Does the Supreme Court have the authority and power?

[Listening]

Three people have now voted no.

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

 

[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.

How does that mean they actually have that power? The constitution and the constitution ALONE lays out the powers of each branch. Nowhere in the document does it say any specific branch can grant itself a power.

And what do you mean by rock and a hard place? What stopped Jefferson from opposing?

It's a real long story. Essentially right before John Adams' term expired he loaded the courts with federalist judges (known as the "midnight appointments") but William Marbury did not receive his appointment in time and Jefferson told James Madison not to deliver it. It was a real tricky case because the power of the court had not really been established and had Chief Justice Marshall demanded that he receive the appointment, Jefferson would have likely ignored him and the SCOTUS would have had very little power. So what Marshall did was to say that Jefferson was wrong but that Marbury did not follow proper procedure so the SCOTUS was powerless to do anything about it.

It basically put Jefferson in the position where he either had to install Marshall or grant the court the right of judicial review. Jefferson chose the latter and it's stuck ever since.

 

[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.

 

[CausingPAIN]

Two people voted NO ?

This country's educational system is in sad shape.

Yes, that's what happen to me at private. spool!

 

[frazzledgear]

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

They do if the laws are unconstitutional, imho.

It isn't just an opinion. it is their constitutional duty to strike down and overturn laws that are unconstitutional- NOT to try and figure out how to bypass and ignore the Constitution. They were right when they said this law would permanently change the relationship of the citizen with government, empowering government to control the individual in a manner the system was never designed to do. It essentially turns the individual from a citizen who gives his consent to be governed -to a subject who is ruled over who must do whatever the ruling elite orders them to do -or else. This would immediately nullify the Constitution and throw wide open the door for establishing the authority of government to order citizens to spend their money the way overnment orders them to for ANYTHING since the commerce clause can be perverted to include everything that can be bought. It would essentially strip people of control of their lives and establish us all as government owned property with only the privileges government ALLOWS us to have. And the Bill of Rights just a bad joke.

I'm still waiting for a liberal to explain government's sudden claim to a new power insisting the individual must forfeit control of his own health care decisions, even against his will -when the individual actually has a right to keep total control by cutting out the middleman insurance entirely? In other words, if I choose to pay for my own medical care directly instead of paying far more to a third party than I would choose to pay if paying directly -then where does government get off ordering me to forfeit control of MY health care decisions to a third party against my will? To say nothing of the idiocy of the left pretending eliminating competition would not only lower costs, but moronically insist quality would not only not be negatively affected, it would improve! Really? Name ONE industry where eliminating competition results in lower costs and better quality -and remind me again why we have laws against monopolies? Government regulated monopolies given to utility companies is not done because it results in lower costs and higher quality -it provably does neither. They are given for a different reason that would never apply to medical care.

No way they uphold the mandate and probably throw out the entire law since government argued the mandate could not be severed from the law. In addition, they didn't seem inclined to go through tens of thousands of pages members of Congress who passed it hadn't bothered to read -to try and figure out line by line what could stand without that mandate.

More than 40 years ago a lawyer told me the legal profession had set its sights on medical care as being vulnerable to a take over by lawyers who would gladly destroy the entire system if it meant empowering lawyers. Especially after seeing how quickly power was diverted from both patient and doctor in the UK and believed the same could be one here nearly as fast. We live in a country where the legal profession is ridiculously over represented and can only justify their bloated, useless numbers and spitting out enormous numbers more every year by shifting power to themselves as a "natural" ruling elite and convincing Americans they cannot survive, they cannot provide for hems elves, cannot succeed in life and cannot even be trusted to self govern -unless attorneys are running the show. Their most important success in that was convincing Americans that the founders were wrong and that the common citizen cannot and should rarely hold elected government office and to leave it to lawyers instead. This enabled them to then use the force and power of government to expand their powers from there. I propose an Amendment limiting the number of lawyers allowed to serve in government at any given time along with term limits on every elected office. No one group has done more harm to this nation than career politicians, 98 percent of whom are lawyers. Nothing special about lawyers whatsoever -the fact they are the most over represented occupation tells you how easy it is to get a law degree. Much easier than it is to get any number of other degrees but they are arrogantly convinced they can do anyone's job better than those who do it for a living. That lawyer was off on how long he thought it would take but said it was inevitable because lawyers have no natural predators and no self monitoring or self control, ethics are given meaningless lip service and state bars look for ways to avoid enforcing any notion of holding to ethical practice. The lawyers are the predators who see themselves at the top of the food chain and will be satisfied with nothing less than the power to go with it.

 

[theunbubba]

Two people voted NO ?

This country's educational system is in sad shape.

Yeah It's a sick sad world.

 

[theunbubba]

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.

The libtardo contingent doesn't answer hard questions. They deflect, dissemble, and disparrage because they have nothing else. .

 

[editec]

DOES is have that power?

Ah, yes, it does.

Or did you really mean to ask us: OUGHT it have that power?

It ought to have that power if you believe our system of checks and balances actually works to the nations benefit.

I don;t really think there's much wrong the DESIGN of our government.

But design won't make much difference if all three branches of government are corrupt, will it?

 

[daveman]

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

Of course. What idiot says they don't?

Oh, yeah -- idiots who think King Obama's word is law.

Well, this is the United States, so they're shit outta luck.

 

[Sallow]

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.

 

[dblack]

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.

Hell yes they are! And it's high time for some-push back against the corporatist whores ruing out country.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[daveman]

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.

"...or are they doing because of cheap and trivial political gain based on party affiliation."

Oh, you mean like everything Democrats do.

 

[daveman]

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.

Hell yes they are! And it's high time for some-push back against the corporatist whores ruing out country.

As I said in another thread, the purpose of the SCOTUS is not to rubber-stamp the President's agenda.

Take a deep breath. I know this is shocking to you.

 

[Sallow]

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.

This is not just "one" extremely radical and partisan decision..

This would be one in a long line of extremely radical and partisan decisions..all breaking down along party lines.

It's an extremely bad situation when Justice starts to look like politics..and the Judges are engaging in Judicial Activism and legislating from the bench.

If the court becomes an arm of congress playing political football to score points..then it's a court no one will trust.

 

[Sallow]

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.

"...or are they doing because of cheap and trivial political gain based on party affiliation."

Oh, you mean like everything Democrats do.

There's a huge difference between Democrats and Judges.

 

[syrenn]

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

I am rather scared that you have to ask the question.... and even more scared that a few people voted...... ...no.

 

[dblack]

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.

Hell yes they are! And it's high time for some-push back against the corporatist whores ruing out country.

As I said in another thread, the purpose of the SCOTUS is not to rubber-stamp the President's agenda.

Take a deep breath. I know this is shocking to you.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Who do you think I'm referring to as 'corporatist whores'? (Hint: read some of my other posts)

 

[Katzndogz]

Like the court respected the Will of the People when it struck Proposition 8 in California? Or was that kind of unconstitutional okay?

obama has been attacking the court for awhile now. His state of the union campaign speeches have attacked the court and lied about the court so much, most of the justices don't even go.

A major and very public fight between the Federal judiciary and obama is a very good thing. For one thing, obama lies, when he gets agitated he lies even more. His anti court screed was one right after another with barely a breath between. The most astounding was that the health care bill was passed with a strong majority. That was enough to drive a knowledgable person to their knees.

In this election year, with public opinion rising against obama, a major fight is just what's necessary.

 

[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.