What would/should the Supreme Court do if confronted with an Act of Congress that attempted to prevent the...?
955036
Well, this depends on several issues.\n\n1.) If the Act of Congress attempts to modify a clause from Article III Sec. 2 of the Constitution (which gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over certain situations), then the Supreme Court can (and probably will) find the act unconstitutional and ignore it.\n\n2.) If the Act of Congress is constitutionally removing jurisdiction from the Court, then the Court may not make a decision - Jurisdiction is required for the Court to make a binding decision. They would then dismiss the case, finding that they do not have jurisdiction to decide it.
411637
Not unless it involved a court action.
802114
You can appeal TO the Supreme Court, but you cannot appeal the final determination of the Supreme Court.  The only thing to do then is get Congress to change the law.
90001
seperation of powers.  they tried to make a balence between the presidency and congress to guarantee that the president wouln't become a king and the people could get him out if he tried\n  or think of congress as the other president, nothing will get done without both powers
262398
The Supreme Court would have performed the same duties as outlined in the constitution in the 1920's as it always had been performing.  Other than the fact that we had prohibition during the 1920's there is nothing in our history that would have changed their function.
677764
The doctrine that you're speaking of actually says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  The US Supreme Court expanded on that, realizing that the doctrine in the Constitution had no "teeth" without clarification.  In other words, they expanded it from Congress not being able to make a law *establishing* one (ie. a national religion) to include Congress not being able to make laws favoring a particular religion over another (or over a non-religion).  Who the people vote for is an entirely different matter.  First, the doctrine applies to laws and legislation.  Secondly, it would be utterly unconstitutional to disallow anyone not specifically defined in the Constitution from running for office.  The people of the U.S. have the absolute right to cast their vote for whomever they choose, as long as that person has the requisite citizenship and has attained the mandated age.
311281
Good question.  I think we should lock the Senate and Congress up on Capitol Hill, and not let them out until they figure out a way to help everyone that they're supposed to be working for.
1126740
One other guy was close when he said that the supreme court gave some certain rights to this. But the  problem is some states took that too far.\n\nI read over some of the answers and either ppl didn't understand your question or their states don't do what you are referring to. Mine does so I get it.\n\nBottom line: they should NOT have this right. I agree with you completely on the right of passage being interfered with.
988947
What do you suggest they do about it?
60597
a constitutional ammendment.. very unprobable... \nthere are several ways to initiate the process for ammending the constitution, none of which are likely on this or any other issue.
75982
to interpret the constitution. which is do laws go against the constitution and has any other branch exceeded its powers.
539232
So Fine is a moron.  Ignore her idiotic answer.\n\nHere is the right answer:\n\n1.  Congress writes the laws but cannot pass them nor determine their Constitutionality.\n\n2.  The President signs the laws but cannot write them nor determine their constitutionality.\n\n3.  The Supreme Court determines the laws constitutionality but cannot write them nor sign them\n\n\nEnd of story.
839511
The Supreme Court held that "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ****except**** where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is ***likely*** to incite or produce such action. "\n\nThat means that the law is only operative where the criminal conduct is likely to succeed.  This stands in stark contrast to crimes of Attempt, which can be prosecuted even when the act attempted is impossible; for example, attempted Murder against a dead body that the Defendant does not know is dead. \n\nThis requirement that the violence be likely may well nullify the entire statute under the Void for Vagueness doctrine.  How are police supposed to know when it is likely to succeed?
496021
No, there are many things that congress does that should be vetoed. The veto power is an important power in our government... even if Bush refuses to veto anything. It gives the President the power to curtail congress. An example of when it should be used has been in the news recently, where congress wants to stick all sorts of pet projects into the spending bill for the troops in Iraq, and pay for some of the Katrina relief. Congress critters seem to think that if they stick their stupid projects, like the railroad to nowhere, or the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, into a bill like this, they will automatically get approved. That needs to stop, and the veto power allows the president to stop it, if he chooses to.\n\nCheers :)
738570
How can you hold the state responsible?  Are you talking lawsuit?  You need to clarify your answer more.......\n\nUsually if a law is ambiguous, basically what happens is that no one inforces it to begin with.    If it was inforced, and you were the recipient of the inforcement, you would have to fight your judgement in court.  If the court upheld it (not in favor of you) then you could appeal and take it to a higher court, and continue this process until you got to your state's supreme court.    \n\nAlot of time and money involved in this process if you decide to go this path.......
705324
Only for non-US citizens.\n\nThe MCA directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent, and the plain text of the constitution, which mandates that 5th and 6th Amendment protections apply to anyone held in custody by the US govt, and anyone prosecuted by the US govt.\n\nIt also directly violates Article I Section 9, by suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus. As the Supreme Court ruled over a hundred years ago, the phrase "except during rebellion or invasion when the public safety may require it" means that as long as the federal courts are open for business, they can hear Habeas petitions for anyone detained or held prisoner by the federal government.  \n\nThe law is facially unconstitutional. The only question is, can someone come up with a creative jurisdictional standing argument and find a way to get a federal court to hear the constitutional challenge?
233459
No.  Neither should any of the Supreme Court Justices refer to anything but the Constitution and the Federalist papers in there decisions.  Using foriegn law is a violation of their oath to protect and defend the Constitution