Where does the constitution give federal judges the power to repeal laws?

Discussion in 'Judicial Interpretation' started by ShootSpeeders, Dec 21, 2013.

  1. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    52,612
    Thanks Received:
    10,981
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +37,603
    You are not correct.

    The States and local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws and the Federal courts.

    The Federal courts have the authority to invalidate state and local laws which violate the Constitution.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Joe Bruno
    Offline

    Joe Bruno Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2019
    Messages:
    134
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Location:
    San Diego
    Ratings:
    +104
    The court's power of judicial review was pronounced in Marbury vs Madison in 1803. The Supreme Court and it's inferior courts are tasked with enforcing the Constitution, which includes the power to declare as "unconstitutional" any law which violates it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    106,384
    Thanks Received:
    19,498
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +74,717
    O
    M
    G


    O
    M
    G

    Jake said we're a Republic. That's one for the ages
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  4. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    69,631
    Thanks Received:
    4,408
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +8,202
    So why do some judges allow gun control laws that infringe on the second amendment rights of citizens to stand? And let's not forget the 14th amendment that states every citizens have equal rights to other citizens in all the states?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    69,631
    Thanks Received:
    4,408
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +8,202
    You're right Jakey I ama reactionary. I react to leftist criminal actions so don't whine when I react to criminal actions of the left and they get laid 6 feet under because they acted criminally
     
  6. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    69,631
    Thanks Received:
    4,408
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +8,202
    It's common knowledge around here.
    Jake called me out one day years ago wanted to meet at the four seasons in Greensboro HE WAS A NO SHOW.
     
  7. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    15,727
    Thanks Received:
    2,087
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +10,476
    After the Civil War Lincoln's corrupt Chase Court started a trend that lasted through to the early 1900's, mainly pandering to big corporations and their 'Social Darwinist' owners, who favored lots of welfare for the rich and connected.

    Judicial activism was rampant from the death of Chief Justice Tainey in 1864 to the Progressive Era. 'Conservatives' and the right wingers loved it when it socialized costs while privatizing profits, same as they like it now; they just whine about little stuff these days, since mot of them would starve to death under a real laissez faire system they claim they want but never get around to implementing. So, we now have all kinds of contradictory 'precedents' in law wherein any body can justify anything, and the only guiding principle is which ideology gets to appoint SC and other Federal Court Judges. Forget that 'Constitution;' crap; it disappeared in 1864, and only gets trotted out by the clueless as 'talking points'.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2019
  8. Uncensored2008
    Offline

    Uncensored2008 Libertarian Radical Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    78,769
    Thanks Received:
    10,337
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Ratings:
    +42,326
    So then the court USURPED the power with no foundation in the Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall simply declared himself the arbiter of the Constitution?
     
  9. Uncensored2008
    Offline

    Uncensored2008 Libertarian Radical Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    78,769
    Thanks Received:
    10,337
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Ratings:
    +42,326
    The Equal Justice clause of the 14th is dead. We all know that democrats above a certain rank are immune from all laws.
     
  10. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,849
    Thanks Received:
    3,023
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,427
    Dear bigrebnc1775
    Because laws, and what we perceive to be lawful or unlawful, depends on
    "consent of the governed."

    If we all AGREE, then there is no dispute, we all consent to such laws.
    Such as letting laws slide by that mixed church marriage with state governments.
    Or letting schools involve prayers and God etc where nobody dissented in the past.

    But when people no longer consent, that's when dissidents lobby for reforms.

    If we AGREED on the reforms, then again, there'd be no problem.

    [NOTE: if you look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service for example (public law 96-303)
    those articles were WELL WRITTEN and passed by Congress UNANIMOUSLY. that's the standard we ought to be pursuing, if we had faith the right solutions would include all sides)

    Where we run into political messes is when neither the EXISTING law bears the consent of all the public, or the proposed REFORMS either, so anything goes - both sides push to represent their interests and consent.

    The liberals especially just push whatever proposed reform they can get away with through legislative or judicial process, then wait for it to get challenged or changed "after they pass it first." so this "process" takes so long, in the interim, you get stuck with imperfect laws such as ACA that were passed to FORCE things to change, knowing it would be contested.

    And when consent get compromised, we end up with Frankensteinish horrow-show results, where nobody gets what they want. We end up with ACA/Obamacare
    or really FU compromises on defense bills, health care, wall or immigration, etc.
    because people are too busy fighting to block each other, they aren't focused on WRITING GOOD LAWS THAT REFLECT THE CONSENT OF THE PUBLIC.

    So that's where you get COMPROMISES to APPEASE political forces.
    You get a mish/mash "potluck" approach, and whatever comes out of the fray.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page