I'm not a lawyer, but my husband is, and I did go to law school for a year and pulled an A in constitutional law. There is nothing in the law to prevent a court from overturning a previous court's decision. Even Marbury v Madision, could theoretically be overturned! (that's the decision in which the court gave itself the power to review acts of Congress).
A president cannot, legally, overturn a decision of the Supreme Court. He could defy a decision, but he would probably be impeached if he tried. I'll bet the analysis you read was written by a political advocate, not a lawyer. Either that, or you misunderstood the presumably convoluted language of the analysis. At 10:21 PM 5/5/02 -0700, you wrote: >Deb and Vince, > >I'll try to find the legal analysis I read - it was very interesting and >exhaustively cited both the Constitution and Roe v. Wade to support its >conclusion. I hate to try remember the legal gist of it without reading it >again, but there seems to be something inherent in the Roe v. Wade decision >which prevents *any* court from overturning it. The analysis said that >*maybe* a president/executive action alone could overturn it, but even then, >there were, arguably, provisions in the Constitution which would preclude >that. > >Kakki ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Deb Messling -^..^- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------------
