Round 4: Ben Carson questions whether the president is bound by the supreme court - Polidicks

[quote]Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson says it's time to re-evaluate the Supreme Court's role -- all the way back to the court's first big decision in 1803. "It is an open question. It needs to be discussed," Carson said. Host Chris Wallace told Carson that the high court's authority to review laws' constitutionality has been in place since the 1803 decision in the case Marbury v. Madison. "And I have said this is an area that we need to discuss, we need to get into a discussion of this because it has changed from the original intent," Carson said. When Wallace pressed Carson again, Carson said: "The way our Constitution is set up, the president or the executive branch is obligated to carry out the laws of the land. The laws of the land, according to our Constitution, are provided by the legislative branch. The laws of the land are not provided by the judiciary."[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/10/politics/ben-carson-supreme-court-election-2016/[/url] so does this guy really not have a good campaign manager or any clue about the US government, i get that republicans have been against courts legislating from the bench, but they only seem to care about this when they're not winning in the courts

Oh, it's "them radical judges" time again. I guess the repeal of DOMA and the gay marriage decisions have pissed him off, but he was perfectly fine with the Citizens United decision, right.

In this day and age, I'm rather grateful that people who aren't of the Supreme Court don't have the authority to decide what is and isn't constitutional.

Oh come on, if Obama said this, people would take it as proof that he's a tyrant.

[quote]When Wallace pressed Carson again, Carson said: "The way our Constitution is set up, the president or the executive branch is obligated to carry out the laws of the land. The laws of the land, according to our Constitution, are provided by the legislative branch. The laws of the land are not provided by the judiciary."[/quote] In a common law legal system, which the United States uses, judges create law through case law. You don't even need to study first year law to know this. Also the 'laws of the land' are interpreted by the judiciary, and the executive can only act within the interpretation of those laws.

[quote]Host Chris Wallace told Carson that the high court's authority to review laws' constitutionality has been in place [B]since the 1803[/B] decision in the case Marbury v. Madison. "And I have said this is an area that we need to discuss, we need to get into a discussion of this because it has [B]changed from the original intent[/B]," Carson said. [/quote] Does this moron not realize that the original founding fathers were still alive and running the country in 1803 for this "original intent" to keep going?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47713445]Does this moron not realize that the original founding fathers were still alive and running the country in 1803 for this "original intent" to keep going?[/QUOTE] well the dozens of guys who wrote the constitution anyways, many of them were still very well alive at that time and the public discourse was still very fresh

To be completely fair the supreme court does have disproportionate power compared to the other two legislative branches.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;47713753]To be completely fair the supreme court does have disproportionate power compared to the other two legislative branches.[/QUOTE] It has exactly as much power as any common law judiciary at the highest level has.