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

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

  1. WelfareQueen
    Offline

    WelfareQueen Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    11,724
    Thanks Received:
    5,341
    Trophy Points:
    415
    Location:
    Uranus
    Ratings:
    +11,309
    The Founders felt all three of the Branches of Government have a co-equal responsibility to consider Constitutional questions. Certainly The Executive Branch must consider Constitutional questions every day under the Dept of Justice and Federal Law Enforcement. That is their job. Congress must also consider Constitutional questions when formulating Law.

    Imho this is where things fall apart. Congress does not do their job and seriously consider Constitutional questions when making Law. This is a serious error which has given the Courts leeway to usurp the will of the people. This should never happen. The Courts have every right and responsibility to consider Constitutional questions and to call out those Laws "repugnant to the Constitution." They do not have the right to invalidate or nullify Law.

    To directly answer your question. The remedy for bad Law (i.e. Law "repugnant to the Constitution") must be kicked back to the Congress to fix. Period. The Congress directly represents us....We the People. If they make bad Law they, the Congress, can amend or nullify the Law. Not the Courts.
     
  2. Faun
    Offline

    Faun Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    7,952
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Ratings:
    +30,715
    Oh? Who tells Congress to fix unconstitutional laws?
     
  3. WelfareQueen
    Offline

    WelfareQueen Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    11,724
    Thanks Received:
    5,341
    Trophy Points:
    415
    Location:
    Uranus
    Ratings:
    +11,309

    The Courts can certainly declare a Law to be unconstitutional. The remedy must then be done by the Congress. This does not nullify the Law, but it does require the Congress to clean up their shit.

    If folks think the Courts should have the power to create, amend, or nullify Law by all means try and get the Constitution amended. But for now, and since the founding of the Republic, that power solely rests in the Congress. The Courts have never had that power. Only We the People can give the Courts that power.
     
  4. Faun
    Offline

    Faun Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    7,952
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Ratings:
    +30,715
    Who's gonna force the Congress to change the law if they don't want to?
     
  5. WelfareQueen
    Offline

    WelfareQueen Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    11,724
    Thanks Received:
    5,341
    Trophy Points:
    415
    Location:
    Uranus
    Ratings:
    +11,309

    We the People can vote the bastards out. That is the Constitutional check and balance. Court Judges do not represent We the People. They are unaccountable to We the People and if anything represent the Federal Government's power directed against us. Witness The Supreme Court legalizing Jim Crow in Plessy v Ferguson, declaring Dred Scott property versus being a human being, and countless other decisions that denied basic rights to us as citizens.

    I do not trust the Courts. They fuck us as much as they help. Worse still they are unaccountable.
     
  6. Flopper
    Offline

    Flopper Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,597
    Thanks Received:
    3,845
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Washington
    Ratings:
    +9,878
    The remedy sounds good except for one little thing. The court can not force congress to act and considering the political climate it seems likely they would often not act and the case in court would not be resolved.

    When the law in question is not a federal law but a state law, how can the Supreme Court force a state legislature to create a new law or nullify the the old one? In case of Rowe V. Wade, the state of Texas would not have changed their abortion law. The southern states certainly would not have changed their segregation laws.

    As far as checks and balance, their would be no check on the power of congress, only the voters which in today's world means the power in of the party controlling congress.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Faun
    Offline

    Faun Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    7,952
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Ratings:
    +30,715
    Voting them out doesn't ensure they would change laws deemed unconstitutional.

    And if it takes years for the Congress to finally acquiesce after being voted out, which in itself may take years, what happens to all the people affected by a law deemed unconstitutional? Are people still faced with legal consequences against unconstitutional laws with no remedy at their disposal other than voting out non-compliant Congress members? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    Clearly, once the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional ... it is unconstitutional from that moment.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. WelfareQueen
    Offline

    WelfareQueen Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    11,724
    Thanks Received:
    5,341
    Trophy Points:
    415
    Location:
    Uranus
    Ratings:
    +11,309

    And it takes years to wend its way through the Courts. I am not sure the point you are making here. Either remedy takes a lot of time. What is the difference be it the Courts or Congress?

    Also, what happens to people when a Federal Court issues an injunction stopping a Law dead in its tracks? It is Law passed by the People's Branch of Government. Should this ever happen?

    As for State Courts, where there is overlapping jurisdiction Federal Law or Court decisions hold sway per the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. This is not an issue. If is purely a State Law (i.e Marriage License) the Federal Courts have no say. If the Federal Government has standing Federal Law prevails. Period.
     
  9. Faun
    Offline

    Faun Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    7,952
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Ratings:
    +30,715
    Time matters because peoples' lives hang in the balance.

    Let's say, for argument's sake, you get arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for a crime which you contest as unconstitutional all the way to the Supreme Court; where you prevail. The highest court in the law agrees with you that you were tried based on a law they deem is unconstitutional.

    You think it makes any sense at all to you that you're now wrongly sitting in prison for a crime that the Supreme Court determined is not even a crime? And you have to sit in prison until the Congress finally decides to overturn that law? If ever? They may never nullify that law the Judicial branch deemed unconstitutional, all the while, you're rotting in prison.

    That makes sense to you?

    Even worse, let's say years go by... you're still in jail... now a family member of yours gets arrested for that same crime. You think it makes sense to you they have to defend themselves against an unconstitutional law??
     
  10. WelfareQueen
    Offline

    WelfareQueen Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    11,724
    Thanks Received:
    5,341
    Trophy Points:
    415
    Location:
    Uranus
    Ratings:
    +11,309


    If you are arrested and ultimately convicted by a jury of your peers based on an existing law I do not have much sympathy. You can certainly say you think the Law is unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment maybe) but both the Law, a Jury, and the Courts say you are guilty. You can certainly have your lawyer attempt to re-litigate the case on Constitutional grounds. That happens all the time. The Court can vacate the ruling if you prove your case. No need for Congress in this instance.
     

Share This Page