Where are the people that understand the Constitution?

[Meathead]

What's difficult to understand? It's the most brilliant document in human history and basically outlines what limits are set on government over individual rights.

The most brilliant document in history was the Ten Commandments. I won't tell you why. You'll have to guess.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.

No place is Judicial review found.

No place.

Why? Because it isn't there.

 

[Skylar]

Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.

No place is Judicial review found.

No place.

Why? Because it isn't there.

Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Federalist No. 78 paper make clear there is a legitimate concept of Judicial Review, it is their only real power they have since they have no control over money or the Military. They depend on the OTHER two branches to accept their decisions.

"Judicial review[edit]
Federalist No. 78 describes the process of judicial review, in which the federal courts review statutes to determine whether they are consistent with the Constitution and its statutes. Federalist No. 78 indicates that under the Constitution, the legislature is not the judge of the constitutionality of its own actions. Rather, it is the responsibility of the federal courts to protect the people by restraining the legislature from acting inconsistently with the Constitution:

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.

Federalist No. 78 views the judicial branch as inherently weak because of its inability to control either the money or the military of the country. The only power of the judicial branch is the power of judgment:

The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

Because of the courts' weakness, Federalist No. 78 sees the possibility of corruption using judicial review as a non-issue. The people will never be in danger if the structure of the government written up in the Constitution remains. It also asserts that judgment needs to be removed from the groups that make the legislation and rule:

It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.

Federalist No. 78 views Supreme Court Justices as an embodiment of the Constitution, a last group to protect the foundation laws set up in the Constitution. This coincides with the view above that the judicial branch is the branch of judgment:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

According to Federalist No. 78, the federal courts have a duty to interpret and apply the Constitution, and to disregard any statute that is inconsistent with the Constitution:

If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .

Federalist No. 78 argues that the power of judicial review should be used by the judicial branch to protect the liberties guaranteed to the people by the Constitution and to provide a check on the power of the legislature:

[W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . "

[W]henever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

Federalist No. 78 therefore indicates that the federal judiciary has the power to determine whether statutes are constitutional, and to find them invalid if in conflict with the Constitution. This principle of judicial review was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). "

I own the book The Federalist, which is a MUST because the men who wrote them.... were..... there......

 

[Natural Citizen]

Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.

No place is Judicial review found.

No place.

Why? Because it isn't there.

Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.

No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic safe from the ''our Democracy'' crowd.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.

No place is Judicial review found.

No place.

Why? Because it isn't there.

Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.

No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic.

I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?

Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78?

 

[Sunsettommy]

The SCOTUS is, itself, limited by the Constitution.

Article VI trumps. Additionally, any decision in any case is limited to the 'law of the case' and binds only those parties involved in it.

See Federalist 83 here.

Not since they seized power under Marbury v. Madison....Ever since, we've had judicial oligarchy.

Can't "seize power" already given...…..

To this day they still depend on the Congress and Executive branch to accept their decisions as they have no economic or military power to back it up, therefore their " seized power" is dependent on their COMPLIANCE nothing more.

You have nothing here, oddball!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.

No place is Judicial review found.

No place.

Why? Because it isn't there.

Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.

No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic.

I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?

Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78?

The Supreme Court is supposed to do what all courts do: decide specific cases according to the written law.

I have no idea why this is confusing to anyone.

Let me walk you through an example. A friend of mine is an attorney who has argued before the US Supreme Court a number of times. One of his cases was a client who was charged with possession based on a police search of his car. During his client's trial, the court didn't start nattering about what the law should or shouldn't be regarding drug possession. The court just said, "This is the law as written. You violated it. You're guilty." End of discussion.

My friend the attorney appealed the guilty verdict to the Appeals Court. Again, the Appeals Court didn't start ruling on whether or not the law should be XYZ. They just said, "This is the law. This is how it applies."

The appeal to the Supreme Court was on the basis of 4th Amendment illegal search and seizure, because my friend maintained that the police did not have probable cause to search the car, and did not have his client's permission to do so in lieu of probable cause. The Supreme Court upheld that argument, invalidating the decisions of the lower courts. They looked at the written laws regarding search and seizure, and then they rendered a decision applying those laws as written.

And that's what their job is.

 

[Sunsettommy]

How could anyone misunderstand the Supreme Courts role?

"Section 2
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.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

 

[Skylar]

Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.

No place is Judicial review found.

No place.

Why? Because it isn't there.

Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.

No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic safe from the ''our Democracy'' crowd.

Judicial Review is part of the Judicial Power. Again, read Federalist 78.

Its the duty of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution. And if a law by the legislature is in variance with the Constitution, to put the Constitution above the law.

 

[Skylar]

Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.

No place is Judicial review found.

No place.

Why? Because it isn't there.

Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.

No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic.

I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?

Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78?

The Supreme Court is supposed to do what all courts do: decide specific cases according to the written law.

With the Constitution being the Supreme 'written law'. Its the role of the judiciary is to interpret the constitution and interpret the meaning of any given law. And if there is an irreconcilable variance between a law and the constitution, that the judiciary should put the constitution above the law.

It is the role of the judiciary to act as an intermediary between the people and the legislature and keep the legislature within the bounds of its authority. If the legislature oversteps and passes laws in contradiction of the constitution, the judiciary puts the constitution over the law. As its is the judiciary that interprets the *meaning* of the constitution.

That's what the Judiciary is supposed to do. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.

 

[Oddball]

Can't "seize power" already given...…..

To this day they still depend on the Congress and Executive branch to accept their decisions as they have no economic or military power to back it up, therefore their " seized power" is dependent on their COMPLIANCE nothing more.

You have nothing here, oddball!

I defy you to cite article and section where the USSC has explicit enumerated power to rule over any other branch....That's what Marbury did, when USSC seized the power to deem anything they wanted to be (un)constitutional at any given moment.

The one with nothing here is you.

 

[Skylar]

I defy you to cite article and section where the USSC has explicit power to rule over any pother branch....That's what Marbury did, when USSC seized the power to deem anything they wanted to be (un)constitutional at any given moment.

The one with nothing here is you.

Its the Judicial Power. Which includes the authority to interpret the constitution per Federalist Paper 78

Show me a better source than the Federalist Papers on the meaning of the Judicial Power.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Can't "seize power" already given...…..

To this day they still depend on the Congress and Executive branch to accept their decisions as they have no economic or military power to back it up, therefore their " seized power" is dependent on their COMPLIANCE nothing more.

You have nothing here, oddball!

I defy you to cite article and section where the USSC has explicit enumerated power to rule over any other branch....That's what Marbury did, when USSC seized the power to deem anything they wanted to be (un)constitutional at any given moment.

The one with nothing here is you.

My my, you failed to see what was RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.

Straight from the CONSTITUTION!

"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."

Who writes and passes the laws?

CONGRESS

Who signs the passed bills (laws) and Treaties?

The PRESIDENT

It is clear you have NOT read Federalist Paper #78 written by Alexander Hamilton, titled:

The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution

You are in effect saying Alexander is wrong, good luck with that.

 

[Skylar]

It gets worse when this was decided the same year:

"Ex parte Endo, or Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944),[1] was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast—which they had found not to violate citizen rights in their Korematsu v. United States decision on the same date—the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II."

Since there was ZERO evidence as pointed out in TWO reports, one requested by President Roosevelt himself, that Japanese Americans were NOT a threat to security of the nation.

"Japanese Americans and other Asians in the U.S. had suffered for decades from prejudice and racially-motivated fear. Laws preventing Asian Americans from owning land, voting, testifying against whites in court, and other racially discriminatory laws existed long before World War II. Additionally, the FBI, Office of Naval Intelligence and Military Intelligence Division had been conducting surveillance on Japanese American communities in Hawaii and the U.S. mainland from the early 1930s.[5] In early 1941, President Roosevelt secretly commissioned a study to assess the possibility that Japanese Americans would pose a threat to U.S. security. The report, submitted exactly one month before Pearl Harbor was bombed, found that, "There will be no armed uprising of Japanese" in the United States. "For the most part," the Munson Report said, "the local Japanese are loyal to the United States or, at worst, hope that by remaining quiet they can avoid concentration camps or irresponsible mobs."[4] A second investigation started in 1940, written by Naval Intelligence officer Kenneth Ringle and submitted in January 1942, likewise found no evidence of fifth column activity and urged against mass incarceration.[6] Both were ignored."

Over two-thirds of the people of Japanese ethnicity were incarcerated—almost 70,000—were American citizens. Many of the rest had lived in the country between 20 and 40 years. Most Japanese Americans, particularly the first generation born in the United States (the nisei), considered themselves loyal to the United States of America. No Japanese American citizen or Japanese national residing in the United States was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage.[4]

It goes on to show that the Roosevelt administration quickly realized they had no legal justification to keep the camps in place:

"The unanimous opinion ruling in Endo's favor was written by Justice William O. Douglas, with Justices Frank Murphy and Owen Roberts concurring. It stopped short of addressing the question of the government's right to exclude citizens based on military necessity, instead focusing on the actions of the WRA: "In reaching that conclusion [that Endo should be freed] we do not come to the underlying constitutional issues which have been argued. ... [W]e conclude that, whatever power the War Relocation Authority may have to detain other classes of citizens, it has no authority to subject citizens who are concededly loyal to its leave procedure."[1]

Because of this avoidance, it is very difficult to reconcile Endo with Korematsu, which was decided the same day. As Justice Roberts pointed out in his Korematsu dissent, distinguishing the cases required a reliance on the legal fiction that Korematsu only dealt with the exclusion of Japanese Americans, not their detention—that Fred Korematsu could have gone anywhere else in the United States, when in reality he would have been subject to the detainment found illegal in Endo.[4] In short, while Endo determined that a citizen could not be imprisoned if the government was unable to prove she was disloyal, Korematsu allowed the government a loophole to criminally punish that citizen for refusing to be illegally imprisoned.[5]

The Roosevelt administration, having been alerted to the Court's decision, issued Public Proclamation No. 21 the day before the Endo and Korematsu rulings were made public, on December 17, 1944, rescinding the exclusion orders and declaring that Japanese Americans could begin returning to the West Coast in January 1945.[5]"

boldings mine

You are too stupid to realize you have jack shit. Your red herring claims are STUPID as hell.

Sop defending the proven terrible SCOTUS decision and that lawless Executive Order 9066!

You're just punching strawmen. As *no one* is defending anything related to Japanese Internment.

I'm citing the glorious irrelevance of a bad decision by the USSC with what we're discussing: the authority granted the Judiciary by the constitution.

Has the Judiciary made bad calls? Absolutely. Has the Executive? You bet. Has the Legislature? Undoubtedly.

Yet each still possesses the authority granted them by the Constitution. In terms of the authority granted each branch of government, poor use of authority has absolutely nothing to do with the grant of authority by the Constitution. And its those grants of authority that we're discussing.

Its entirely possible we're just talking past each other. As in points of substance, we appear to agree.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.

No place is Judicial review found.

No place.

Why? Because it isn't there.

Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.

No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic safe from the ''our Democracy'' crowd.

Judicial Review is part of the Judicial Power. Again, read Federalist 78.

Its the duty of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution. And if a law by the legislature is in variance with the Constitution, to put the Constitution above the law.

Correct.

It was the Framers’ intent that government enact laws and measures reflecting the will of the people through their elected representatives.

As long as government acted consistent with the Constitution and its case law, there would be no need for the judiciary to become involved; indeed, acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, in deference to the will of the people.

And when the people err and enact laws and measures repugnant to the Constitution, it is the role of the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to invalidate those unlawful acts of government.

It’s incumbent upon lawmakers, therefore, to know the Constitution and its case law, to enact measures in good faith consistent with that case law, thus avoiding needless court challenges.

 

[longknife]

Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.

No place is Judicial review found.

No place.

Why? Because it isn't there.

Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.

No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic.

I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?

Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78?

The Supreme Court is supposed to do what all courts do: decide specific cases according to the written law.

I have no idea why this is confusing to anyone.

Let me walk you through an example. A friend of mine is an attorney who has argued before the US Supreme Court a number of times. One of his cases was a client who was charged with possession based on a police search of his car. During his client's trial, the court didn't start nattering about what the law should or shouldn't be regarding drug possession. The court just said, "This is the law as written. You violated it. You're guilty." End of discussion.

My friend the attorney appealed the guilty verdict to the Appeals Court. Again, the Appeals Court didn't start ruling on whether or not the law should be XYZ. They just said, "This is the law. This is how it applies."

The appeal to the Supreme Court was on the basis of 4th Amendment illegal search and seizure, because my friend maintained that the police did not have probable cause to search the car, and did not have his client's permission to do so in lieu of probable cause. The Supreme Court upheld that argument, invalidating the decisions of the lower courts. They looked at the written laws regarding search and seizure, and then they rendered a decision applying those laws as written.

And that's what their job is.

Then I think the SCOTUS ruling ignored one fact - when you license a motor vehicle, you are obtaining permission from the licensing authority to operate that vehicle within appropriate laws and regulations. If you fail to do so, local authorities have the right to determine whether or not you are following the law - to include a search of the licensed vehicle!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.

No place is Judicial review found.

No place.

Why? Because it isn't there.

Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.

No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic.

I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?

Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78?

The Supreme Court is supposed to do what all courts do: decide specific cases according to the written law.

I have no idea why this is confusing to anyone.

Let me walk you through an example. A friend of mine is an attorney who has argued before the US Supreme Court a number of times. One of his cases was a client who was charged with possession based on a police search of his car. During his client's trial, the court didn't start nattering about what the law should or shouldn't be regarding drug possession. The court just said, "This is the law as written. You violated it. You're guilty." End of discussion.

My friend the attorney appealed the guilty verdict to the Appeals Court. Again, the Appeals Court didn't start ruling on whether or not the law should be XYZ. They just said, "This is the law. This is how it applies."

The appeal to the Supreme Court was on the basis of 4th Amendment illegal search and seizure, because my friend maintained that the police did not have probable cause to search the car, and did not have his client's permission to do so in lieu of probable cause. The Supreme Court upheld that argument, invalidating the decisions of the lower courts. They looked at the written laws regarding search and seizure, and then they rendered a decision applying those laws as written.

And that's what their job is.

Actually not.

If the ‘written law’ says that public schools should compel students to learn Christian religious dogma, then the ‘written law’ is repugnant to the Constitution, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and subject to invalidation by the Supreme Court, just as the Court is supposed to do.

‘Written law’ must comport with Constitutional jurisprudence; when it does not the Supreme Court is at liberty to disregard ‘written law’ and strike it down accordingly.

 

[regent]

No place is Judicial review found.

No place.

Why? Because it isn't there.

Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.

No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic.

I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?

Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78?

The Supreme Court is supposed to do what all courts do: decide specific cases according to the written law.

With the Constitution being the Supreme 'written law'. Its the role of the judiciary is to interpret the constitution and interpret the meaning of any given law. And if there is an irreconcilable variance between a law and the constitution, that the judiciary should put the constitution above the law.

It is the role of the judiciary to act as an intermediary between the people and the legislature and keep the legislature within the bounds of its authority. If the legislature oversteps and passes laws in contradiction of the constitution, the judiciary puts the constitution over the law. As its is the judiciary that interprets the *meaning* of the constitution.

That's what the Judiciary is supposed to do. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.

So where is the power derived for the Federalist Papers to have any power over any aspect of the government? Calling the papers federalist does not make them a part of any government agency or the power to make government laws. Three men, Madison, Jay and Hamilton wrote letters to the editor hopefully to get the Constitution approved by the states.

 

[Natural Citizen]

So where is the power derived for the Federalist Papers to have any power over any aspect of the government? Calling the papers federalist does not make them a part of any government agency or the power to make government laws. Three men, Madison, Jay and Hamilton wrote letters to the editor hopefully to get the Constitution approved by the states.

They're completely blind to the tenor of #78. Chuckle and move along. Nothing to see here. Heh heh.

#78 was written on the assumption that the Congress would not become so derelict in their duty to allow the Judiciary to become so powerful. No place in Article III do we find judicial review. Jefferson fought it the first time they tried to seize power. He prevailed and he shut them down. When he died, they went right back to it. It was Marbury v Madison that the SCOTUS gave themselves the power of judicial review.

But, as we see, the opposite of the tenor in #78 has happened, The Judiciary routinely vetos Congress, which is outside the parameters of its constitutional function in terms of our system of checks and balances, therefore rendering the tenor in #78 redundant.