The constitution clearly doesn’t guarantee you an answer from the courts to redress every grievance. You might get a hearing to determine whether or not you have a basis to receive a trial, but that trial isn’t guaranteed.
Throwing out or modifying laws is absolutely a legislative action. It is formally recognized as such in many countries. That has not lead to the trampling of constitutions.
It’s not just Congress that can abuse their power. We have seen multiple judicial rulings in the last decade that are based on fraudulent constitutional interpretation.
The constitutional guarantee is to petition the government for redress of grievances. This bill purports to prohibit such petitions, by prohibiting any state court from hearing them.
Throwing out or modifying laws is absolutely a legislative action.
Not when Congress lacks the power to enact the purported “laws” in the first place. Which is what is alleged in every case of judicial review.
It’s not just Congress that can abuse their power.
Agreed. I’ve never claimed otherwise. In a previous comment, I specifically described an abusive court, as well as some of the constitutional provisions for reigning in such a court.
The constitution clearly doesn’t guarantee you an answer from the courts to redress every grievance. You might get a hearing to determine whether or not you have a basis to receive a trial, but that trial isn’t guaranteed.
Throwing out or modifying laws is absolutely a legislative action. It is formally recognized as such in many countries. That has not lead to the trampling of constitutions.
It’s not just Congress that can abuse their power. We have seen multiple judicial rulings in the last decade that are based on fraudulent constitutional interpretation.
The constitutional guarantee is to petition the government for redress of grievances. This bill purports to prohibit such petitions, by prohibiting any state court from hearing them.
Not when Congress lacks the power to enact the purported “laws” in the first place. Which is what is alleged in every case of judicial review.
Agreed. I’ve never claimed otherwise. In a previous comment, I specifically described an abusive court, as well as some of the constitutional provisions for reigning in such a court.