ruled on the interpretation of the law. Congress can pass laws to avoid different interpretations as long as they aren’t unconstitutional (which causes a problem if you have a very conservative understanding of the constitution).
the supreme court airbud rule: there’s no rule against it, yet. The only thing the constitution says is that there’s a supreme court and they can’t be defunded or fired easily. It doesn’t say what they do or how they do it. Congress could easily pass a law stripping the supreme court of powers or even throwing endless wrenches in the process.
How did they overturn the other laws then?
Fun fact, the Constitution doesn’t actually say that the US Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Constitution. That power was granted to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court in their decision on Marbury v. Madison (1803).
A classic example of how there’s actually no such thing as laws or rules in any objective sense, it’s just a bunch of people collectively agreeing to go along with stuff.
They ruled on the interpretation of the law. Congress can pass laws to avoid different interpretations as long as they aren’t unconstitutional (which causes a problem if you have a very conservative understanding of the constitution).
the supreme court airbud rule: there’s no rule against it, yet. The only thing the constitution says is that there’s a supreme court and they can’t be defunded or fired easily. It doesn’t say what they do or how they do it. Congress could easily pass a law stripping the supreme court of powers or even throwing endless wrenches in the process.