Ruling that something is true does not make it true
That is EXACTLY what it means.
The case I mentioned before form 1803... Maybury v. Madison, is what established the Supreme Court's role as interrupting the Constitution.
That means what ever they ruling is legal reality. Whther it is good or bad, it is legal reality.
Since the legal system is based on the conpet of precident, especially when applied to the highest sourt in teh land.
Quote: Read that paragraph with an honest eye toward identifying what the Framers had in mind, and you'll conclude they were intent on protecting American citizens from illegal search and seizure on the part of their government. Nothing more. Which makes sense, because the main fear at the time of ratification was federal government overreach.
What the framers wanted is immaterial, because.. AGAIN... Marbury v. Madison stated the Supreme Court job was to interrupt the Constitution.
The right to privacy was first coined in 1965, and has been used in many Supreme Court Rulings..in including Loving v. Virginia.
BEFORE you mention the framers again... that case was in 1803. The "Madison" in the case is James Madison, a then future president, and framer of the contribution.
Despite the contribution not mentioning that as the Supreme Court's job, he and all the other framers did not try to reverse that as the role of the Court.
So... they clearly had no problem with the Supreme Court being in charge of interpretation aka deciding meaning of... the constitution. Also, adding elements to the Federal government not specifically stated.
I think only the legal precedent matters because, you know... time moves forward, but if you need the Framers, Whatever they think of the ruling, they supported this power of the court
By the way, the constitutional does not mention about the court at all.
Also, since Right to Privacy was established by the Court in 1965, and almost 60 years later no one has ever stated a desire to overturn it, it is perfectly fair to use as legal precedent.
By the Way, since you seem to be so keen on the framers, I assume you are against the US having a standing Army. The COntiution actually spells put that the US is not supposed to raise anarmy for more than two years.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Seems to me we have had a standing army for WAY more than two years.
Quote: And make no mistake: the federal government will not surrender its power to conscript military troops at will.
Yeah, the Warren Court already ruled that the US had that right... the same court that ruled on right to privacy.