On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
Yes. Indeed, it is the province of the Courts to interpret the Constitution (according to some, not including Mr. Choate),
Where? It says "...under this Constitution...". -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article III. Section. 1. [SSZ: text deleted] Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. [SSZ: Text deleted]
political appointees. The very fact that we ask the executive branch these questions is pause for thought. I was trying to uncover any pragmatic distinction between a "political view" versus an opinion on the mechanics of constitutional interpretation. I raised more questions than I answered.
____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------