If you could undo a Supreme Court decision, which would it be and why?

MSG Pat Colby, GySgt John Olson Mind you, I haven't gone into the weeds of Wickard v Filburn (yet) but isn't regulating commerce IAW Art I, Section VIII of the constitution?

GySgt John Olson - You nailed it John!

Capt Gregory Prickett - judicial review, as I understand it, refers to the interpretation and review of law rather than constitution. I absolutely believe that the founding fathers thought SCOTUS should interpret law. However, what they do instead is interpret constitution in a very revisionist manner. The text of the constitution is very clear when observed through the scope of historical context and careful word selection through the document. I believe the founding fathers viewed the constitution as concise and easily understandable - and thus free from the need for constant interpretation. The law must be interpreted against the standard set by the constitution - not constitution must be reinterpreted to fit laws, Sir.

MAJ (Verify To See) - Sir, I'm saying the sheer number alone makes true oversight and transparency impossible. On paper, they do. In practice, though, the number of administrative arms makes it easy to act autonomously without worry of executive intrusion.

Considering 18 enumerated powers and a subsequent article stating specifically that any powers not granted the federal government be relegated to the state, the number of agencies is certainly questionably constitutional at very best.

CPT (Join to see) - I disagree. Once the Legislature passes a law, SCOTUS does not stand in the public square and say "that's unconstitutional". It is only when parties disagree on the meaning of the application of a certain law, and bring it to the SCOTUS through the lower courts, that the SCOTUS then makes a ruling. Depending on their ruling, an enacted law may be INVALIDATED, but that's only because the ruling will be used as judicial precedent.

MAJ Carl Ballinger - Interesting response.

I’ve provided constitutional references to back ALL of my positions. Anyone who will have read through these posting of yours and mine would clearly see that, though I suspect they will have gotten bored by now.

In spite of the all the Constitutional references that I have provided, you have provided none. Just because you say a thing is unconstitutional (just like the court did), does NOT make it so without providing the very tenant within the Constitution that it violates, which you have not!

Additionally, you've had to totally ignore ALL the other evidence that I have provided in order to maintain your position. Never once did you provide evidence which invalidated anything that I provided. So typical.

What’s most interesting, is that your response sounds exactly like what the Supreme Court is constantly doing. The position that you take is an extra-constitutional position which has no root or foundation within the Constitution. This is exactly what the court has done in stating that it was unconstitutional, without ever demonstrating the Constitutional tenant that it violates. ALL rhetoric with no evidence. Which is exactly what took place in Roe v. Wade and which is exactly what took place in Butler v. U.S., which is the heading to the post that created this conversation.

Which, interestingly, what most people are complaining about in their posted response to the initial question, which started this whole conversation in the first place.

You state: "You reject the fact that SCOTUS is bound by Roe v. Wade,"

You are ABSOLUTELY right about that one. I am NOT a person who subscribes to "precedent law." I believe this hypocritical and unconstitutional form of creating law is abhorrent to the Constitution. Are you hoping for a Supreme Court position? Is that what this is all about?

AND the legislature is NOT bound by it. They are the ones who are officially responsible for making the law. And you and I both know, the either the legislature by law or the courts by decision could immediately reverse the Roe v. Wade decision.

Unlike you, I have provided chapter and verse, as well as quoting those in positions of authority. You’ve yet to demonstrate that ANYTHING that I have posited is contrary to the constitution by providing a direct reference to the portion that it violates.

Bottom line is that contrary to your opinion, my position is absolutely based on Constitution, and you have provided NO CONSTITUTIONAL basis for your position.

Too funny!! I didn't realize I was dealing with a comic.

Capt Gregory Prickett - Just to be clear... I'm not giving your response a thumbs up because you agree with him on this.... ;-)
However, could you clarify what you mean by "current status of the law?"

Capt Gregory Prickett - FINALLY, an INTELLIGENT conversation.

THANK YOU!!

(I will provide another posting that directly relates to the topic at hand, but I just had to get the below off my chest)

The problem with the former conversation was that the argument of the former conversant relied solely upon his own brilliance to be the source of evidence. His point was always, it is true because I said it was true; never once providing any substantive evidence upon which to support the case outside his own brilliance.

The problem with that particular reliance is that the only recourse for a disagreeing point is to attempt to diminish the brilliance of the person presenting an opposing view. I have seen it in other discussions that have taken place within this forum.

Without regard to the truth/validity of any persons’ particular brilliance, this form of defending one’s position never really goes beyond the elementary school playground tactic of “My dad can beat up your dad.”, thereby, establishing that one as the only arbiter of the truth here. This is always the tactic of a bully --> never providing any substance beyond that of the force of will over another.

Some of us know what it is like to have been in school and have a teacher to push some particular point down our throats, having the superior position to do so. This air of superiority caused me much grief in school and in the military. Those who consider themselves to be in superior positions do not cotton well to those whom they regard as inferior to stand in opposition to their position, regardless of what that may be. Problematically, I’ve got a mind that questions everything that is presented to me and to the chagrin of others, if it smells like a rat (to me), I typically have a mind to say so. Sadly, most never rise to answer the question with a substantive answer, only to state (as my mother frequently did), “because I said so.” Having said that, mom was mostly right. She just mostly never really convinced me, because she [rarely] provided a substantive reason WHY she said it.

It was said of me, “This whole time you've been coming to terms with the mechanics of the Texas law that was overturned,” and this part is true. I DO MY OWN RESEARCH, as I always do. Further it was said, “one you defended even though you didn't understand it.” This statement reminds me of the argument the Serpent used in the Garden of Eden; it had a ring of truth without real substance. It is true that I may not have fully understood it in the beginning. HOWEVER, after my own research and what little (if any) evidence was actually presented, I was NOT convinced to change my original position.

I don’t mind to be proven wrong or corrected, as I have adjusted many of my solidly held positions over the years. However, I have yet to be confronted with compelling evidence that in this particular case I am wrong.

FURTHER, the more research that I do into the various issues presented in the case, I am more convinced of the correctness of my original assumption.

Just as a bully does, the only tact taken is belittlement instead of presenting an intellectual conversation by presenting evidence to back the proposed position.

If your evidence is weak or lacks substance and your only response is “I told [explained to] you”, you can take your “I told you” and pound it into where “the sun doesn’t shine and the grass doesn’t grow.”

As a parting comment, I leave with this

https://youtu.be/A8yjNbcKkNY