Does the Supreme Court have the authority and power?

[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).

I notice you refused to answer the poll.

That's because neither answer is generally true. The SCOTUS only has power to strike down laws for being unconstitutional. do you seriously think the court has power to strike down laws for whatever reason they like? What if they ruled on a case that they were throwing out the entire U.S. Code and all other laws, so that there would be no laws at all. That's within their power?

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

Great. When they release the opinion you can point out to us where they call it stupid.

 

[Vidi]

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.

That's because neither answer is generally true. The SCOTUS only has power to strike down laws for being unconstitutional. do you seriously think the court has power to strike down laws for whatever reason they like? What if they ruled on a case that they were throwing out the entire U.S. Code and all other laws, so that there would be no laws at all. That's within their power?

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

Great. When they release the opinion you can point out to us where they call it stupid.

The Constitution does not enumerate the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional to the SCOTUS. That being said, it IS an established power. Established in 1897 with the Marbury vs Madison case.

The power has been accepted for 200 years. So the answer to the poll is yes, they have that power

 

[editec]

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

They answered the question factually.

That doesn't mean they APPROVE, merely that they understand that is the law of the land.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I notice you refused to answer the poll.

That's because neither answer is generally true. The SCOTUS only has power to strike down laws for being unconstitutional. do you seriously think the court has power to strike down laws for whatever reason they like? What if they ruled on a case that they were throwing out the entire U.S. Code and all other laws, so that there would be no laws at all. That's within their power?

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

Great. When they release the opinion you can point out to us where they call it stupid.

The Constitution does not enumerate the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional to the SCOTUS. That being said, it IS an established power. Established in 1897 with the Marbury vs Madison case.

The power has been accepted for 200 years. So the answer to the poll is yes, they have that power

The Constitution vests ALL judicial authority of the U.S. in a Supreme Court and its inferior courts.

 

[Liability]

I notice you refused to answer the poll.

That's because neither answer is generally true. The SCOTUS only has power to strike down laws for being unconstitutional. do you seriously think the court has power to strike down laws for whatever reason they like? What if they ruled on a case that they were throwing out the entire U.S. Code and all other laws, so that there would be no laws at all. That's within their power?

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

Great. When they release the opinion you can point out to us where they call it stupid.

The Constitution does not enumerate the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional to the SCOTUS. That being said, it IS an established power. Established in 1897 with the Marbury vs Madison case.

The power has been accepted for 200 years. So the answer to the poll is yes, they have that power

Marbury v. Madison was NOT 1897, dope.

 

[Liability]

That's because neither answer is generally true. The SCOTUS only has power to strike down laws for being unconstitutional. do you seriously think the court has power to strike down laws for whatever reason they like? What if they ruled on a case that they were throwing out the entire U.S. Code and all other laws, so that there would be no laws at all. That's within their power?
Great. When they release the opinion you can point out to us where they call it stupid.

The Constitution does not enumerate the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional to the SCOTUS. That being said, it IS an established power. Established in 1897 with the Marbury vs Madison case.

The power has been accepted for 200 years. So the answer to the poll is yes, they have that power

The Constitution vests ALL judicial authority of the U.S. in a Supreme Court and its inferior courts.

But that kind of begs the question. The question is whether the "power" to void a law (on the ground that it is unconstitutional) is a "judicial power" at all.

 

[Intense]

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

When they go beyond Constitutional Powers, you tell me?

 

[Vidi]

That's because neither answer is generally true. The SCOTUS only has power to strike down laws for being unconstitutional. do you seriously think the court has power to strike down laws for whatever reason they like? What if they ruled on a case that they were throwing out the entire U.S. Code and all other laws, so that there would be no laws at all. That's within their power?
Great. When they release the opinion you can point out to us where they call it stupid.

The Constitution does not enumerate the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional to the SCOTUS. That being said, it IS an established power. Established in 1897 with the Marbury vs Madison case.

The power has been accepted for 200 years. So the answer to the poll is yes, they have that power

The Constitution vests ALL judicial authority of the U.S. in a Supreme Court and its inferior courts.

If we are speaking strict original constitutional intent...

Yes, judicial authority, which means they interpret the law. And interpret only. The laws themselves are not subject to judicial review. So no, they do NOT have the power


BUT...

As stated by others and myself, that changed in 1897, with the Marbury vs Madison case. Jefferson blew his top because it changed the power structure of the country.

So while the Constitution does not give SCOTUS the power to strike down law, it's been in practice for two centuries with very little resistance from law makers. So yes, they have the power.

 

[Vidi]

The Constitution does not enumerate the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional to the SCOTUS. That being said, it IS an established power. Established in 1897 with the Marbury vs Madison case.

The power has been accepted for 200 years. So the answer to the poll is yes, they have that power

The Constitution vests ALL judicial authority of the U.S. in a Supreme Court and its inferior courts.

But that kind of begs the question. The question is whether the "power" to void a law (on the ground that it is unconstitutional) is a "judicial power" at all.

Constitutuonally, no. In practice, yes.

 

[BluePhantom]

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).

Technically, yes, but the SCOTUS has historically done pretty much whatever they wanted and found a way to support their constitutional position. A great early example of this would be the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that was struck down as unconstitutional. Justice John Harlan hammered the court for what he saw as judicial activism in regard to that decision as well as in Plessy v. Ferguson.

In other words they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want to do.

 

[Liability]

The Constitution does not enumerate the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional to the SCOTUS. That being said, it IS an established power. Established in 1897 with the Marbury vs Madison case.

The power has been accepted for 200 years. So the answer to the poll is yes, they have that power

The Constitution vests ALL judicial authority of the U.S. in a Supreme Court and its inferior courts.

If we are speaking strict original constitutional intent...

Yes, judicial authority, which means they interpret the law. And interpret only. The laws themselves are not subject to judicial review. So no, they do NOT have the power


BUT...

As stated by others and myself, that changed in 1897, with the Marbury vs Madison case. Jefferson blew his top because it changed the power structure of the country.

So while the Constitution does not give SCOTUS the power to strike down law, it's been in practice for two centuries with very little resistance from law makers. So yes, they have the power.

1803.

You were "only" off by about 94 years. Constitutional scholars like you are funny.

 

[Liability]

The Constitution vests ALL judicial authority of the U.S. in a Supreme Court and its inferior courts.

But that kind of begs the question. The question is whether the "power" to void a law (on the ground that it is unconstitutional) is a "judicial power" at all.

Constitutuonally, no. In practice, yes.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I think you've missed the point.

Powers may exist in the Constitution that are not expressed. There IS, after all, a concept known as an "implied power."

And the point is: if the SCOTUS lacks the authority to nullify a law passed by Congress and signed by the President which violates the Constitution, then how is it that we claim they serve as a check or balance on the other branches?

And if they can't nullify an unconstitutional law, how can they be (rationally) said to be a co-equal branch?

If you acknowledge that they have such implied power (a necessary adjunct to them being a coequal branch and serving as a check and balance) then there IS a danger of them voiding laws for other reasons. They COULD do so for invalid reasons, for example.

But that's ok. They are co-equal, not supreme. THEY can be checked and counter-balanced, too. And when they stray, in that fashion, they SHOULD be reined in.

 

[Intense]

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written constitution -- would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey? There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject. It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law. The constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavors to preserve?

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is in these words, "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States."

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Marbury vs Madison

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Constitution does not enumerate the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional to the SCOTUS. That being said, it IS an established power. Established in 1897 with the Marbury vs Madison case.

The power has been accepted for 200 years. So the answer to the poll is yes, they have that power

The Constitution vests ALL judicial authority of the U.S. in a Supreme Court and its inferior courts.

But that kind of begs the question. The question is whether the "power" to void a law (on the ground that it is unconstitutional) is a "judicial power" at all.

Is it not inevitable that the People and the government will dispute the meaning of parts of the Constitution? Given that - its clear there needs to be some system for resolving that dispute. If the resolution of disputes between People and Government isn't a judicial power - then what is it?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Constitution does not enumerate the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional to the SCOTUS. That being said, it IS an established power. Established in 1897 with the Marbury vs Madison case.

The power has been accepted for 200 years. So the answer to the poll is yes, they have that power

The Constitution vests ALL judicial authority of the U.S. in a Supreme Court and its inferior courts.

If we are speaking strict original constitutional intent...

Yes, judicial authority, which means they interpret the law. And interpret only. The laws themselves are not subject to judicial review. So no, they do NOT have the power


BUT...

As stated by others and myself, that changed in 1897, with the Marbury vs Madison case. Jefferson blew his top because it changed the power structure of the country.

So while the Constitution does not give SCOTUS the power to strike down law, it's been in practice for two centuries with very little resistance from law makers. So yes, they have the power.

The oath that federal judges take at the very least binds them to refuse to enforce law that is unconstitutional. Say the Congress passed a law allowing conviction for treason with only one witness against you. This is a blatant Constitutional violation. Given that every federal judge takes an oath to uphold the Constitution - would that not mean that the judge in such a case would be required to at least throw the charges out? And if he can throw the charges out every time a defendant is brought before him with charges under the aforementioned unconstitutional law - isn't that a de-facto nullification of the law?

Judicial review did not start with MvM. In Hylton v. United States (1796) the court held that a law was constitutional.

 

[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).

Technically, yes, but the SCOTUS has historically done pretty much whatever they wanted and found a way to support their constitutional position. A great early example of this would be the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that was struck down as unconstitutional. Justice John Harlan hammered the court for what he saw as judicial activism in regard to that decision as well as in Plessy v. Ferguson.

In other words they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want to do.

I disagree. Justices can be impeached and removed from office. The President and Congress, together, also have the power to stack a court or reduce its size. The Congress and President have checking power its just that they only have "nuclear option" type checks.

 

[Intense]

The Constitution does not enumerate the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional to the SCOTUS. That being said, it IS an established power. Established in 1897 with the Marbury vs Madison case.

The power has been accepted for 200 years. So the answer to the poll is yes, they have that power

The Constitution vests ALL judicial authority of the U.S. in a Supreme Court and its inferior courts.

If we are speaking strict original constitutional intent...

Yes, judicial authority, which means they interpret the law. And interpret only. The laws themselves are not subject to judicial review. So no, they do NOT have the power


BUT...

As stated by others and myself, that changed in 1897, with the Marbury vs Madison case. Jefferson blew his top because it changed the power structure of the country.

So while the Constitution does not give SCOTUS the power to strike down law, it's been in practice for two centuries with very little resistance from law makers. So yes, they have the power.

Here is the Rub. Where there are conflicting Laws, The Court needs to Mediate and determine weight and Precedence. When the Congress or the Executive Branch opperate contrary to Law, or without Authority, it is for the Court to Intervene. You are forgetting that the whole premise for the construct of our system is Justice for All, Justice for Each, and Checks and Balances. Study the Federalist Papers. You may aregu that they are not Law, yet they show Intent.

 

[usmcstinger]

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 has no power to change the size of the Supreme Court.
The Senate has the Power to vote to appoint or not to appoint Supreme Court Nominees.
Congress deals with all Impeachments.
Congress can change the number of the members of the Supreme Court.
Judiciary Act of 1869: Court size, 9was the last change.

Obviously, you have never read the US Constitution. Your are living proof of just how bad our public education system has become.

 

[BluePhantom]

The Constitution vests ALL judicial authority of the U.S. in a Supreme Court and its inferior courts.

If we are speaking strict original constitutional intent...

Yes, judicial authority, which means they interpret the law. And interpret only. The laws themselves are not subject to judicial review. So no, they do NOT have the power


BUT...

As stated by others and myself, that changed in 1897, with the Marbury vs Madison case. Jefferson blew his top because it changed the power structure of the country.

So while the Constitution does not give SCOTUS the power to strike down law, it's been in practice for two centuries with very little resistance from law makers. So yes, they have the power.

The oath that federal judges take at the very least binds them to refuse to enforce law that is unconstitutional. Say the Congress passed a law allowing conviction for treason with only one witness against you. This is a blatant Constitutional violation. Given that every federal judge takes an oath to uphold the Constitution - would that not mean that the judge in such a case would be required to at least throw the charges out? And if he can throw the charges out every time a defendant is brought before him with charges under the aforementioned unconstitutional law - isn't that a de-facto nullification of the law?

Judicial review did not start with MvM. In Hylton v. United States (1796) the court held that a law was constitutional.

Yeah Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution too. Look how well that worked out.

 

[BluePhantom]

I disagree. Justices can be impeached and removed from office.

Want to take a wild guess how many times that has happened in our nation's history? I will give you three guesses but I doubt you will need more than one.

The President and Congress, together, also have the power to stack a court or reduce its size. The Congress and President have checking power its just that they only have "nuclear option" type checks.

How many times must it be pointed out to you on the same damned thread that the President does not have the power to change the size of the Supreme Court? Good Christ