SCOTUS vs. the Constitution

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 5stringJeff, Jun 25, 2004.

  1. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Note - This post is from the religion forum.

    NewGuy, I have two issues with your post.

    1. The Supreme's Court authority under the Constitution. Obviously, the Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, and derives its power from that document. Article III, Section I, states: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." In other words, any constitutional issue, where the intent of a law or executive order/regulation is thought to be contradictory to the Constitution, the judicial branch (and ultimately SCOTUS) has jurisdiction. Therefore, the judicial branch/SCOTUS may from time to time put out rulings about how far the right to free speech, or the powers of Congress, or the Equal protection clause goes. That is part of their jurisdiction, as set forth in Article III.

    2. Amending the Constitution. I think we were about to get into this before you got sick. Again, I refer to Article V, which states: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
    Nowhere is there mention taht the Constitution may only be amended to clarify; the Founders clearly allowed for actual changes in the Constitution to take place.
     
  2. ajwps
    Offline

    ajwps Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,302
    Thanks Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Ratings:
    +46
    Actually there is no reference whatsoever to the topic of abortion in the US Constitution. The Supreme Court was established under the US Constitution to interpret and clarify any situations, technologies and new ideas such as LIFE in the unborn come along the highway of time. At least that is what the Supreme Court has decided to undertake.

    Thus the framers of the constitution made a living and evolving document of the most important document (beside the biggest best seller) since recorded history.
     
  3. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Cool. We will work on 1 at a time until resolved.


    OK.....the obvious issue here is CONTEXT of "under".

    How does this square with the following? :

    -notice the semi-colon....new idea coming:

    Add the following:

    What does this mean?

    All .....ALL judicial are bound by the Constitution's authority.

    NONE....NONE are allowed to go against it, or they are unConstitutional.

    In other words, no court has equal or superior power to it.

    This means "under" means "BENEATH"....not "WITHIN".

    If no power can equal the Constitution, and none can say OVER it, then no individual ANYWHERE has authority to do anything WITH it unless specifically specified by the document.

    The document specifies who and what can Amend. Therefore, only amendments, IN CONTEXT AND IN LINE WITH existing Constitutional law can be made.
     
  4. ajwps
    Offline

    ajwps Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,302
    Thanks Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Ratings:
    +46
    Very nice indeed.

    The only problem with your detailed powers in the US Constitution neither includes any references to being under, above, aside of or around any matter not so innumerated in the Constitution of the United States.
     
  5. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Becasue the document is not a document of detailed law but one of structured order of foundation. EVERYTHING must fall under its context.
     
  6. ajwps
    Offline

    ajwps Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,302
    Thanks Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Ratings:
    +46
    What does this mean? Where did you come up with these never heard before ideas that the United States Constitution is either a 'structured order of foundation (?) or that our Constitution includes EVERYTHING falling under its context????

    Does that EVERYTHING include things like Bill Clinton lying to a Federal Grand Jury under his oath of office of President of the United States and his automatic removal from office?
     
  7. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Constitution is the Supreme Law of the US. No disagreement there.

    Judges are bound by the Consitution - though this particular sentence refers to state-level judges, not federal judges. But still no disagreements here.

    Federal judges must support the Constitution. Got it.

    I think you are missing something. Yes, you are correct that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the country, and that judges are held by their own oath to support it. But, as I posted before, federal judges have jurisdiction over "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." You'll note that the bolded text is almost identical to the text in Article VI, which upholds the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties to be the Supreme Law of the land. It is clear, therefore, that although federal judges derive their power from the Constitution, and are bound by oath to uphold it, they have jurisdiction over cases that may come up regarding its execution.

    For example, how would a judge decide a case in which one side claimed that free exercise of religion supported their views, and the other side claimed that the Establishment clause supported their views? (Case in point: a school district was sued by a student group that wanted to start a Bible study that would meet at school after hours, just like other clubs were doing. The school claimed that the Establishment Clause prohibited it; the students claimed the Free Exercise Clause allowed it.) Under your views, no judge would be able to rule on such a case, because the Constitution is involved.

    BTW - are we waiting on the amendment issue until we sort this one out?
     
  8. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    If that is the case, then as I have proven below, even the court cannot give a decision contrary to Constitutional framework.

    This would mean they cannot be judges in the capacity of deciding one way or the other. They would merely be a rubber stamp.

    That is impossible.

    They can only decide one way or the other where the Constitution does not directly affect their "one way or the other" function.

    In other words, it is only physically possible to judge BENEATH the Constitutional level.

    No. In MY and the Constitution's view, no court can rule at all. :

    Yeah, I want to get past this first.
    :D
     
  9. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    The Constitution is technically the supreme law of the United States.

    However, the Constitution is a written document. What and how it applies to various situations is open to interpretation (not much, in my view, but even an original intent supporter would concede this).

    The final word for interpretation of the Constitution is the Supreme Court. They said so themselves in a case called Marbury v. Madison.
     
  10. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    OK, you are correct that a judge cannot rule against the Constitution (which is why I am up in arms about the CFR ruling). But you go further in saying that no judge can rule on the application of the Constitution itself. This directly violates Article III, which specifically gives federal judges jurisdiction in cases arising under - meaning regarding the meaning, execution, or application of - the Constitution.

    So in my example, the two sides case cannot be judged on?!? That is ludicrous. I can't believe you are arguing that a judge cannot judge on an issue between two Constitutional rights. You are smarter than that, NewGuy. It is very plain that judges are given such power from Article III.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content