Andrew Jackson on Judicial Supremacy

[Procrustes Stretched]

[
Andrew Jackson was entitled to his own opinions and lunacies, but this issue has been settled over and over again. and btw, wtf did Jackson have to do with the US Constitution?

As president, he had as much right to interpret the constitution as the SC. So does congress.

And that opinion has been discredited over and over again for well over 2 centuries.

get a life

 

[Vandalshandle]

The president is the servant of the people. Therefore, if my servant has the right to final interpretation of the Constition, so do I. I interpret the Constitution that anyone who disagrees with me is a facist, and should be tried for treason.

Let the trials begin!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Article III gives the Court original jurisdiction in matters constitutional.

.

HAHAHAHA. That is a brazen lie as even you know.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If SCOTUS is not the ultimate arbiter then who is?

No one is except perhaps the people thru the ballot. The president can refuse to enforce a ruling by the SCOTUS and if the public disapproves they can remove him. How can they remove judges?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

(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.)

Nothing there about interpreting the constitution itself. It specifically says cases in law and equity. THINK

 

[Vandalshandle]

If SCOTUS is not the ultimate arbiter then who is?

No one is except perhaps the people thru the ballot. The president can refuse to enforce a ruling by the SCOTUS and if the public disapproves they can remove him. How can they remove judges?

Exactly the same way that they remove a president. It is called impeachment. Look it up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Article III gives the Court original jurisdiction in matters constitutional.

.

HAHAHAHA. That is a brazen lie as even you know.

Ad Hominem Argument: Also, "personal attack," "poisoning the well." The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also Guilt by Association. Also applies to cases where potential opposing arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about. Master List of Logical Fallacies

 

[regent]

This issue of the constitution giving the Court's the power to interpret the constitution is an old classroom gambit; most students having no doubt that the constitution did indeed give the court that power, and in writing. Then after going through the Marbury case step by step the truth becomes known. The issue is tried on these boards on various occasions with the same classroom responses. It is a great learning lesson for introducing the constitution.

 

[FA_Q2]

How else can it work? In reality, the courts are the ones that determine guilt. Essentially, judicial review for constitutionality is the court saying that they cannot prosecute one law because another, higher one does not permit it. You don’t really need to have that in writing; it is a fundamental part of the courts. What else do you expect the court to do when laws disagree?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If SCOTUS is not the ultimate arbiter then who is?

No one is except perhaps the people thru the ballot. The president can refuse to enforce a ruling by the SCOTUS and if the public disapproves they can remove him. How can they remove judges?

Exactly the same way that they remove a president. It is called impeachment. Look it up.

HAHAHAHA. No SC justice has ever been removed by the impeachment process. You might as well pray for the space aliens to take him out.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

How else can it work? In reality, the courts are the ones that determine guilt. Essentially, judicial review for constitutionality is the court saying that they cannot prosecute one law because another, higher one does not permit it. You don’t really need to have that in writing; it is a fundamental part of the courts. What else do you expect the court to do when laws disagree?

WTF are you prattling about?. Let's look at roe v wade where the SC invented the constitutional right to abortion. It had nothing to do with disagreement among laws, you nitwit. The SC should have simply refused to hear the case on grounds that abortion is clearly a state issue. There was no need for judicial review or interpretation of the constitution.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

This issue of the constitution giving the Court's the power to interpret the constitution is an old classroom gambit; most students having no doubt that the constitution did indeed give the court that power, and in writing. .

It's in writing in the constitution.?? Show us where. Thomas Jefferson couldn't find it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This issue of the constitution giving the Court's the power to interpret the constitution is an old classroom gambit; most students having no doubt that the constitution did indeed give the court that power, and in writing. .

It's in writing in the constitution.?? Show us where. Thomas Jefferson couldn't find it.

this is so stupid,

idea: leave this shooting fool to himself

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Agreed. Jackson was indeed a "loose cannon." When the Supreme Court sided with the Native Americans, in that they determined that they could not be forced out and moved west of the Mississippi, Jackson's response was essentially, "let's see the Supreme Court enforce their decision," and had troops forcibly transfer the Native American tribes west of the Mississippi. A move that the Native Americans came to call the Trail of Tears. When you have elements of the government, such as the executive or the legislative, interpreting the laws, rather than the Supreme Court, you have room for abuse.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Far greater abuse by legislative or executive is more likely than by SCOTUS.

Why?

The president has the Army, the legislature control of taxation, and SCOTUS has the law.

 

[FA_Q2]

How else can it work? In reality, the courts are the ones that determine guilt. Essentially, judicial review for constitutionality is the court saying that they cannot prosecute one law because another, higher one does not permit it. You don’t really need to have that in writing; it is a fundamental part of the courts. What else do you expect the court to do when laws disagree?

WTF are you prattling about?. Let's look at roe v wade where the SC invented the constitutional right to abortion. It had nothing to do with disagreement among laws, you nitwit. The SC should have simply refused to hear the case on grounds that abortion is clearly a state issue. There was no need for judicial review or interpretation of the constitution.

I am ‘prattling’ on about reality. You can debate that specific ruling all you want but it is not the point of this thread. The specific point here was the courts ability to determine the constitutionality of a law through judicial review. I stated a basic fact: as the arbiter of guilt, the judicial branch must determine if you are guilty of a crime. In instances where laws do not agree, they need to make the decision as to what law applies. In this context, the judiciary does not actually strike down a law. Instead, they are forced to ignore it because other law dictates that they must.

What else do you expect the court to do when they face situation where one law demands you turn left but another demands that you turn right? They have no option other than to declare one law void.




BTW, the SC did not create a ‘right’ to abortion BTW – the ruling was rooted in the right to privacy and I the right to be secure in your person.

 

[regent]

This issue of the constitution giving the Court's the power to interpret the constitution is an old classroom gambit; most students having no doubt that the constitution did indeed give the court that power, and in writing. .

It's in writing in the constitution.?? Show us where. Thomas Jefferson couldn't find it.

No one has found it.
Think of it, all the founders had to do was put in a brief sentence and they didn't. So far we have been lucky with Marbury. One of these days five men could come up with a goofy- decision and America could face a trying time. The president could fail to enforce the goofy- decision, and bedlam, the Congress could filibuster and bedlam, or the lobbyists fail to give Congress proper directions and bedlam. Somewhere down the pike the clash will come. Five men!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

When you have elements of the government, such as the executive or the legislative, interpreting the laws, rather than the Supreme Court, you have room for abuse.

The abuse comes when the UNELECTED judiciary has final say on everything. We can remove our president or congressmen but the judges serve forever and take bribes on every issue knowing the public can do nothing about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Examples, ShootSpeeders. Until you provide them, you are merely showing you are unhappy.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

It's in writing in the constitution.?? Show us where. Thomas Jefferson couldn't find it.

No one has found it.
Think of it, all the founders had to do was put in a brief sentence and they didn't.

The founders took the view that all three branches of the govt had equal right to interpret the constitution. They would have laughed at the idea that unelected judges had final say on every issue.