PredFan
Diamond Member
Only a complete moron would vote no.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Blue, I'm a dismal history student and am not certain why Chief Justice Marshall pounded his gavel into the American conscience.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.
All I know is the United States Congress was told to pass 5 reams of gobbledygook with less than 2 weeks to digest it. In fact, they were prompted to "don't read, just pass..." by the least competent speaker of the House this nation has ever suffered.
Sometimes people just don't care why the Supremes decide between bickering opposites, but at least it shuts up the talking heads.
That seems it would be so nice, although I don't know what they're gonna do.
Sure they do. And it's a pretty big power.
The question becomes are they doing to sustain the integrity of the Republic by adhering to the Constitution..or are they doing because of cheap and trivial political gain based on party affiliation.
By the way..Congress has an awful lot of power too..as does the executive branch. So when you start the ball rolling on this shit..the risks are pretty high.
So basically any decision YOU disagree with is political one. The fact is the mandate is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And it is high time the court struck it down.
Folks I may have some bad news for those who oppose obamacare and call obamacare unconstitutional. This makes me sick. The supreme court has in the past ruled laws unconstitutional but we still have them and are forced to submit to them.
Exhibit A:
Brief History of IRS
The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.
Brief History of IRS
The supreme court may rule it's unconstitutional but that does not mean it will be repealed.
Folks I may have some bad news for those who oppose obamacare and call obamacare unconstitutional. This makes me sick. The supreme court has in the past ruled laws unconstitutional but we still have them and are forced to submit to them.
Exhibit A:
Brief History of IRS
The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.
Brief History of IRS
The supreme court may rule it's unconstitutional but that does not mean it will be repealed.
When the Court ruled it unconstitutional did the Government stop collecting? Because NOW Income Tax is legal because of an AMENDMENT to the Constitution.
The supreme court may rule it's unconstitutional but that does not mean it will be repealed.
Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?
The Liability to say YES! Is to scary! Whatever you say. I want my bottles of safely.Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?
I'd say so.
More importantly THEY have said so.
And we've operated under that system for over 200 years now.
Plus which, it makes sense. If the Congress passes a law that violates the Constitution and the President WANTED it so he signs it, if the SCOTUS cannot strike it down on the ground tht it violates the Constitution, then how is it that they can be called a co-equal branch or a check or a balance?
And if they can't do it under those circumstances, what is the Constitution then reduced to?
The Liability to say YES! Is to scary! Whatever you say. I want my bottles of safely.Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?
I'd say so.
More importantly THEY have said so.
And we've operated under that system for over 200 years now.
Plus which, it makes sense. If the Congress passes a law that violates the Constitution and the President WANTED it so he signs it, if the SCOTUS cannot strike it down on the ground tht it violates the Constitution, then how is it that they can be called a co-equal branch or a check or a balance?
And if they can't do it under those circumstances, what is the Constitution then reduced to?
btw.. this was my shot at spelling everything wrong!
I was just reading the list of those who said yes in the poll. I am surprised that of the 37 people who posted over 90% said yes, but what is truly amazing is that it crosses the political centerline and there are both liberals and conservatives who agree... imagine that, they actually agree about something!!
Hallelujah! Maybe there is still hope for us.
Immie
A general oops FYI..and for all btw............ Im a learner of lesser
leanings as I am catching up btw? btw I'm sorry for you all for you are suffering as wan ta learn and to grow ..BAD cp!
Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?
I'd say so.
More importantly THEY have said so.
And we've operated under that system for over 200 years now.
Plus which, it makes sense. If the Congress passes a law that violates the Constitution and the President WANTED it so he signs it, and if the SCOTUS cannot strike it down on the ground that it violates the Constitution, then how is it that they can be called a co-equal branch or a check or a balance?
And if they can't do it under those circumstances, what is the Constitution then reduced to?
Lesson for a 'Constitutional Scholar' by Joseph Farah on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of TalentBut I want to deal with this notion, put forward by a graduate of Harvard Law School, that we have three "co-equal branches of government" in the United States. Quite simply, we do not never have and never will.
Oh, I will admit that this has become something of a mantra among those who would like to rewrite our Constitution or ignore it altogether. But there is simply nothing to be found in the Constitution, or any other founding document, that would support such an idea. And there is plenty to demonstrate it is a flat-out myth.
The Constitution spells out very clearly the distinct powers of three branches. It begins with the legislative branch the Congress. It would be hard to miss that this is the only branch of government with law-making authority. You don't even need to read the Federalist Papers to grasp the intent of the founders: Congress was designed to be the most powerful branch of government. I defy anyone reading this article to find any hint among the voluminous writings of the founders that would suggest otherwise.
The next branch of government described in the Constitution is the presidency. That the founders did not want the president to become too powerful is without question among sober, non-deluded, objective students of history and the Constitution. But you could certainly make the argument that the executive branch of government would be second to the legislative in authority.
Then comes the judicial branch.
Even though its powers were strictly limited by the founders, they still worried that it would exceed its restrictions. And, indeed, it has.
But note how the powers of each branch are "different." How can different powers ever become equal? Yes, the three branches were established to diffuse power but not equally. There were some among the founders who wanted co-equal branches of government. They lost the debate, and they knew it. They acknowledged it.
I admit that schoolchildren are misinformed every day that we have three co-equal branches of government. I admit that it is something of an article of faith. But it is a dangerous deception, one of many that must be shattered if we are ever to re-establish our constitutional moorings.
A general oops FYI..and for all btw............ Im a learner of lesser
leanings as I am catching up btw? btw I'm sorry for you all for you are suffering as wan ta learn and to grow ..BAD cp!
On the bright side, your posting "style" makes Cheesedicknow's posts almost seem read-able by comparison. And your illiteracy means TDM doesn't have to be so all alone all the time.
Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?
Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?
Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?
They can only strike a law down for being unconstitutional.
They can't do it for any other reason (for instance, the law being stupid).