Wiki User
∙ 15y agoNo
Wiki User
∙ 15y agoJustices review the Constitution and use their own personal frames of reference to determine what the Constitution says about something. Because so much is open for interpretation, the justices often disagree on what is meant, and so unanimous decisions are rare.
What did the framers of the constitution agree/disagree upon at the constitutional convention?
Whether a bill of rights was necessary to include in the Constitution.
Amendment 1 can be proposed by having the freedom to write, so a man can write what he wants as long as it doesn't disagree with the constitution. Another way is that a man can speak freely as long as he doesn't talk bad against the constitution.
Absolutely. Even US Supreme Court justices disagree with each other's interpretation of the Constitution, which is why there are seldom unanimous votes.While the President and members of Congress may disagree with certain Supreme Court decisions, the justices are the final arbiters of the Constitution. The other branches of government must abide by the Court's opinions.
Justices review the Constitution and use their own personal frames of reference to determine what the Constitution says about something. Because so much is open for interpretation, the justices often disagree on what is meant, and so unanimous decisions are rare.
repeal
What did the framers of the constitution agree/disagree upon at the constitutional convention?
Dissent
Economic Advisers to President might disagree about a question of policy because of differing scientific judgments or differences in values
it depends, as long as the next president will be agood leader
because they thought differently
Whether a bill of rights was necessary to include in the Constitution
Most people who saw this new institution forming were against it. In a land where communities were self sufficient there was no need for a constitution of this kind.
Absolutely not. This is a myth, spread by extreme right-wing Republicans who dislike him or disagree with his policies. Most moderate Republicans understand that even if they disagree with President Obama, that does not mean he is anti-American.
One answer: Absolutely. The Supreme Court has no business interfering with Presidential Obama's appointments. President Obama may be forced to suspend the Constitution indefinitely if this interference persists. This is very likely if the Democrats don't hold the Senate and Harry Reid can no longer block the Republicans as he has been doing. Another answer: I fear the previous answer is sarcastic. No president wants to give up any power, and President Obama is no exception. But President Obama understands that America has three branches of government. He may find the current congress to be the most obstructive in perhaps 100 years, but he has no desire to suspend congress, nor could he do so even if he wanted to. The same is true of the Supreme Court-- he may disagree with their decisions, but the constitution says the judicial branch is the deciding body on various issues, and he respects that. So, no the president should not try to run the country without congress or the supreme court. That would violate the constitution, and there is NO evidence the president wants to violate the constitution (contrary to political rhetoric you may have heard on talk shows).