Does the Supreme Court have the authority and power?

[PredFan]

Only a complete moron would vote no.

 

[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.

Blue, I'm a dismal history student and am not certain why Chief Justice Marshall pounded his gavel into the American conscience.

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.

Sorry I didn't see your post until just now. Yeah I agree with you. I was just giving the technical answer to the question as opposed to the practical one. For practical purposes I agree with you 100%.

As far as why Chief Justice Mashall did that...well....he needed to establish the power of the SCOTUS because the Constitution left their powers very vague. His decision in Marbury v. Madison was one of the most brilliant political moves in our nation's early history. It really left Jefferson in a position where he had to have said to himself "WOOHOO WE WON.....hey wait a minute....AWWWW SHIT"

 

[usmcstinger]

If you voted no, then you have not learned a damn thing about our constitution. You continue to make stupid statements about issues that you clearly know nothing about.

 

[CausingPAIN]

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.

"mandate is UNCONSTITUTIONAL"???????
I will accept that view or determination, if a vote is..... lets say 8-1 it's not. Screw details for NOW why.
To many to lists why law is, for abuse as to why so! Till the 8-1 vote would come on this issue!
BTW I was one that voted NO! As all this is about little feelings in the first place and not correct law interpretation\'s!
My cover rock please! and to start without an 8-1 vote confirming your statement about your feelings in this matter btw.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

If my memory is correct I don't think the 16th amendment was ratified correctly. Did they stop collecting taxes? Not sure. I don't understand why the supreme court would rule income tax is unconstitutional and allow Congress to add an income tax as an amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The supreme court may rule it's unconstitutional but that does not mean it will be repealed.

That’s true, only Congress can repeal Federal laws. In this case the law would be invalidated, often referred to as ‘struck down’; but the law itself technically remains on the books, where the issue then becomes enforcement.

For example, there are laws banning abortion still in effect in many states, never repealed. These laws aren’t enforced, however, because the state knows any conviction would be overturned on appeal per Griswold/Roe/Casey.

This brings up an interesting theory with regard to the ACA. Since the Bill itself does not authorize any penalties for failing to purchase health insurance, or refusing to pay the fee, either criminal or civil, there is no way the government could ‘prosecute’ a non-compliant citizen, save garnishing his income tax return, or the IRS filing a civil suit.

In theory, therefore, when the Court invalidates the ACA, the Legislative and Executive branches could simply ignore the ruling, and move ahead with the 2014 provisions.

Congress could also rewrite the law, removing any ‘offensive’ language and re-authorizing the legislation. See, for example, US v. Lopez.

There are also examples of jurisdictions ‘dragging their feet’ with regard to a given Court ruling, such as the District of Columbia after Heller. Some argue that the post-Heller measures enacted by DC are so Byzantine and draconian, that there still exists a de facto gun ban in the District.

Brown v. Board of Education was in essence ignored for years after the ruling. The next year (1955), the Court issued ‘Brown v. Board of Education II,’ where Chief Justice Warren was compelled to issue another order instructing local school boards to implement desegregation. It wasn’t until 1958 in Cooper v. Aaron that actual compliance was realized, albeit slowly.

But the ACA is about politics, not the law, as we all know – its detractors are interested only in exacting a perceived political blow to the president, having nothing to do with ‘individual liberty.’ A decision by the Administration to ignore the ruling would be likewise politically complicated, making such an action unlikely.

 

[Liability]

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?

 

[CausingPAIN]

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.

btw.. this was my shot at spelling everything wrong!

 

[Liability]

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.

btw.. this was my shot at spelling everything wrong!

You even fail at those pathetic goals.

 

[Immanuel]

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

 

[CausingPAIN]

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

I have the problems btw.

 

[CausingPAIN]

A general oops FYI..and for all btw............ I’m 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!

 

[Liability]

A general oops FYI..and for all btw............ I’m 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.

 

[zzzz]

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?

Interesting.

But 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.

Lesson for a 'Constitutional Scholar' by Joseph Farah on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

 

[CausingPAIN]

A general oops FYI..and for all btw............ I’m 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.

Pass cheeeezzzzzWiz. And WHO is a TDM? A typical member or Mod'er? Or is this a reference or addressing of needed review on a over rectification process of/to member TrurhMatters? If so, I’m not wanting to review the whole list of the issue. I will stick with spirit and intent of what really matters, and feel this display and termination reflects poorly on the future.

 

[oreo]

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

Of course they do.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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).

I notice you refused to answer the poll. Like I said most of you Liberals are waiting for Obama to claim they can not do it. Then suddenly you will all nod your heads and say ya he is right.

And by the way? If they strike down the health care law it will be because it is Unconstitutional AND stupid.