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

[Luissa]

Sort of:

Aticle III-Section 1 "The judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court,"

Section 2 "The judical power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution,"

 

[Annie]

Aticle III-Section 1 "The judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court,"

Section 2 "The judical power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution,"

I was speaking towards Marbury and was only adding clarification in language.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?



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.

Under an Article 5 Constitutional Convention it is Congress that chooses how delegates are chosen for the convention. An Article 5 Constitutional Convention has been called for by over 30 states.

 

[Luissa]

And I would also like to add one could say California is going against the US constitution with their state amendment. For example in amendment 13 it states " No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any state deprive any person of life,liberty,or property, without due process of law;"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Not even the most basic of concepts? For all your talk of your knowledge of Constitutional Law you don't even realize that the Constitution, though giving the federal government more power than the Articles of Confederation, was still meant to constrain the power of the government. Your knowledge of Constitutional Law rests in Alexander Hamilton's ideas of "implied powers," which were complete and utter nonsense. One could imply that the federal government is allowed to do anything if you begin to twist whatever meaning you find necessary out of the Constitution, rather than what was actually meant.

 

[Luissa]

I was speaking towards Marbury and was only adding clarification in language.

Thanks for clarification in language! I didn't want to use an article to prove I knew what the case was since he wrote his comment like I didn't know what the case was even about!

 

[Annie]

Thanks for clarification in language! I didn't want to use an article to prove I knew what the case was since he wrote his comment like I didn't know what the case was even about!

I can understand that. However many may not remember what the case was about or the irony of how Jefferson 'won' by not having to seat the appointment, but lost bigtime regarding the courts.

I think very few Americans understand how little is stated in the Constitution about the powers of the executive or judicial branches.

 

[Luissa]

I can understand that. However many may not remember what the case was about or the irony of how Jefferson 'won' by not having to seat the appointment, but lost bigtime regarding the courts.

I think very few Americans understand how little is stated in the Constitution about the powers of the executive or judicial branches.

Pretty much, especially since Jefferson was so against central government along with big government. The other funny part is while he was President the role of the federal government more the doubled but really he had no choice.
And as for what it is stated in the constitution I guess that is why they call it a living document, it is completly open to intrepretation.

 

[Annie]

Pretty much, especially since Jefferson was so against central government along with big government. The other funny part is while he was President the role of the federal government more the doubled but really he had no choice.
And as for what it is stated in the constitution I guess that is why they call it a living document, it is completly open to intrepretation.

We'll choose to disagree on the completely open to interpretation, but the irony of the Jefferson administration isn't lost on me.

 

[Luissa]

We'll choose to disagree on the completely open to interpretation, but the irony of the Jefferson administration isn't lost on me.

I shouldn't have said completly open but some parts are! And some people feel it is more then others. Otherwise we wouldn't have had such cases as Roe v Wade or Amendments in last twenty years!

And as for Jefferson, you could somewhat compare him to Bush! Promised smaller government and less spending but that isn't exactly what we got but that is for another time and another thread!

 

[jillian]

Not even the most basic of concepts? For all your talk of your knowledge of Constitutional Law you don't even realize that the Constitution, though giving the federal government more power than the Articles of Confederation, was still meant to constrain the power of the government. Your knowledge of Constitutional Law rests in Alexander Hamilton's ideas of "implied powers," which were complete and utter nonsense. One could imply that the federal government is allowed to do anything if you begin to twist whatever meaning you find necessary out of the Constitution, rather than what was actually meant.

While I'm far from expert, my "knowledge" of Constitutional Law comes from caselaw and briliant professors.

Besides, I was less talking about my own knowledge of the Constitution as opposed to your obvious lack of even the slightest knowledge of Constitutional Law...

That happens a lot with you idealogues.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

While I'm far from expert, my "knowledge" of Constitutional Law comes from caselaw and briliant professors.

Besides, I was less talking about my own knowledge of the Constitution as opposed to your obvious lack of even the slightest knowledge of Constitutional Law...

That happens a lot with you idealogues.

Again, your idea of "Constitutional Law" and the actual Constitution seem to be at odds with one another.

 

[jillian]

Again, your idea of "Constitutional Law" and the actual Constitution seem to be at odds with one another.

Says someone who knows nothing about either.

Good that you *think* you know the Constitution, though. I figure I'll go with the actual justices of the Court.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Says someone who knows nothing about either.

Good that you *think* you know the Constitution, though. I figure I'll go with the actual justices of the Court.

The justices of the court that interpret the Constitution in such a way to give themselves and their fellows more and more power.

 

[jillian]

The justices of the court that interpret the Constitution in such a way to give themselves and their fellows more and more power.

OK, kiddo. No worries. Think what you want. If it's that important for you to have the last word, go for it.

I said my piece.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

OK, kiddo. No worries. Think what you want. If it's that important for you to have the last word, go for it.

I said my piece.

Well, if you were going to allow me the last word then this post seems like a strange choice, unless you assumed I would follow up with what I'm posting now.

Back to the topic, it's not what I want to think. It's a fact that the Supreme Court has used "Constitutional Law" to increase the power of the federal government well beyond the limits of the Constitution, and the intentions of the founders.

 

[William Joyce]

the general welfare clause allows the government to take almost any action it deems necessary.

Whoa, nelly! That just ain't right.

Let's get one thing straight. (My apologies to KK, Steerpike and other posters who get this already, but...)

The Constitution's primary function is as the GRANTER of SPECIFIED POWERS of the federal government. What isn't granted... DOES NOT EXIST.

What that means is that the feddies can ONLY DO the stuff on the list... that list being Article I. Read it some time! It's got the military, the post office and a few other things. That's about it. That is the pure conception of the Constitution, however mangled it is today.

That's a far cry from what jillian describes. In fact, it's the opposite!

Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, noted the absurdity of an interpretation of "general welfare" that gave the federal government blanket power in light of the real supreme principle of the Constitution: enumerated, limited powers.

My own Con Law prof, being quasi-Marxist, didn't like it... but he at least taught it honestly. The truth is that "general welfare" or the commerce clause as justifying whatever the federal government's in the mood to do is suspect in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549. In a famous footnote, Justice Thomas observes that, in essence, most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, but, hey, we're just not going there right now.

Jillian is confusing the operation and existence of today's behemoth federal government -- which essentially acts as the police power government the states once were -- with Constitutional law. They aren't just different, they're pretty much diametrically opposed.

 

[no1tovote4]

Who is the "check" on the legislature and who is the "check" on the Supreme court?

The Amendment process. The check on the legislature is the President (veto), the Check on the SCOTUS is the Amendment process. The check on the entire shebang? A constitutional convention. And at last resort the ultimate check is Amendment 2.

 

[jillian]

Whoa, nelly! That just ain't right.

Let's get one thing straight. (My apologies to KK, Steerpike and other posters who get this already, but...)

The Constitution's primary function is as the GRANTER of SPECIFIED POWERS of the federal government. What isn't granted... DOES NOT EXIST.

What that means is that the feddies can ONLY DO the stuff on the list... that list being Article I. Read it some time! It's got the military, the post office and a few other things. That's about it. That is the pure conception of the Constitution, however mangled it is today.

That's a far cry from what jillian describes. In fact, it's the opposite!

Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, noted the absurdity of an interpretation of "general welfare" that gave the federal government blanket power in light of the real supreme principle of the Constitution: enumerated, limited powers.

My own Con Law prof, being quasi-Marxist, didn't like it... but he at least taught it honestly. The truth is that "general welfare" or the commerce clause as justifying whatever the federal government's in the mood to do is suspect in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549. In a famous footnote, Justice Thomas observes that, in essence, most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, but, hey, we're just not going there right now.

Jillian is confusing the operation and existence of today's behemoth federal government -- which essentially acts as the police power government the states once were -- with Constitutional law. They aren't just different, they're pretty much diametrically opposed.

jillian isn't confusing anything.

a white supremacist who thinks the feds did wrong by desegregating doesn't exactly have a rational view of the constition.

and most normal people know that thomas is the least qualified justice ont he court who had little to commend his nomination and who really has no constitutional qualifications.

amusing that you'd rely on his pov.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Whoa, nelly! That just ain't right.

Let's get one thing straight. (My apologies to KK, Steerpike and other posters who get this already, but...)

The Constitution's primary function is as the GRANTER of SPECIFIED POWERS of the federal government. What isn't granted... DOES NOT EXIST.

What that means is that the feddies can ONLY DO the stuff on the list... that list being Article I. Read it some time! It's got the military, the post office and a few other things. That's about it. That is the pure conception of the Constitution, however mangled it is today.

That's a far cry from what jillian describes. In fact, it's the opposite!

Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, noted the absurdity of an interpretation of "general welfare" that gave the federal government blanket power in light of the real supreme principle of the Constitution: enumerated, limited powers.

My own Con Law prof, being quasi-Marxist, didn't like it... but he at least taught it honestly. The truth is that "general welfare" or the commerce clause as justifying whatever the federal government's in the mood to do is suspect in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549. In a famous footnote, Justice Thomas observes that, in essence, most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, but, hey, we're just not going there right now.

Jillian is confusing the operation and existence of today's behemoth federal government -- which essentially acts as the police power government the states once were -- with Constitutional law. They aren't just different, they're pretty much diametrically opposed.

To further add to this post, Jillian said:

"You haven't a clue how it was meant to be...... only the Court can tell you what it was intended to be."

Our country was to be implemented with a system of checks-and-balances, no one branch of government was to have a monopoly on the power to define what is Constitutional. In fact, as stated before with evidence, the states had the right to nullify federal laws that went against the Constitution. If we are to have the system of federalism that the founders intended us to have, then the federal government must acknowledge the sovereignty and independence of the individual states.

And furthermore, those that blindly believe in the wisdom and goodness of those serving in the Government are fools.