[quote=spdrun]I know about the 1967 decision, in fact, it’s a very personal issue to me.
[/quote]
similar over here, though probably not the same.
[quote=spdrun]
A work colleague got off about how Supreme Court shouldn’t make law, and I gave him a bit of a speech recently.[/quote]
I actually tend to agree with the Supreme Court not being able to make laws. It disturbs the balance of power between the branches of government. The three branches of government would no longer be equal in power. Supreme Court would then contain the power of both President and Congress
(Legislative and Executive Branches). However the Supreme Court can determine what is NOT law or violates a higher law – namely Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendments.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Key words being “All persons born or naturalized” and “equal protection”. For a while, States and others tried to get around this by considering anyone who was not white, as a non-person. It is an awkward twist to try to attempt on law.
