Because they don’t. They, like any other politician, are criticizing America in order to make it a better place. Now, you can say those criticisms are wrong, but to smear them as anti-american is stupid.
"We ought to come up with legislation, that if you burn the American flag, you go to jail for one year." "Freedom maintaining" conservative Donald Trump
Wtf are you talking about? The flag is an inanimate possession, and the Supreme Court has already decided in Texas vs. Johnson that burning the flag is perfectly legal. It's also the preferred method of disposing an used flag. Are we talking about different countries here, because you clearly don't understand US law regarding flag burning.
You do realize that that law is literally from 1968 and that Texas vs Johnson in 1989 unequivocally stated that burning the flag is constitutionally protected speech, meaning that this law would be defunct?
The whole point of the Supreme Court is to strike down laws they deem unconstitutional and uphold laws they deem as constitutional. I have no idea where you got “the judiciary can not overturn the law.” It’s literally their job.
No actually that was meant to be for the congress to strike it down and the executive to choose not to enforce.
The Judiciary were only meant to render 'an opinion' which Congress or Executive could act on. The Judicial Review tyranny is relatively new in the US.
What do you mean judicial review is "relatively new?" It was established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. I guess 217 years is “relatively new" now. Also, how is having a judicial system that interprets laws that acts as a safeguard against unconstitutional laws passed in congress tyrannical? It should just make sense. It makes it so one branch of government does not become too powerful. Point is, flag burning is totally legal; ask anyone who knows the law and they will say this full stop. We're literally debating something that is not debatable. This is like arguing that 2+2=5.
Yeah, but it's widely understood and heavily implied that the supreme court has the power to overturn unconstitutional laws in accordance to the supremacy clause. It's called an implied power.
It is in the law. Judicial review is necessary in order to uphold the supremacy clause of the Constitution. The supremacy clause stipulates that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, it logically follows that the judicial system which interprets the laws has the power to overturn laws if they are in direct conflict with the constitution. And I need you to elaborate how it violates the 9th and 10th amendments.
Replying to below:
Nope. The 9th and 10th amendment clearly states that if its not listed directly in the Constitution then the federal government does not have jurisdiction and it is instead a jurisdiction of the states and the people.
