Best Answer

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, which all government officials swear to uphold. Supreme Court decisions are subordinate to constitutional amendments, and represent one of the few ways a Supreme Court decision can be changed.

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Why can amendments to the Constitution negate Supreme Court decisions?
Write your answer...
Still have questions?
magnify glass
Continue Learning about American Government

What are the 5 things that states are prohibited from doing?

Enter TreatiesCoin MoneyIssue Bills of CreditGrant Titles of NobilityTell LiesThere Ya Go(:

Can you be a leader with nobody following you?

If you were, just who would you be the leader of ? Leadership depends entirely in the belief of subordinates in your abilities & strengths. And if these followers change their minds then the days of leadership are numbered.ANSWER: Leaders lead the way, if nobody follows this does not negate the path that was forged. Any true leader knows the problems and responsibilities that come with having subordinates. Not all leaders require subordinates and there are leaders who are leaders of leaders and as such do not lead as if he has subordinates but rather leads his peers in the direction all can mutually agree is towards the greater good. Followers are the masses that come after a leader has all ready led the way.

Why did the founding fathers reject democracy?

Because the founders of this nation knew that "democracy" would lead to a tyranny of the majority voting cash for itself and electing corrupt representatives willing to hand out more cash in exchange for votes.

How does the responsibility for executing the law give the president great power?

As the person ultimately responsible for the enforcement of laws, the President has considerably power in determining three major factors:The priority and resource allocation of various law enforcement divisions - as there is never enough time, personnel and money to enforce all laws equally, the President has the ability to stipulate that certain laws be given more attention to enforcement. This can result in the appearance that certain laws aren't being followed; however, this merely reflects the position that certain laws are less "worthy" of having limited resources spent on them. You can still be arrested and convicted of those "neglected" laws, but the likelihood of this happening is very small, as law enforcement is simply not paying any attention to violators of those laws.How any laws are defended against legal challenges - the President is charged with the defense of all laws in the court system. Like the above, the President can set priorities for how much a law is to be defended, and can also direct the particular legal emphasis by which to defend the law, which can have a very significant effect on the ultimate judicial interpretation.As all laws are inherently vague, the President can set the specific interpretation of that law as to it's enforcement. That is, the President can say "This law means X is illegal". Ultimately, the courts are responsible for deciding if this interpretation is correct, but the President has an enormous influence in setting this original interpretation.The President (and Executive Branch) has no ability to invalidate a law, or declare it unConstitutional, or otherwise fail to enforce a valid law. The first two powers are strictly the responsibility of the Judicial Branch. In the latter case, citizens can sue the Executive to force enforcement if the Executive decides to "negate through neglect" by not allocating law enforcement resources.The Executive can also decide that certain laws are unConstitutional and stop trying to defend them in any pending judicial court case. This is NOT the same as failing to enforce such laws - the Executive is bound to continue to enforce that law, up until a judicial case declares the law null and void. However, in that court case, the Executive branch (as the nominal "defense") can simply say "We agree with the plaintiff's case that the law should be overturned". The Judicial branch is still the ultimate decider of whether the law is Constitutional or not, but having the defense effectively agree with the plaintiff is a very strong motivator (but NOT a requirement) for the Judicial branch to overturn the law.

What are the pros and cons of a minority government?

Benefits of a Minority GovernmentWhile much depends on the types of parties and leaders involved, there are several benefits to having a minority government:Responsiveness: Minority situations make governments extremely responsive to the views of MPs. Instead of government policy being decided by the Prime Minister and Cabinet - with elected members simply following party discipline - governments are forced to take into account the views of its own elected members and the views of other parties to ensure that legislation is passed.Accountability: A minority or coalition government is also more accountable. This is especially true of minority governments that depend on other parties' votes. Opposition parties can hold a government accountable for its actions very effectively by threatening or actually undertaking a vote of non-confidence or voting down government legislation.Transparency: Minority or coalition governments force a lot of communication between parties. For the governing party to pass bills, it must inform other parties of its intentions. This higher level of communication makes government policy much more public and, as a result, much more transparent.Weaknesses of a Minority GovernmentThere are also several weaknesses to having a minority government:Instability: The major weakness of minority governments is their tendency to last for only a short period. Consequently, governments are often unable to fully pursue their policies or mandates before the coalition or negotiations with other parties collapses. The average duration of minority governments in Canada is approximately 18 months.Inconsistency: Because minority governments have to negotiate with other parties regularly to get legislation passed, it is difficult to bring consistency to government policy. The governing party may have to compromise with one party on one issue and then compromise with another party on a different issue. This is particularly problematic in economic policy where government actions in one area can negate or defeat government actions in another area.Inefficiency: The constant demand for negotiation can slow government down considerably. Instead of being able to take swift action on demanding issues, governments are forced to engage in lengthy and tedious negotiation with other political parties. This can be extremely problematic with issues that require immediate action, such as foreign policy and the budget.Blameless government: Minority governments open the possibility for less accountability. This is because the different parties are working together in making government policy. Consequently, it can be difficult to locate blame when policy goes wrong, as the different parties may simply blame one another.

Related questions

What is a sentence for negate?

This is a sentence for the word, negate.

What events led up to the passing of the tirteenth amendment?

There is not really one single event leading to these amendments. These amendments followed directly after the Civil War. They all are products of reconstruction. The fundamental idea behind these amendments followed from the Emancipation Proclamation (which was of itself of dubious legality); these three amendments attempted to ensure that slavery was permanently banned, that persons of color would be considered citizens of the United States, and that the Federal Government had the basic right to ensure that states implemented these rights and freedoms.

What US Supreme Court case stated that considerations of public safety can be overriding and negate the need for rights advisement prior to limited questioning?

New York v. Quarles

What is the adverb form of negate?

The adverb form of the verb to negate is negatively.

Does fiendish chain negate attacks?

no fiendish chain most certainly does not negate attacks, if the card does not state it negates an attack it does not negate attacks

Can 'Stardust Dragon Assault Mode' negate 'Sangan'?

Yes it can. Sangan is a triggered effect, Stardust Dragon Assault Mode can chain to and negate it.

What is a sentence using the word negate?

You can't negate the fact that George Bush was the worst president. Ever.

Can stardust dragon negate union monsters from being destroyed?

No, It can only negate effects that DESTROY a card on the field. He also can't negate effects that remove monsters from play. Hope I helped!

Does 'The Lady in Wight' negate the effect of 'Magic Cylinder'?

No, she doesn't 'negate' it. She protects your other face-up Lv3 or lower Zombies from being affected by Spells or Traps, but does not negate the effect itself.

What is Negate as a noun?


The opposite of negate?


What is that gate in which you can not enter?