Do you want to be a member of the Party of 'No'?

[Yurt]

it is not right there in black and white...so i'll ask again, please point out "specifically" where it says what you claim:

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.

Read section 2 - if you don't understand it, you don't understand it .... not much I can do about that.

Yurt on my first read through today it seems nodog is right about this.

then please point out the specific language/words that back up his point that the scotus is called upon to interpret the constitution and no one else

 

[Liability]

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.

What words in Article III say that, in your estimation?

Here, let me give you a quick assist:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Right there in black and white - section 2 - just because YOU don't like what it says, you want to re-write it?

Sorry - it doesn't work that way.

I'm for following the constitution - NOT following what some wackos try to re-intepret it to mean.

Nope. Right there in Section 2 of Article III it SAYS absolutely no such thing.

Just because you pretend to "see" it (in that invisible ink you fubars pretend exists) doesn't mean it's actually there.

What it SAYS is that the Judicial POWER extends to certain enumerated cases and controversies.

What you are following is your own whacko interpretation, but NOT what it "says."

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Read section 2 - if you don't understand it, you don't understand it .... not much I can do about that.

Yurt on my first read through today it seems nodog is right about this.

then please point out the specific language/words that back up his point that the scotus is called upon to interpret the constitution and no one else

I thought NoDog was saying its the court's duty to determine what is/isn't constitutional and not the legislature or executive branch's duties.

Did I misunderstand the argument?

 

[Liability]

it is not right there in black and white...so i'll ask again, please point out "specifically" where it says what you claim:

Since Article III of the constitution calls for the judiciary to interpret and apply the rule of the Constitution to individual cases, I would not support a party that attempted to replace that constitutional authority with a radical interpretation of their own.

Read section 2 - if you don't understand it, you don't understand it .... not much I can do about that.

Yurt on my first read through today it seems nodog is right about this.

Really?

It sets forth to what cases and controversies the Judicial Power extends.

But nowhere does it define what that "power" is and certainly there is NO language that suggests that the power means that the SCOTUS can nullify legislation.

Such an inherent power MIGHT be properly read-into the Constitution. But it sure as hell doesn't explicitly provide for any such thing.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Read section 2 - if you don't understand it, you don't understand it .... not much I can do about that.

Yurt on my first read through today it seems nodog is right about this.

Really?

It sets forth to what cases and controversies the Judicial Power extends.

But nowhere does it define what that "power" is and certainly there is NO language that suggests that the power means that the SCOTUS can nullify legislation.

Such an inherent power MIGHT be properly read-into the Constitution. But it sure as hell doesn't explicitly provide for any such thing.

I need to re-read slowly I think.

I misunderstood the argument you guys were having.

Lay it out there for me....what are we arguing about in regards to article 3?

 

[Yurt]

Yurt on my first read through today it seems nodog is right about this.

then please point out the specific language/words that back up his point that the scotus is called upon to interpret the constitution and no one else

I thought NoDog was saying its the court's duty to determine what is/isn't constitutional and not the legislature or executive branch's duties.

Did I misunderstand the argument?

that is what he claims and he is wrong....the constitution does not expressly state that

it took a few scotus cases, the primary one being marbury v. madison to establish the power of judicial review

it is why nodoginafight cannot point to specific language in the constitution, it doesn't exist and if he actually knew what he was talking about he would admit he is wrong

 

[Darkwind]

then please point out the specific language/words that back up his point that the scotus is called upon to interpret the constitution and no one else

I thought NoDog was saying its the court's duty to determine what is/isn't constitutional and not the legislature or executive branch's duties.

Did I misunderstand the argument?

that is what he claims and he is wrong....the constitution does not expressly state that

it took a few scotus cases, the primary one being marbury v. madison to establish the power of judicial review

it is why nodoginafight cannot point to specific language in the constitution, it doesn't exist and if he actually knew what he was talking about he would admit he is wrong

That was My whole point. Until Madison (Marbury v. Madison), the SCOTUS had no such authority to determine the Constitutionality of any law. They in effect, took the power upon themselves by ruling it from the bench. It was precisely that which Jefferson feared. For 9 unelected tyrants on the bench are a greater threat to liberty then any number of elected officials.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I thought NoDog was saying its the court's duty to determine what is/isn't constitutional and not the legislature or executive branch's duties.

Did I misunderstand the argument?

that is what he claims and he is wrong....the constitution does not expressly state that

it took a few scotus cases, the primary one being marbury v. madison to establish the power of judicial review

it is why nodoginafight cannot point to specific language in the constitution, it doesn't exist and if he actually knew what he was talking about he would admit he is wrong

That was My whole point. Until Madison (Marbury v. Madison), the SCOTUS had no such authority to determine the Constitutionality of any law. They in effect, took the power upon themselves by ruling it from the bench. It was precisely that which Jefferson feared. For 9 unelected tyrants on the bench are a greater threat to liberty then any number of elected officials.

The court rightfully accepted their duties under the specific instructions that the administration and application of law to specific cases under the section of the Constitution I cited.
The Constitution is part of our law - it is therefor subject to the same responsibility of the judiciary to apply it to specific cases. Yes, there have been many instances in which SCOTUS has overstepped that authority (imho) by extending their rulings beyond the case under their review and essentially writing law. But just because that power has been abused in the past is no justification for trying to remove that power. At any rate if you want to remove the responsibility of the judiciary to apply the law (including the Constitution) to specific cases - you have to amend the Constitution.

Just because you don't understand - or decide to stick your fingers in your ears and squeal nanny nanny boo boo - the Constitution doesn't change to suit your whim.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."

Don't like it? Get your votes together and change it.

 

[Yurt]

that is what he claims and he is wrong....the constitution does not expressly state that

it took a few scotus cases, the primary one being marbury v. madison to establish the power of judicial review

it is why nodoginafight cannot point to specific language in the constitution, it doesn't exist and if he actually knew what he was talking about he would admit he is wrong

That was My whole point. Until Madison (Marbury v. Madison), the SCOTUS had no such authority to determine the Constitutionality of any law. They in effect, took the power upon themselves by ruling it from the bench. It was precisely that which Jefferson feared. For 9 unelected tyrants on the bench are a greater threat to liberty then any number of elected officials.

The court rightfully accepted their duties under the specific instructions that the administration and application of law to specific cases under the section of the Constitution I cited.
The Constitution is part of our law - it is therefor subject to the same responsibility of the judiciary to apply it to specific cases. Yes, there have been many instances in which SCOTUS has overstepped that authority (imho) by extending their rulings beyond the case under their review and essentially writing law. But just because that power has been abused in the past is no justification for trying to remove that power. At any rate if you want to remove the responsibility of the judiciary to apply the law (including the Constitution) to specific cases - you have to amend the Constitution.

Just because you don't understand - or decide to stick your fingers in your ears and squeal nanny nanny boo boo - the Constitution doesn't change to suit your whim.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."

Don't like it? Get your votes together and change it.

still can't point to specific language that gives only the court the power to interpret.....figures, it is clear you have no clue what you're talking about and have no idea what judicial review is, if you did you would take back your statement and admit you're wrong because the constitution does not expressly grant the power of judicial review