Best Answer

the Court in Flores declared that "[t]he power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary."(12) Moreover, by telling Congress that "[o]ur national experience teaches that the Constitution is preserved best when each part of the government respects both the Constitution and the proper actions and determinations of the other branches,"(13) the Court fought fire with fire. Or did it? Notwithstanding its apparent equation of Court interpretations of the Constitution with the Constitution itself, Flores suggests that elected officials and interest groups may find less draconian outlets to vent their frustration with the Court. In particular, well aware that Congress--through its Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 ("Section 5") enforcement power --may sometimes remedy unconstitutional state and federal action by "correcting" Court decisions, Flores's chief, if not only, complaint with RFRA was that the statute operated as a naked power grab, transferring from the Court to Congress the power to define constitutional standards of review. In this way, Flores does little more than reaffirm the core holding of Marbury v. Madison, that is, judicial review is necessary to ensure that the Constitution not be "on a level with ordinary legislative acts ... alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it."(14) Indeed, unwilling to squelch future democratic challenges to Smith, Flores does not establish any meaningful rules governing the reaches and limits of Congress's power to "correct" Court decisions.(15)

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: How did the city of boerne v Flores exemplify on-going revelance of Maubury vs Madison?
Write your answer...
Still have questions?
magnify glass