Does the Supreme Court have the authority and power?

[Annie]

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 1803

 

[Annie]

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.

No, the idea of judicial review did not 'spring up' with Marbury, there was lots that preceded it, Hylton being one, but not seminal:

FindLaw Supreme Court Center: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25

 

[Intense]

Try The Federalist Papers.

In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton says that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." There was little concern that the judiciary would be able to overpower the political branches; congress controls the money flow and the President controls the military. Courts, on the other hand, do not have the same clout from a constitutional design standpoint. The judiciary depends on the political branches to uphold its judgments. Legal academics often argue over Hamilton's description of the judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch. Hamilton also explains how federal judges should retain life terms as long as those judges exhibit good behavior. [2]

Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional, and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress.

Federalist No. 78 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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

Marbury v Madison 1803

You are correct. Dont know why I have 1897 stuck in my head. Especially when I MEANT 1797...which was still wrong.

greenies incoming to you.

 

[Vidi]

Try The Federalist Papers.

In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton says that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." There was little concern that the judiciary would be able to overpower the political branches; congress controls the money flow and the President controls the military. Courts, on the other hand, do not have the same clout from a constitutional design standpoint. The judiciary depends on the political branches to uphold its judgments. Legal academics often argue over Hamilton's description of the judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch. Hamilton also explains how federal judges should retain life terms as long as those judges exhibit good behavior. [2]

Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional, and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress.

Federalist No. 78 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but arent the references to Sword and Purse to the Executive ( sword as head of the military ) and Congress ( as they have the actual power over the budget )?

If it shall have no power over them, then disregarding laws they deem unconstititional, as 78 states, would be giving them power over sword and purse would it not?


- just a question...not a challenge -