In response to:
The problem with the Supreme Court is that it decided it was the ultimate legislative authority in 1803, Marbury v. Madison. Compare England with the United State in its ability to make laws. In 1834 Parliament voted to abolish slavery in the British empire, the king signed it into law, and the courts of England enforced the new law. In the United States, Congress could not pass a law against slavery because the Supreme Court had ruled slavery was Constitutional. There had to be a Civil War. So how did England get a government that could abolish slavery?
When William and Mary drove James II from the throne of England, they stopped all judicial interference with Parliament, which had been encouraged by the Stuart kings.
What if we all simply decided to interpret the 5-4 Supreme Court decision to uphold Obamacare as a 9-0 vote to overturn Obamacare?
“Well, that wouldn’t be right!” you say. “That wouldn’t respect the rule of law. People can’t just interpret laws anyway they want.”
Why not? That’s exactly what Chief Justice Roberts and the four liberals justices did in the Obamacare case. They either changed the meaning of Obamacare (Roberts) or changed the meaning of the Constitution (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) to pretend that there is no conflict between Obamacare and the Constitution.
I have a couple of questions: 1)...
The states all signed the Constitution with the clear understanding that slavery was governed by the individual states. Had the Supreme Court decided that Congress could pass a law against it, they would have been doing exactly what the courts today do - ruling however they pleased based on what they decide is right.
Yes, I agree that it took way to long to abolish slavery. But it had to be done by amendment.