Hey, Democratic Underground! Thom Hartmann called you out!

[chknltl]

75. especially agree with your first paragraph.

Furthermore I like how you described the living breathing Constitution and the fact that it has changed from how our founding fathers set it up BECAUSE that is how they intended it be. Again thank you for the education. Your patience is commendable to say the least.

What is a SCOTUS to do you ask. This I have no good answer to. I like that the SCOTUS be the final word on the Constitutionality of these matters. I believe where things break down for me, where I am just not getting it:

Is the SCOTUS, (regardless of who petitions it), when rendering it's decision regarding legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, exercising a power to approve of or veto that federal law?
Or:
When rendering it's judgement regarding that federal law, (regardless of who petitions the SCOTUS to render that judgement), is the judgement without any real power to approve of or veto that law.

If the former, then you already know my position that this makes the SCOTUS a power higher than and not co-equal to the POTUS or the Congress. (and worse than that unanswerable to the citizenry).
If the latter, then I have no idea how the petitioners seek further redress should the SCOTUS judge that Federal Law to be unconstitutional. In this case too, the SCOTUS is not a co-equal to Congress or the POTUS.

There is no question in my mind that you are trying to help me understand this, I apologize for being particularly,slow in getting things figured out.

Btw: it appears that Thom Hartmann will be here in the DU this weekend discussing and (hopefully), debating these powers of the SCOTUS. I consider him to be one of the most enlightened progressive educators of our times. It is my strong hope that you will be there contributing.