• FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Ok, if a law contradicts the Constitution then should a judge follow the law or the Constitution?

    • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The constitution in the US, like most countries, doesn’t grant a judiciary ultimate power over interpreting its laws.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        You didn’t answer the question.

        If a law contradicts the Constitution, should a judge follow the law or the Constitution?

        If it helps, you may assume the law explicitly states that the judge should definitely follow the law, and ignore the Constitution. Let’s take the previous example of a new law by Congress:

        Henceforth Congress can abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and this law must be obeyed by judges regardless of what the First Amendment says

        Ok, should a judge follow that or the First Amendment?

        • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The judge will make a judgment that reflects their ideology. Whether that overrides the judgment of the people, congress, or another leader, is a political tug of war. One that the US constitution says nothing about.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Ok, yeah, judges abuse their power like everyone else.

            The question is, what is a judge supposed to do if a law contradicts the Constitution?

            If your answer is that the judge is supposed to follow the Constitution, even if it requires ignoring a new law, then you have just re-invented judicial review.