Does the Supreme Court have the authority and power?

[RetiredGySgt]

Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I will go out on a limb and make a prediction that few on the left answer this question.

 

[Vel]

Why yes, yes they do.

 

[CausingPAIN]

What are they doing now?
Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):

1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional..............................158

1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional......................................935

1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional....................................222

1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws.......................224

Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional................1,315

Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws..............................224

Total Laws Overturned, all governments..............................................1,539

Don't have a clue? Update I voted No folks!

 

[SniperFire]

Obama must answer it to Federal court - in writing, three pages double spaced, within 48 hours.

LOL

 

[Listening]

And the justice department is going to get to tell the 5th circuit in a three page, single spaced document just whether or not our so-called "Constitutional Scholar" Moron-In-Chief feels the same way.

This could be his contraception issue. Why Romney isn't blasting him on this I don't know.

Independents are going to be scared to death by a POTUS who does not follow the basics of the Constitution (regardless of the fact that he was a PC appointement to the Harvard Law Review).

 

[freedombecki]

Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?

They do if the laws are unconstitutional, imho.

 

[BluePhantom]

Well I guess that depends on how you look at it. The SCOTUS seized the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison and Jefferson just went with it because he was between a rock and a hard place. According to the constitution they are not guaranteed that power...according to tradition they are. Basically, the answer is "yes" they do but not because they are constitutionally guaranteed such power. It's because Chief Justice John Marshall said so and no one bitched.

 

[SniperFire]

Independents are going to be scared to death by a POTUS who does not follow the basics of the Constitution (regardless of the fact that he was a PC appointement to the Harvard Law Review).

You know, unless a person reads conservative blogs or news, the average Joe won't even hear about this latest Obama assault on America.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes. When there is a “plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds.” United States v. Morrison (2000).

 

[zzzz]

The have the authority to strike down laws but they do not have the power to force the government to follow their decisions.

 

[BluePhantom]

Independents are going to be scared to death by a POTUS who does not follow the basics of the Constitution (regardless of the fact that he was a PC appointement to the Harvard Law Review).

You know, unless a person reads conservative blogs or news, the average Joe won't even hear about this latest Obama assault on America.

Actually I just read about it after I posted. I pray to God he challenges the court's authority. That will be the end of him if he does.

 

[Listening]

Two people voted NO ?

This country's educational system is in sad shape.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is also incumbent upon the Court to exercise judicial restraint and respect the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

“It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power . . . .” United States v. Five Gambling Devices (1953).

These seemingly conflicting extremes can be addressed appropriately by jurists acting in good faith, their decisions based upon an objective analysis of the evidence and review of the case law.

 

[Paulie]

Well I guess that depends on how you look at it. The SCOTUS seized the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison and Jefferson just went with it because he was between a rock and a hard place. According to the constitution they are not guaranteed that power...according to tradition they are. Basically, the answer is "yes" they do but not because they are constitutionally guaranteed such power. It's because Chief Justice John Marshall said so and no one bitched.

How does that mean they actually have that power? The constitution and the constitution ALONE lays out the powers of each branch. Nowhere in the document does it say any specific branch can grant itself a power.

And what do you mean by rock and a hard place? What stopped Jefferson from opposing?

 

[Paulie]

Yes. When there is a “plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds.” United States v. Morrison (2000).

Who stops the court from exceeding theirs? Namely, the fact that the constitution doesn't grant them the power of judicial review?

Where are the checks and balances on the judicial branch?

 

[Listening]

It is also incumbent upon the Court to exercise judicial restraint and respect the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

“It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power . . . .” United States v. Five Gambling Devices (1953).

These seemingly conflicting extremes can be addressed appropriately by jurists acting in good faith, their decisions based upon an objective analysis of the evidence and review of the case law.

Blatant ignorance.

The will of the people cannot pass to the congress a power not delegated in the U.S.C.

The constitution was a document designed to constrain the federal government and the tenth amendment clearly shows the demarcation between states and the fed.

This has been true from the start of time.

A 1953 ruling comes from an FDR Court. William O. Douglas should be dug up, shot, his remaining corpse burned, and what remains left to whatever has the stomach to consume it (worms).

 

[Mr.Green]

Article 3 section 2 of the u.s. constitution states:
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.

So obviously yes.

 

[snakedoc]

Yes if the law is unconstitutional if the Supreme Court did not have that authority then Congress could pass any laws they wanted. Do any of us want that?

 

[Peach]

I will go out on a limb and make a prediction that few on the left answer this question.

As a centrist, I, .................of course they do. Obama was talking about "judicial activism", decried by many over decades, and centuries. It takes nothing from the authority of the USSC to so rule however.