A difference must be made between a decision against the constitutionality of a law of Congress and of a State. The former acts as a restriction on the powers of this government, but the latter as an enlargement.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The notion that Congress can change the meaning given a constitutional provision by the Court is subversive of the function of judicial review; and it is not the less so because the Court promises to allow it only when the Constitution is moved to the left.
When you're elected to Congress, you take a vow to uphold the Constitution and its system of checks and balances. That vow doesn't say, 'Unless it's politically uncomfortable.'
The Constitution was about a limitation on power.
However, the sovereignty of the states is constitutionally defined and recognized, while the powers of the local government in Puerto Rico are defined by, and subject to alteration under, federal statutory law.
There are checks and balances and broad separation of powers under the Constitution. Each organ of the State, i.e. the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, must have respect for the others and not encroach into each other's domain.
What five members of the Supreme Court say the law is may be something vastly different from what Congress intended the law to be.
The fundamental division of powers in the Constitution of the United States is between voters on the one hand and property owners on the other.
It is not questioned that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. Its powers are such, and such only, as are expressly granted in the Constitution or are properly incident to the expressly granted powers and necessary to their execution.
Things said by political parties are different from the decisions of the government which are taken to uphold the rule of law. The government takes decisions that are best for the country.
The Constitution gives the Congress absolute authority within the District of Columbia on any legislative issues whatsoever.