|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 02:57 AM EDT |
It gives Congress the power to constitute tribunals. It does
not say it gives Congress the absolute right to constitute
tribunals.
It can declare that CAFC as it was constituted was created
unconstitutionally. For example that a court constructed to
solely deal with a particular aspect of law is
unconstitutional, and that all judges are required to deal
with all aspects of the law.
After all the same section gives Congress the power to tax,
but if they made a tax on Buddhism, SCOTUS would strike it
down as a tax violating the first amendment.
You could for example, argue that CAFC consistently failing
to follow SCOTUS precedents is not a constitutional court.
Especially since it is acting as though it is not inferior,
and that is all that Congress is allowed to create.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 12:35 AM EDT |
If the FC doesn't accept SC decitions as precedent how is it inferior? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|