Should the Supreme Court have the final say over what is Constitutional?

[Steerpike]

really? lol

really?

thanks for the tip.

Sure thing. Not that it will do any good, but I'll even get you started in your efforts to discontinue your butchering of the language:

Rules for Commas

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

not debating facts?

We apparently have different opinions when it comes to the facts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sure thing. Not that it will do any good, but I'll even get you started in your efforts to discontinue your butchering of the language:

Rules for Commas

Iw as puzzled because you stated the obvious again (that it was debated outside the (SCOTUS) as any law student and a cursory view of a wiki article could tell.

btw, I like you. and I do butcher the English language and it smells of freedom.

now I know where all the teacher's pets and school hall monitors went after school.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Iw as puzzled because you stated the obvious again (that it was debated outside the (SCOTUS) as any law student and a cursory view of a wiki article could tell.

btw, I like you. and I do butcher the English language and it smells of freedom.

now I know where all the teacher's pets and school hall monitors went after school.

ooooh look!!!

Iw as[sic]

 

[Steerpike]

Iw as puzzled because you stated the obvious again (that it was debated outside the (SCOTUS) as any law student and a cursory view of a wiki article could tell.

btw, I like you. and I do butcher the English language and it smells of freedom.

now I know where all the teacher's pets and school hall monitors went after school.

Not a bad post, but you had to include the whistle smiley. I have been developing a theory that only idiots use that emoticon. It seems to pop up most often when it has no relevance to the post at hand. Some people seem to include it in every post.

What I took Jillian's post to say was that the issue really hadn't been considered and addressed until Marbury, when it was immediately clear that the Court HAD to have the power. That is far from the truth. Marbury was a political move, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

“Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind”

Douglas MacArthur

 

[PeterS]

Your hypotheticals are nonsense. The Supreme Court believed in the constitutionality of a central bank, Andrew Jackson disagreed and he put an end to the Bank of the United States.

My hypothetical's are only nonsense because you do not want to address the basis of my question. The founding fathers did not intend to create an unjust society. I think we both agree on that. Your stance on states rights however leaves nothing to check injustice by the states. For that reason any rhetoric about justice and liberty by you is moot. Why are you worried about the federal government when it is hunky dory for the Sate to destroy that which you say you care about? If it is fine for states to create tyranny and the horror is the federal, legislative and judicial, putting a stop to it you have a very sick and worthless society. Why on earth would the founders fight for such a thing? And jesus, you really think they thought all three branches had equal authority over the constitution. How on earth could there be any meaning if every branch was the ending arbitrator of the constitution. When everyone can say what is constitutional can there be anything that isn't constitutional?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not a bad post, but you had to include the whistle smiley. I have been developing a theory that only idiots use that emoticon. It seems to pop up most often when it has no relevance to the post at hand. Some people seem to include it in every post.

What I took Jillian's post to say was that the issue really hadn't been considered and addressed until Marbury, when it was immediately clear that the Court HAD to have the power. That is far from the truth. Marbury was a political move, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

okay, a new foot forward. I apologize yet again.

I like the emoticons because this medium leaves much to be desired and too often nobody really gives a flying fuk what anyone else writes.

You have a really good grasp of the issue. I'll give you that. You may even be able to teach me a few things and that sir is quite a feat. However, how am I doing?

 

[Steerpike]

okay, a new foot forward. I apologize yet again.

I like the emoticons because this medium leaves much to be desired and too often nobody really gives a flying fuk what anyone else writes.

You have a really good grasp of the issue. I'll give you that. You may even be able to teach me a few things and that sir is quite a feat. However, how am I doing?

The issue is an interesting one, and it highlights a lot of misconceptions about the Constitution and, particularly, about how it was interpreted and applied early on in the history of the country. Most people don't know, for example, that the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the States for a lot of our history.

As for the issue, I hope I have a good grasp of it, having taught college courses in Constitutional Law. That was a lot of fun, and I hope to get back to teaching.

You have a pretty good grasp of it as well, to be honest. But the personal jabs can be humorous as well. You didn't get all pissed off as I thought you might, so that's a plus around here.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My hypothetical's are only nonsense because you do not want to address the basis of my question. The founding fathers did not intend to create an unjust society. I think we both agree on that. Your stance on states rights however leaves nothing to check injustice by the states. For that reason any rhetoric about justice and liberty by you is moot. Why are you worried about the federal government when it is hunky dory for the Sate to destroy that which you say you care about? If it is fine for states to create tyranny and the horror is the federal, legislative and judicial, putting a stop to it you have a very sick and worthless society. Why on earth would the founders fight for such a thing? And jesus, you really think they thought all three branches had equal authority over the constitution. How on earth could there be any meaning if every branch was the ending arbitrator of the constitution. When everyone can say what is constitutional can there be anything that isn't constitutional?

I no more trust state governments than I do the federal government. However, the state government is far more answerable to the people than the federal government is.

The founders did not believe that any of the branches had authority over the Constitution, they believed that the Constitution had authority over all the branches of government. By allowing the Supreme Court to decide what is Constitutional, you make it so that the Supreme Court is able to give the federal government absolute power. This was not the intentions of the founders in the least. They had just broken away from one tyrannical government, why would they create another one to take it's place?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We apparently have different opinions when it comes to the facts.

yes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The issue is an interesting one, and it highlights a lot of misconceptions about the Constitution and, particularly, about how it was interpreted and applied early on in the history of the country. Most people don't know, for example, that the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the States for a lot of our history.

I always forget that one about Marbury because it is not an issue for me seeing as I am happy with the way it turned out.

People do not know lots about things we talk about and that is fine with me. What bothers me is that many people will remain stuck when given new facts that challenge wrongly held beliefs. And I agree with Jillian about something she said to me about civics being needed to be taught in all the grades in schools. An educated electorate is more important to me than turnout. That is why I so sick over/with Obama's campaign.

As for the issue, I hope I have a good grasp of it, having taught college courses in Constitutional Law. That was a lot of fun, and I hope to get back to teaching.

I figured as much. Pedants have been some of my best friends until I drove them over a cliff or to drink or both.

You have a pretty good grasp of it as well, to be honest. But the personal jabs can be humorous as well. You didn't get all pissed off as I thought you might, so that's a plus around here.

My grasp is superficial in many ways but I have always been a quick study. I have a love of the law which I never studied (regret). As far as me getting pissed off, I can play at that better than most. Watch me sometime. It is a site to behold. ask around...


ltr

d.

 

[PeterS]

I no more trust state governments than I do the federal government. However, the state government is far more answerable to the people than the federal government is.

It is? Why would your senator to your state legislature be anymore answerable to you then your senator to the federal legislature? Don't you have the same number of representatives before government?

The founders did not believe that any of the branches had authority over the Constitution, they believed that the Constitution had authority over all the branches of government.

So if government tells the constitution to piss off it does what? What does the constitution do to enforce the constitution?

By allowing the Supreme Court to decide what is Constitutional, you make it so that the Supreme Court is able to give the federal government absolute power.

Absolute power only to end constitutional abuse. And isn't that where that power should lie?

This was not the intentions of the founders in the least. They had just broken away from one tyrannical government, why would they create another one to take it's place?

Look at what you are purporting Kevin. Your position is the one that supports the formation of tyranny and it is with only sad and sick irony that you see the ending of state tyranny by the federal government to be where the tyranny lies.

Indeed, why on earth would the founding fathers do such a thing...

 

[Luissa]

You may want to review WHAT CASE caused him to "set the Precedent".

What that Adams promised him a job which Jefferson did not want to give him telling Madison not to follow through with it. Marhall then established judicial review but state like South Carolina felt they were still the ones to intrepret the constitution which then after the civil war it was finally decided for sure that the supreme court is the only one to decide on constitutional matters. What else do you want me to review?

 

[sparky]

I don't agree with your last statement. The Constitution is "collapsing" because our government refuses to adhere to it. Congress passes unconstitutional laws, the President signs them into law, the Supreme Court doesn't question their Constitutionality, and the states no longer have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws. That's the problem.

nullify being synonomous to ratify KK, which really brings up federalization that's assumed quite a lot of power insidiously in the last few decades

or should i say bought it's way there.....

but then we could argue the individul end of this as well, how many people do you know buy into these changes handed down from on high?

seems to me there's just as many of us that'll slam those oven doors shut too eh?

 

[Annie]

What that Adams promised him a job which Jefferson did not want to give him telling Madison not to follow through with it. Marhall then established judicial review but state like South Carolina felt they were still the ones to intrepret the constitution which then after the civil war it was finally decided for sure that the supreme court is the only one to decide on constitutional matters. What else do you want me to review?

Sort of:

Supreme Court Cases (Summary)

Marbury v. Madison

Citation: 5 U.S. 137 (1803) Concepts: Judicial v. Executive Power/Judicial Review

Facts

In his last few hours in office, President John Adams made a series of “midnight appointments” to fill as many government posts as possible with Federalists. One of these appointments was William Marbury as a federal justice of the peace. However, Thomas Jefferson took over as President before the appointment was officially given to Marbury. Jefferson, a Republican, instructed Secretary of State James Madison to not deliver the appointment. Marbury sued Madison to get the appointment he felt he deserved. He asked the Court to issue a writ of mandamus, requiring Madison to deliver the appointment. The Judiciary Act, passed by Congress in 1789, permitted the Supreme Court of the United States to issue such a writ.

Issue

Whether the Supreme Court of the United States has the power, under Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, to interpret the constitutionality of a law or statute passed by Congress.

Opinion

The Court decided that Marbury’s request for a writ of mandamus was based on a law passed by Congress that the Court held to be unconstitutional. The Court decided unanimously that the federal law contradicted the Constitution, and since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it must reign supreme. Through this case, Chief Justice John Marshall established the power of judicial review: the power of the Court not only to interpret the constitutionality of a law or statute but also to carry out the process and enforce its decision.

This case is the Court’s first elaborate statement of its power of judicial review. In language which remains relevant today, Chief Justice Marshall said, “lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Nowhere in the Constitution does the Court have the power that Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed. Despite there being no mention of such power in the Constitution, since 1803, our Nation has assumed the two chief principles of this case: that when there is a conflict between the Constitution and a federal or state law, the Constitution is supreme; and that it is the job of the Court to interpret the laws of the United States.

 

[editec]

If the states elect, they can call an consitutional convention rewrite the constitution and eliminate the Supreme Court entirely.

Hell, they can completely rewrite the constitution if they choose to.

But until they do that?

I think the Supreme Court should have the power to nullify any law passed by our legislators that they believe violates the principles of the Constitution.

SOMEBODY has to be there to interpret the meaning of that document, folks.

Whether you strictly interpret it or you loosely interpret it, it often requires that SOMEBODY interpret it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the states elect, they can call an consitutional convention rewrite the constitution and eliminate the Supreme Court entirely.

Hell, they can completely rewrite the constitution if they choose to.

But until they do that?

I think the Supreme Court should have the power to nullify any law passed by our legislators that they believe violates the principles of the Constitution.

SOMEBODY has to be there to interpret the meaning of that document, folks.

Whether you strictly interpret it or you loosely interpret it, it often requires that SOMEBODY interpret it.

The states can do that, and many of them have. Though at this point they're still a couple states short of getting a Constitutional convention. The problem is that it will be up to Congress to appoint delegates to this convention, and Congress is not likely to appoint any delegates that will try to limit the powers of the federal government are they?

The problem is that the Supreme Court rarely ever rules against the other branches. It allows the expansion of federal power and even takes part in it itself.

 

[jillian]

This wasn't when the issue came up. The issue had been bandied about both in political and legal writings, the legislature, and other courts, since the founding of the country. Marbury was hardly the first time it came up.

And to say 'it was ascertained' as though this was the only logical outcome and it was accepted, is also incorrect. It was ascertained by Justice Marshall, but the whole thing takes place in a political context and it was as much a political necessity as anything else that drove Marshall. He knew what decision he needed to reach, the question was how to get there.

I don't think Marbury was even used directly as precedent for the power of judicial review for some time afterward (decades if I'm not mistaken).

Marbury is always considered the LEADING case on this issue. And yes, while it may have come up peripherally before, Marbury actually dealt with the court's ability to enforce it's will. I don't believe that had come up before, though I could be wrong.

And just a quick note in response to the issue of code state (Louisiana) versus civil law, that post didn't require referencing Louisiana's unique position because a) Louisiana has nothing to do with constitutional construction on a Federal level, which is what we were discussing; and b) my point, was made regarding the poster in question's complete lack of knowledge about how the Constitution is construed.
So we can parse, but for purposes of this particular discussion, I didn't see the need to elaborate in my post.... especially for the benefit of KK, who clearly didn't have even the most basic of concepts.

As to your comment about the commerce clause, absolutely correct that it was used to support many New Deal programs, and probably I should have mentioned it as a more common method of regulation.


Happy Holidays.

 

[editec]

The states can do that, and many of them have. Though at this point they're still a couple states short of getting a Constitutional convention. The problem is that it will be up to Congress to appoint delegates to this convention, and Congress is not likely to appoint any delegates that will try to limit the powers of the federal government are they?

Congress huh?

I was under the timpression that STATE LEGISLATURES made those appointments to a constitutional convention.

Did that law get changed or is my memory failing me?

The problem is that the Supreme Court rarely ever rules against the other branches. It allows the expansion of federal power and even takes part in it itself.

I think we can both agree that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has gained enormous control over STATE governments in our lifetimes.

What I find even more troubling is that the presidency has become increasingly imperial.

Congress, it seems to me, had been granting the POTUS far more authority than the Consitution, did.

But I think I can agree with you to some extent that the FEDS have gained power (especially of the purse) over the states.