if a court is viewing a case and they see something unconstitutional, they can therefore get rid of the law...right... the the executive branch decides if they want to listen to them?

at least that's what im thinking.. is that phrasing correct?

1/26/2006 1:12:09 PM

lol um................WHAT

1/26/2006 1:38:18 PM

it was a question on the quiz seeing if im kinda right or totally worng.

1/26/2006 1:47:18 PM

marbury v. madison?

[Edited on January 26, 2006 at 2:51 PM. Reason : oh, and checks and balances.]

1/26/2006 2:50:48 PM

woot put that in thx (well chex and balances that is)

1/26/2006 5:16:04 PM

If a law is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the other branches of government do not get to decide whether or not they "want to listen." If the law is unconstitutional, it has no effect.

1/26/2006 11:02:37 PM

this is on a bit different level from the "how do i get out of my appartment lease" threads.

1/26/2006 11:23:51 PM

Quote :

"if a court is viewing a case and they see something unconstitutional, they can therefore get rid of the law...right... the the executive branch decides if they want to listen to them? "

if anything the executive branch could be in charge of enforcing changes brought about by the declared unconstitutionality of a law. they could decide what to do about it. there's a bit of flex room here though so if the executive branch really wanted to they could possibly work policies around the new situation but I'm guessing that blatant disregard for a supreme court ruling isn't something a president or governor wants to deal with so they'll probably toe the line for the most part.

good example of this is the forced desegregation of southern schools. to enforce this, the executive branch called in national guardsmen to see to it the kids got to school. courts made the ruling, governors or president (can't remember which) called in the guard. had they wanted to keep the schools segregated they might have gone without the national guard and let the mobs keep the kids out. just an example

[Edited on January 27, 2006 at 1:11 AM. Reason : ...]

1/27/2006 1:07:48 AM

I think that in most cases, technically the executive has the final word. For example, take the Ten Commandments display. Let's say a court orders the Commandments removed, but you have a stubborn governor who just says "No." The court would try to enforce its order, using federal troops if necessary, but then what if the President (Commander in Chief) says "No, we're not going to enforce that order." There's pretty much nothing else the court can do - unless one of these tired old judges wants to hobble over and try to remove it.

On the other hand, if there is a criminal law that the courts find unconstitutional, they have the last word. They can just refuse to convict people under the law, or refuse to uphold convictions.

It is a balance.

1/27/2006 4:24:25 AM