This topic is the subject of more than several books and encyclopedia-length articles and is far too lengthy to be addressed or handled on this venue.
Chat with our AI personalities
In Furman vs. Georgia the court ruled that all existing death penalty laws violated the constitution.
The provision that provides flexibility to the U.S.Constitution is Article 5, which established procedures for proposing and ratifying amendments to the Constitution. Article 3 established the Supreme Court and the power of judicial review. It does not grant the Court the power to interpret the Constitution. However, in the 1803 case Marbury vs. Madison the Supreme Court determined that it had the right to interpret the Constitution, thus lending flexibility to the Constitution. -- Contributed by Ray Kovach, Chicago, IL
No, EVERY court is required by Oath to the US Constitution (taken by the judges, US Constitution Article 6) to pass judgment upon any law contrary to the constitution that is brought before it, whether challenged or not. And failure, or refusal of that action, is a crime (Treason: violation of oath of office); quoting Marbury vs Madison (1803) "To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime ... if they [judges] were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!"
Yes, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1987 (Edwards vs. Aguillard), creationism cannot be taught in public schools as doing so would violate the US constitution.
The strict constructionists wants to follow the Constitution down to the letter, in accordance with what the founding meant the terms to mean. The loose constructionists want to incorporate changes to society into the interpretation of the Constitution.