This could be a section of government that i have overlooked or maybe it isn't obvious.

So Supreme Court rulings are equivalent to amendments in the constitution. The Supreme Court can't touch amendments. The amendments are written down in the constitution but Supreme Court rulings are not written down there, so is there a Supreme Court equivalent to the constitution? If anyone can figure out what the hell i am talking about, let me know.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to intrepret the law, including the constitution.

This is the reason a persons personal beliefs matter.
A fundie clearly see's the world different than an Athiest might.
In this case, how they interpret the law will be influenced.


Think of the bible a moment.
Recall how just about every religous leader understands what it says differently,
and subsequently there are maybe a couple hundred different versions of Christianity.

However, there can be only one understanding of the laws intent.
And so we have a supreme court.

The Supreme court is one leg of the US Governmental Triad.
Each intended to support and keep the other two in check.

The Legislative Makes the laws.
The Court Intreprets the laws.
The Executuve is the CEO.

Just disreagard my first question. I was so tired i am not even sure what i was trying to say. That is how these things work, i get tired/drunk/high and i post stupid shit.


And sky, you will be happy to know that i passed college level American Government with about a 92%. I really am not sure where my question came from.

I was pretty sure you were fluent in American political structure,
but figured what the hell!

To the Supreme Court, the Constitution is a work in progress. Since they have the mystical power of interpretation, their version is, in actuality, the only current one. They may show it to you as they feel compelled. Or not.

I think what you are talking about is case history and precident(sp)?

Case history and precedent...but remember, the case cited by the Supreme Court granting corporations civil rights while freeing them from the constraints of civil responsibility actually said the exact opposite of what the American people were told. Case history and precedent actually stated clearly that corporations are not persons, and do not enjoy the rights conferred upon persons by the Constitution. The decision involved railroads in...Ohio! The most corrupt state in the Union, over a hundred years ago and still running strong! The sitting Chief Justice expected railroad backing in a bid for the Presidency. It never materialized.