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

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

  1. Faun
    Offline

    Faun Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    49,358
    Thanks Received:
    7,165
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Ratings:
    +26,229
    So a court vacates the guilty verdict because they rule the law was unconstitutional and you go free. Now your relative is arrested for breaking the same law. What happens with your relative when Congress didn't repeal that law deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial branch?

    a) The DA drops the charges because courts ruled that law is unconstitutional?

    b) The DA indicts them but the court throws the case out because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

    c) The court tries the case but the jury decides you rdd relative is not guilty because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

    d) Your relative is convicted and has to appeal to a higher court based on another court ruling that law is unconstitutional?

    e) Something else (please explain)
     
  2. WelfareQueen
    Offline

    WelfareQueen Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    11,696
    Thanks Received:
    5,335
    Trophy Points:
    415
    Location:
    Uranus
    Ratings:
    +11,261

    No legal system is perfect. However, imho the Constitution must be obeyed. The power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law only exists in one Branch of Government.....The People's Branch....the Congress.

    If folks want the Judicial Branch to have the power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law by all means.....fix the Constitution. :thup: Personally, I think that is a very bad idea. The Founders have most everything correct. If they felt it was a good idea to give the Courts the same powers as Congress they would have said so explicitly. They did not.
     
  3. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    14,183
    Thanks Received:
    1,868
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +9,378
    that horse escaped the barn during Lincoln's dictatorship, and the 'Gilded Age' was one long party of judicial activism for right wingers, the modern 'Libertarian's' wet dream, 'corporate personhood' came into existence then, and has been a plague ever since,, with no brakes on banks, corporate abuses of labor, legalized trusts, etc., and railroads practically owning most Statehouses and therefore the Senate and via the Senate the Federal Courts. It's about 150 years too late to be sniveling about it now, unless you've got a few billion bucks laying around to run several nationwide Amendment campaigns.
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    44,809
    Thanks Received:
    7,485
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +15,271
    I guess you A) did not read the Power granted the Court by the Constitution and B) don't understand how Courts work. The Constitution invests in the Supreme Court and all federal Courts the power to try cases against for or involving the US Government. That means by that power the Court can and does decide what is and is NOT legal in regards the Constitution when a case is brought.

    The Supreme Court IS granted the authority and POWER to declare acts by the US Government Illegal, Unconstitutional and void. If those acts are brought before the Court then YES the Court can rule they are null and void. The power Congress has is to review the Court case and change the law in question to not violate the Constitution or law.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Faun
    Offline

    Faun Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    49,358
    Thanks Received:
    7,165
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Ratings:
    +26,229
    Why not answer my question? Which of those do you think applies?

    And no, the Judicial branch has no power to create or amend laws. They can only affirm or nullify laws or parts of laws.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    14,183
    Thanks Received:
    1,868
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +9,378
    Congress has ceded a lot of its power to the Courts; that's so they can spend more time soliciting bribes and money for their next re-election campaign. there is also the problem of people expecting them to do such stuff as actually reading bills they vote on .... I mean, the obscene gall of you peasants is almost too much to bear at times.

    Not that the majority of the voters could pass a civics test anyway, especially a written one in English, so no reason to expect and demand 'good govt.' when one has no idea what it is.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  7. WelfareQueen
    Offline

    WelfareQueen Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    11,696
    Thanks Received:
    5,335
    Trophy Points:
    415
    Location:
    Uranus
    Ratings:
    +11,261


    Nope. Read the actual Constitution. This is Article III which covers all Judicial Powers. Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law and I will happily concede the point. I have a close friend who is a lawyer with the Justice Dept and taught Constitutional Law at the Univ of Florida. Even he concedes the explicit power does not exist under the Constitution. But hey...maybe you know more?


    Here is Article III


    Section 1


    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    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.

    Section 3
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Dick Foster
    Offline

    Dick Foster VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2018
    Messages:
    1,256
    Thanks Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    The People's Republic of the Californicated
    Ratings:
    +1,367
    It doesnt, it's simply judicial overreach. Hang em high!
     
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    44,809
    Thanks Received:
    7,485
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +15,271
    Section 2 covers it by granting to the Court the Power to try all cases involving the Government.
     
  10. Faun
    Offline

    Faun Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    49,358
    Thanks Received:
    7,165
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Ratings:
    +26,229
    "Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law"

    Section 2
    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

    The Judicial branch decides on the constitutionality on cases and can rule that aspects of a law are unconstitutional. Certainly, you can agree to that?

    In such cases, it's not that they rewrite or amend the law, they don't; they render it unconstitutional, which leaves no room for additional cases based on such a ruling, to be heard in a court of law. Had you answered my question, the accurate answer is A and B. A, in that a D.A. will likely not charge someone who's violated a law that was deemed unconstitutional; and B, in the event a D.A. presses charges anyway, the court will throw the case out because the law was already deemed untriable.
     

Share This Page