Courts have the essential duty to interpret conflicting laws and constitutions

Evidence

It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 481

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 481
• XREF: connects to: Judges rely on personal values when competing legal principles are evenly balanced — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 156; Judicial review is the judiciary’s core duty and province — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1368; Congressional acts conflicting with the Constitution are void — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1374 (+10 more)

Broader Connections

• Motivation for a ruling must be distinguished from constitutional causality #qualifies (0.60) — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 807
• Avoiding unjust legal outcomes has multiple distinct mechanisms, not just interpretation #qualifies (0.60) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 693