• sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 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
      4 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
        ·
        4 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
          4 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.