Does the Supreme Court have the authority and power?

[dblack]

Three people have now voted no.

It's a sad day in America...unless we have some foriegn nationals on the board.

I voted no because the Supreme Court is not vested with enforcement power. Yes they do have jurisdiction but no means (power) to enforce their decisions if the government decides to ignore them.

Article III, Section 1, that "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."

Many would say this represents power but it does not invest the USSC the resources to enforce their decisions. If you people would read and learn history you would know about the governments past in flaunting this lack of power.

In the Federalist Papers 78, Alexander Hamilton described the federal judiciary as "beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments" of government. He also said the court had "neither the power of the purse nor of the sword" to enforce their decisions.

Therefore the original post "Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?" has to be answered in the negative since the court has no power (in itself) to enforce a decision that strikes down a Federal or state law.

I assume by 'power' the OP was refering to 'legitimate authority', not necessary the physical ability to enforce it's will. I suspect this is why our military is sworn to protect the Constitution, rather than blindly follow orders.

 

[zzzz]

Three people have now voted no.

It's a sad day in America...unless we have some foriegn nationals on the board.

I voted no because the Supreme Court is not vested with enforcement power. Yes they do have jurisdiction but no means (power) to enforce their decisions if the government decides to ignore them.

Article III, Section 1, that "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."

Many would say this represents power but it does not invest the USSC the resources to enforce their decisions. If you people would read and learn history you would know about the governments past in flaunting this lack of power.

In the Federalist Papers 78, Alexander Hamilton described the federal judiciary as "beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments" of government. He also said the court had "neither the power of the purse nor of the sword" to enforce their decisions.

Therefore the original post "Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?" has to be answered in the negative since the court has no power (in itself) to enforce a decision that strikes down a Federal or state law.

I assume by 'power' the OP was refering to 'legitimate authority', not necessary the physical ability to enforce it's will. I suspect this is why our military is sworn to protect the Constitution, rather than blindly follow orders.

If the question was just about the authority the answer would have been yes, they have the authority but the power to put that decision into effect rests with the executive branch. Look at the civil rights ruling in the 50's and 60's and when the executive branch ignored the USSC decisions. It was only when public pressure became so great Eisenhower eventually had to comply but for years he ignored the decisions. Lincoln was another president who ignored Federal court decisions.

 

[Katzndogz]

The military is sworn to protect the Constitution not the president.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes it does
The supreme court is part of the checks and balances within the government.

 

[Katzndogz]

This might not be a fight that obama needs to take on in an election year. He's already spent 3 years opposing the Supreme Court.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Three people have now voted no.

It's a sad day in America...unless we have some foriegn nationals on the board.

I voted no because the Supreme Court is not vested with enforcement power. Yes they do have jurisdiction but no means (power) to enforce their decisions if the government decides to ignore them.

Article III, Section 1, that "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."

Many would say this represents power but it does not invest the USSC the resources to enforce their decisions. If you people would read and learn history you would know about the governments past in flaunting this lack of power.

In the Federalist Papers 78, Alexander Hamilton described the federal judiciary as "beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments" of government. He also said the court had "neither the power of the purse nor of the sword" to enforce their decisions.

Therefore the original post "Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?" has to be answered in the negative since the court has no power (in itself) to enforce a decision that strikes down a Federal or state law.

The people are the supreme courts enforcers. If a law if ruled unconstitutional and Congress does not change the law it is the right of the people not to obey that law. That's in my opinion.

 

[BluePhantom]

If the question was just about the authority the answer would have been yes, they have the authority but the power to put that decision into effect rests with the executive branch. Look at the civil rights ruling in the 50's and 60's and when the executive branch ignored the USSC decisions. It was only when public pressure became so great Eisenhower eventually had to comply but for years he ignored the decisions. Lincoln was another president who ignored Federal court decisions.

Well you are correct in some ways. The SCOTUS doesn't have the resources to enforce their decisions sometimes. The Cherokee can attest to that one as the SCOTUS directed the government to leave them alone and that they could not be kicked off their lands. Jackson gave the SCOTUS a big one finger salute and sent in the military anyhow which of course led to the Trail of Tears and one of the most shameful acts in our nation's history. There have been other times as well where, as you point out, the President told the SCOTUS to piss off and there wasn't much they could do about it. So to some degree there is an argument to be made that the power of the SCOTUS extends only so far as the President is willing to allow. But I would make two arguments to refute that:

1) Most, not all, of those instances were in the early years of our nation as the court struggled to establish power by tradition instead since the constitution itself didn't give them a great deal of power. Other times there were special circumstances to take into consideration. You mentioned Lincoln...well...war is one of those special circumstances where we are forced to do things we would rather not do and would not do in any other case. That's not the situation now. We have years of tradition regarding the court's powers and authority. They are firmly entrenched as at least equally as powerful as the other two branches and frankly there's an argument to be made that they are the most powerful branch. In the 21st century a President who told the SCOTUS to fuck off could kiss his re-election goodbye if he wasn't outright impeached.

2) The question was whether the SCOTUS had the power and authority to strike down law. Sure they do...they have both. They have the power to invalidate law that forces action. What they lack is to power to force action themselves. Take Obamacare for example. If the court tosses it out they don't need to force people to do anything at that point. If Obama tried to say "well we're keeping it anyhow" the people and the business community would say "no the SCOTUS struck it down and we are not forced to participate. Fuck you Obama." In that case there's really not much Obama could do about it. He could throw people in jail, for example, but the court would simply let them out.

Now if on the other hand the SCOTUS upheld Obamacare, Romney was elected, and Romney said "I will not enforce this law" the SCOTUS could make all the noise they wanted but in reality there would be nothing they could do about it. So what I am getting at here is that when ruling on a law that will require future activity I would agree that their powers of enforcement are limited. When issuing a ruling that does not require future activity they have more power to enforce.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'm not sure where in the enumerated powers the federal government has the right to force individuals to purchase a service as a condition of a good standing citizen. I would also like know if one person is granted a product for free and another is forced to purchase or face a federal penalty, then where is equal protection? And what is the origin of debt that requires one to buy others health care while others are forced to purchase.

This is the third time I have asked and no one has even attempted to answer these questions.

Fourth time in asking the question. If this health care is constitutional then the left needs to answer, these are core questions to the issue. They can scream activist judges, court politics and cry like babies, but I can't find any justification for these questions.

And why is it that four liberal judges have made up their minds, three out of five conservative judges, yet the attack is on conservative judges for not having open minds?

Answers or more dodge?

 

[BluePhantom]

Fourth time in asking the question. If this health care is constitutional then the left needs to answer, these are core questions to the issue. They can scream activist judges, court politics and cry like babies, but I can't find any justification for these questions.

And why is it that four liberal judges have made up their minds, three out of five conservative judges, yet the attack is on conservative judges for not having open minds?

Answers or more dodge?

Don't you think that if you have to ask four times the reason why you are not receiving an answer is because the left has none? Just a thought.

 

[Papageorgio]

Fourth time in asking the question. If this health care is constitutional then the left needs to answer, these are core questions to the issue. They can scream activist judges, court politics and cry like babies, but I can't find any justification for these questions.

And why is it that four liberal judges have made up their minds, three out of five conservative judges, yet the attack is on conservative judges for not having open minds?

Answers or more dodge?

Don't you think that if you have to ask four times the reason why you are not receiving an answer is because the left has none? Just a thought.

I doubt they have an answer but usually we can count on them to make shit up.

 

[sobi]

If there were no judicial review, what manner of restriction would there be on congress should it decide to ignore the constitution? They could literally redesign government to suit them.

Without enforcement, the constitution is no more than literature, it becomes a contract with no binding force.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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

That's one of their, if not the, main jobs.


Keep in mind though, these are basically the same people that said the Patriot act was Constitutional.

soo....

 

[editec]

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?

Impeachment of members of the SCOTUS is the ONLY check on their power.

I don't think its ever been done to a member of the SCOTUS.

But I do remember when people were calling for the impeachment of Cheif Justice EARL WARREN.

 

[zzzz]

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?

Impeachment of members of the SCOTUS is the ONLY check on their power.

I don't think its ever been done to a member of the SCOTUS.

But I do remember when people were calling for the impeachment of Cheif Justice EARL WARREN.

Justice Chase was impeached back in the day but as with President Clinton he was acquitted during the proceedings.

 

[BluePhantom]

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?

Impeachment of members of the SCOTUS is the ONLY check on their power.

I don't think its ever been done to a member of the SCOTUS.

But I do remember when people were calling for the impeachment of Cheif Justice EARL WARREN.

Justice Chase was impeached back in the day but as with President Clinton he was acquitted during the proceedings.

I don't think there has ever been a Supreme Court Justice impeached. I know Jefferson got one federal judge impeached but had to prove the guy was clinically insane. I think that's the only example. Don't quote me on that though.

 

[CausingPAIN]

Two people voted NO ?

This country's educational system is in sad shape.

These below thankers agree, can you tell me witch were the two No's, from below?
daveman (Yesterday), editec (Today), syrenn (Yesterday)

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Yes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Impeachment of members of the SCOTUS is the ONLY check on their power.

The President can increase/decrease the size of the court.
Congress can reduce its jurisdiction to nearly nothing and eliminate the lower courts.
It can also cut their pay.

 

[BluePhantom]

The President can increase/decrease the size of the court.

I think FDR might disagree with you. He tried desperately to increase the size of the court because they kept striking down his policies. He lost.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

Impeachment of members of the SCOTUS is the ONLY check on their power.

The President can increase/decrease the size of the court.
Congress can reduce its jurisdiction to nearly nothing and eliminate the lower courts.
It can also cut their pay.

The President can NOT change the number of Judges, that requires action from Congress.