The dear leader believs the court should not have the power to stike down Obama care

[bripat9643]

Where in the Constitution does the Court get the power to strike down a law Congress passed?

Here ya go, numb nuts:

The judicial Power shall extend to 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;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

 

[Vidi]

Where in the Constitution does the Court get the power to strike down a law Congress passed?

Here ya go, numb nuts:

The judicial Power shall extend to 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;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

That, in fact, does not give them the power to decide Constitutionality of laws, it gives them ultimate "judicial" power UNDER the Law, not to decide the Law itself.

You should retract your numb nuts statement.

 

[Vidi]

well it's basically what the dictator wannabe just said today !!! he blatantly said that any law passed by a congressional majority and is then found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court is setting a new precedent !!! in other words anything the left passes should become absolute !!!

And this coming from our most intellectual--legal supreme court scholar-- President--who apparently really doesn't understand the U.S. Constitution.

ohh he understands it !! he just does not respect it !!!

As you are doing neither, you are in no position to judge.

 

[Unkotare]

Marbury v Madison is covered in US high school history courses.

No. It's not.

Of course it is. Maybe you just dropped out before they got to it.

 

[Mac1958]

.

This whole thing has been inexplicable, and I still can't get my little brain around it. A constitutional lawyer/teacher arguing against judicial review? Obama's smart enough to step back and see the context, yet he does this anyway. He took a real stand here, so there must be a reason.

The only explanation I can come up with is he's using this to position himself for the campaign. Unless he's been tipped off as to the final decision, he's setting up an argument that says "the GOP likes an activist court when it suits them."

But hold it -- I think the GOP is right about this one -- an activist court is one that effectively creates a new law. In this situation, the court is simply being asked to decide whether a newly-passed law is constitutional. What could be more fundamental to the duties of the Supreme Court than that? And isn't that the point of judicial review?

What am I missing here?

.

 

[yidnar]

And this coming from our most intellectual--legal supreme court scholar-- President--who apparently really doesn't understand the U.S. Constitution.

ohh he understands it !! he just does not respect it !!!

As you are doing neither, you are in no position to judge.

how have i tried to silence any leftist ??? i have never complained to a moderator on this board about the shit leftist post !! bet most lefties can't make that claim !!