Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 68,745
- 77,356
- 3,605
Does the United States Supreme Court Make Laws, Enforce Laws -- Do Americans even know?
- Thread starter Dante
- Start date
You're the OP, so I addressed your questions in the originating post. Seems you don't understand the basic functions of the judicial branch of government.
You're the OP dumbfuck, and you asked questions about basic government functions, with established precedent.
Dante
I have always been here
- Thread starter
- #25
Does the United States Supreme Court Make Laws, Enforce Laws -- Do Americans even know?
And in this area of interest: This pops up. I remember the "debate" well.
Debate Now - Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government
I think some are arguing something other than social contract here. Let's review the OP once again, what the topic is, and let's focus on that okay?www.usmessageboard.com
Stumbled upon this post and followed it back. It's a spat between two what I am going to assume, Americans who have been educated in American schools. Did they go on to higher education? Who knows. Would it, should it matter?
What I'm interested in is seeing people on the left or the right, at any given time somehow taking arguments of the other side to suit an argument. And I am interested in just what Americans believe about the Supreme Court and how it functions, what it's role is (not looking at can they link to the constitution, as linking does not equate to understanding). What is it people believe?
What if both parties committed to protecting and preserving America’s founding principles, values, tradition and history?
Pennsylvania ruled mail in voting was unconstitutional,, that alone are a lot of votes that shouldnt have been counted,, your ignorance is on you not us,, liberals are so ignorant you wonder how they survive past the age of 25 maybe they kind of don't... since: With age comes wisdom. So...Debate Now - Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government
Let me put it more simply. 1) When a President changes, via executive order, changes or refuses to enforce a law that Congress passed and he signed into law, is that a violation of social contract? 2) When Congress votes itself benefits that are not authorized via the Constitution, is that a...
They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.
The argument is not what the law is. Or what SCOTUS rules.
The argument is what is and what is not social contract, what violates social contract, and what the people should do when that occurs, if anything. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs here.
Dante jumped in:
My opinion is that we could not know. Probability versus possibility. It's possible one could now, but is is highly improbable we do know
other:
Well I am just arrogant to think that I read the founding documents they left for us and am right in that they would have disapproved of any dictate from the central government even suggesting how people must live their lives.
Dante:
In the context of their time you may be correct, but you are assuming you know what they would think now about things and a changing world they know nothing about. You do not know how and when and why people will or do change. Jefferson and others changed their own view of things as they aged. Americans, the very people who ratified the Constitution and gave it legitimacy and power changed over time.
You cannot claim to "know" what anyone from the past would believe or think if they were living today.
The above is an example of what is in the OP:
I am interested in just what Americans believe about the Supreme Court and how it functions, what it's role is (not looking at can they link to the constitution, as linking does not equate to understanding). What is it people believe?
What is it people believe, why, do their beliefs square up with reality?
Dante
I have always been here
- Thread starter
- #26
What is an example of rhetorical?
Rhetorical questions: A rhetorical question emphasizes a point by posing a question without expecting an answer. For example, “Do birds fly?” is a rhetorical question implying, “Isn't it obvious?”
Does the United States Supreme Court Make Laws, Enforce Laws -- Do Americans even know?
Rhetorical questions: A rhetorical question emphasizes a point by posing a question without expecting an answer. For example, “Do birds fly?” is a rhetorical question implying, “Isn't it obvious?”
Does the United States Supreme Court Make Laws, Enforce Laws -- Do Americans even know?
The Court was established to arbitrate disagreements between parties as to what the law is and/or is not. The Supreme Court was to be the final arbitrator of such disagreements.And in this area of interest: This pops up. I remember the "debate" well.
Debate Now - Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government
I think some are arguing something other than social contract here. Let's review the OP once again, what the topic is, and let's focus on that okay?
Debate Now - Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government
Let me put it more simply. 1) When a President changes, via executive order, changes or refuses to enforce a law that Congress passed and he signed into law, is that a violation of social contract? 2) When Congress votes itself benefits that are not authorized via the Constitution, is that a...
They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.
The argument is not what the law is. Or what SCOTUS rules.
The argument is what is and what is not social contract, what violates social contract, and what the people should do when that occurs, if anything. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs here.
Dante jumped in:
My opinion is that we could not know. Probability versus possibility. It's possible one could now, but is is highly improbable we do know
other:
Well I am just arrogant to think that I read the founding documents they left for us and am right in that they would have disapproved of any dictate from the central government even suggesting how people must live their lives.
Dante:
In the context of their time you may be correct, but you are assuming you know what they would think now about things and a changing world they know nothing about. You do not know how and when and why people will or do change. Jefferson and others changed their own view of things as they aged. Americans, the very people who ratified the Constitution and gave it legitimacy and power changed over time.
You cannot claim to "know" what anyone from the past would believe or think if they were living today.
The above is an example of what is in the OP:
I am interested in just what Americans believe about the Supreme Court and how it functions, what it's role is (not looking at can they link to the constitution, as linking does not equate to understanding). What is it people believe?
What is it people believe, why, do their beliefs square up with reality?
No court at any level, including the Supreme Court, is given authority to make or change the existing law.
At the federal level, the people's elected representatives are the ONLY Constitutional authority given to make law that materially affects the people. Not the President. Not bureaucrats. Not the courts.
I am not going to educate you on what a middle school or high school student should understand. If you are having issues with understanding basic government functions, I suggest you research and analyze the background and purpose of the three branches of government.So you can't link to what you are claiming? Okay. You're jut trolling too, like Votto and Liability.
Trolling not necessary -- just highlighting your lack of knowledge on the purpose of the judicial branch of government. Want a School House Rock video to educate you?
- Jan 19, 2010
- 83,899
- 84,308
- 3,605
They interpret the constitution as they see it...
Why do I need to educate a grandpa on how basic functions of government work? Don't you not know how to use Google or YouTube, Grandpa?
Here is what my 1st-grade daughter used to watch Grandpa.
Dante
I have always been here
- Thread starter
- #32
Not sure why you brought in bureaucrats. When you say "not the President"I think of this: "Article I, Section 7 says that a bill becomes a “law” once it successfully runs the bicameralism-and-presentment gauntlet; it does not make its status as “law” contingent on whether the statute comports with the judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution." Presentment. The President's role in making law.
Your post has me thinking of the courts' role in the legal system. Later I want to look at the idea stated, that the Courts "enforce" the law.
“writ-of-erasure fallacy”
"And nothing in the supremacy clause suggests that a statute that the courts find unconstitutional ceases to exist as “law.” Many have noted that Article VI defines the “supreme Law of the Land” to include “this Constitution” and “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.”72 But even if one assumes that the “made in pursuance thereof” caveat requires compliance with the Constitution as construed by the federal judiciary,73 that means that Article VI merely withholds the status of supreme law from statutes that the judiciary finds unconstitutional. It does not indicate or suggest that these federal statutes no longer qualify as “Laws of the United States.”74
Another portion of the supremacy clause directs “the Judges in every State” to follow “supreme” federal law over “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary.”75 But this is nothing more than a rule of priority for courts when resolving conflicts between different sources of law.76 The state statutes that contradict “supreme” federal law continue to exist as “laws,” even as they go unenforced, and they would become enforceable if federal law were amended or reinterpreted to remove the conflict.
It is instructive to compare the language of the federal Constitution with state constitutions that explicitly empower their judiciaries to pronounce statutes “void.” The Georgia Constitution, for example, provides that “Legislative acts in violation of this Constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, are void, and the Judiciary shall so declare them.”77 The Georgia Supreme Court therefore regards judicial pronouncements of unconstitutionality as a formal revocation of the underlying statute — to the point that it refuses to give effect to statutes that purport to amend a law that the state judiciary has pronounced unconstitutional.78 A “void” statute cannot be amended because it is a legal nullity, even when the amending statute would have cured the constitutional defects.79
The federal Constitution contains no language of this sort..."
Dante
I have always been here
- Thread starter
- #34
What usually I see is people arguing without understanding what arguments they are using. I mean arguments they've gotten from a soundbite, or a talking point put forth by partisans, or misreporting by media that are trained for headlines vs content.
Interesting article:
theconversation.com
It is a central principle of law: Courts, including the Supreme Court, are supposed to follow earlier decisions – precedent – to resolve current disputes. But on rare occasions, Supreme Court justices conclude that one of the court’s past constitutional precedents has to go...
For years the court had been building up a theory of precedent reversal that would justify overturning Roe, among other precedents it did not like, and the draft opinion leaked in early 2022 foreshadowed this decision.
The justices who voted to overrule the Roe precedent provided the reasoning behind their decision to reverse a longstanding ruling and declare abortion rights are not protected by the U.S. Constitution. Their explanations also open up the possibility of more reversals of precedent in the future.
Finally, following precedent promotes predictability in the law and protects people who have come to rely on past decisions as a guide for their behavior.
In my (David Schultz) book, “Constitutional Precedent in Supreme Court Reasoning,” I point out that from 1789 to 2020, there were 25,544 Supreme Court opinions and judgments after oral arguments. The court has reversed its own constitutional precedents only 145 times – barely 0.5%.
The court’s historic periods are often characterized by who led it as chief justice. From 1953 until 2020, under the successive leadership of Chief Justices Earl Warren, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist and now John Roberts, the court overturned constitutional precedent 32, 32, 30 and 15 times, respectively. That is well under 1% of decisions handled during each period in the court’s history.
Not all precedents are equal...
Beginning with the Rehnquist court, justices became more willing to reject precedents they thought were badly reasoned, simply wrong or inconsistent with their own sense of the constitutional framers’ intentions...
Interesting article:
The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times, including striking down legal segregation and reversing Roe
The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times, including striking down legal segregation and reversing Roe
The justices who decided to overturn the abortion rights precedent of Roe v. Wade explained their reasoning, and signaled other precedents could be reversed as well.
theconversation.com
It is a central principle of law: Courts, including the Supreme Court, are supposed to follow earlier decisions – precedent – to resolve current disputes. But on rare occasions, Supreme Court justices conclude that one of the court’s past constitutional precedents has to go...
For years the court had been building up a theory of precedent reversal that would justify overturning Roe, among other precedents it did not like, and the draft opinion leaked in early 2022 foreshadowed this decision.
The justices who voted to overrule the Roe precedent provided the reasoning behind their decision to reverse a longstanding ruling and declare abortion rights are not protected by the U.S. Constitution. Their explanations also open up the possibility of more reversals of precedent in the future.
Why precedent?
Over the centuries, courts have stated many reasons they should adhere to precedent. First is the idea of equity or justice, under which “like cases should be decided alike.” ...Don’t let yourself be misled. Understand issues with help from experts
In addition, precedent promotes judicial efficiency: Courts do not have to decide from scratch every time. They can look at similar cases from the past and base their reasoning on those decisions.Finally, following precedent promotes predictability in the law and protects people who have come to rely on past decisions as a guide for their behavior.
Reversing precedent is unusual
The Supreme Court rarely overturns its past decisions or precedents.In my (David Schultz) book, “Constitutional Precedent in Supreme Court Reasoning,” I point out that from 1789 to 2020, there were 25,544 Supreme Court opinions and judgments after oral arguments. The court has reversed its own constitutional precedents only 145 times – barely 0.5%.
The court’s historic periods are often characterized by who led it as chief justice. From 1953 until 2020, under the successive leadership of Chief Justices Earl Warren, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist and now John Roberts, the court overturned constitutional precedent 32, 32, 30 and 15 times, respectively. That is well under 1% of decisions handled during each period in the court’s history.
When is precedent overturned?
For most of its history, the court changed its mind only when it thought past precedent was unworkable or no longer viable, perhaps eroded by its subsequent opinions or by changing social conditions. In some cases, reversal happened when the court simply thought it got it wrong in the past.Not all precedents are equal...
Beginning with the Rehnquist court, justices became more willing to reject precedents they thought were badly reasoned, simply wrong or inconsistent with their own sense of the constitutional framers’ intentions...
Dante
I have always been here
- Thread starter
- #35
Does the United States Supreme Court Make Laws, Enforce Laws -- Do Americans even know?
What I'm interested in is seeing people on the left or the right, at any given time somehow taking arguments of the other side to suit an argument. And I am interested in just what Americans believe about the Supreme Court and how it functions, what it's role is (not looking at can they link to the constitution, as linking does not equate to understanding). What is it people believe?
By the time I found this, you have no doubt heard a lot from others. Still you asked a good question and here is a great answer for that question.Stumbled upon this post and followed it back. It's a spat between two what I am going to assume, Americans who have been educated in American schools. Did they go on to higher education? Who knows. Would it, should it matter?
What I'm interested in is seeing people on the left or the right, at any given time somehow taking arguments of the other side to suit an argument. And I am interested in just what Americans believe about the Supreme Court and how it functions, what it's role is (not looking at can they link to the constitution, as linking does not equate to understanding). What is it people believe?
What if both parties committed to protecting and preserving America’s founding principles, values, tradition and history?
Pennsylvania ruled mail in voting was unconstitutional,, that alone are a lot of votes that shouldnt have been counted,, your ignorance is on you not us,, liberals are so ignorant you wonder how they survive past the age of 25 maybe they kind of don't... since: With age comes wisdom. So...
The Supreme court is duty bound not to make up laws. Congress has that job. The court looks at laws and measures them against the Constitution. Those that are constitutional are accepted. Roe V. Wade for many years was used as law but not by the Supreme Court. Proof of this is the very Supreme Court ruled Roe v Wade was not law.
Dante
I have always been here
- Thread starter
- #38
What is an example of rhetorical?
"Does the United States Supreme Court Make Laws, Enforce Laws -- Do Americans even know?" is a rhetorical question implying, “Isn't it obvious?”
No, Americans (most), do not know.
The question is really "Do Americans even know?"
But to address your "great answer"
When you say that the Congress has the job of making law: "Article I, Section 7 says that a bill becomes a “law” once it successfully runs the bicameralism-and-presentment gauntlet; it does not make its status as “law” contingent on whether the statute comports with the judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution." You've ignored or were unaware of the Presentment part. The President's role in making law.
“writ-of-erasure fallacy” - "Proof of this is the very Supreme Court ruled Roe v Wade was not law." - Thank you
Note above: Foxfyre
Not sure why you brought in bureaucrats. When you say "not the President"I think of this: "Article I, Section 7 says that a bill becomes a “law” once it successfully runs the bicameralism-and-presentment gauntlet; it does not make its status as “law” contingent on whether the statute comports with the judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution." Presentment. The President's role in making law.
Your post has me thinking of the courts' role in the legal system. Later I want to look at the idea stated, that the Courts "enforce" the law.
“writ-of-erasure fallacy”
"And nothing in the supremacy clause suggests that a statute that the courts find unconstitutional ceases to exist as “law.” Many have noted that Article VI defines the “supreme Law of the Land” to include “this Constitution” and “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.”72 But even if one assumes that the “made in pursuance thereof” caveat requires compliance with the Constitution as construed by the federal judiciary,73 that means that Article VI merely withholds the status of supreme law from statutes that the judiciary finds unconstitutional. It does not indicate or suggest that these federal statutes no longer qualify as “Laws of the United States.”74
Another portion of the supremacy clause directs “the Judges in every State” to follow “supreme” federal law over “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary.”75 But this is nothing more than a rule of priority for courts when resolving conflicts between different sources of law.76 The state statutes that contradict “supreme” federal law continue to exist as “laws,” even as they go unenforced, and they would become enforceable if federal law were amended or reinterpreted to remove the conflict.
It is instructive to compare the language of the federal Constitution with state constitutions that explicitly empower their judiciaries to pronounce statutes “void.” The Georgia Constitution, for example, provides that “Legislative acts in violation of this Constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, are void, and the Judiciary shall so declare them.”77 The Georgia Supreme Court therefore regards judicial pronouncements of unconstitutionality as a formal revocation of the underlying statute — to the point that it refuses to give effect to statutes that purport to amend a law that the state judiciary has pronounced unconstitutional.78 A “void” statute cannot be amended because it is a legal nullity, even when the amending statute would have cured the constitutional defects.79
The federal Constitution contains no language of this sort..."
"Does the United States Supreme Court Make Laws, Enforce Laws -- Do Americans even know?" is a rhetorical question implying, “Isn't it obvious?”
No, Americans (most), do not know.
The question is really "Do Americans even know?"
But to address your "great answer"
When you say that the Congress has the job of making law: "Article I, Section 7 says that a bill becomes a “law” once it successfully runs the bicameralism-and-presentment gauntlet; it does not make its status as “law” contingent on whether the statute comports with the judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution." You've ignored or were unaware of the Presentment part. The President's role in making law.
“writ-of-erasure fallacy” - "Proof of this is the very Supreme Court ruled Roe v Wade was not law." - Thank you
Note above: Foxfyre
Not sure why you brought in bureaucrats. When you say "not the President"I think of this: "Article I, Section 7 says that a bill becomes a “law” once it successfully runs the bicameralism-and-presentment gauntlet; it does not make its status as “law” contingent on whether the statute comports with the judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution." Presentment. The President's role in making law.
Your post has me thinking of the courts' role in the legal system. Later I want to look at the idea stated, that the Courts "enforce" the law.
“writ-of-erasure fallacy”
"And nothing in the supremacy clause suggests that a statute that the courts find unconstitutional ceases to exist as “law.” Many have noted that Article VI defines the “supreme Law of the Land” to include “this Constitution” and “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.”72 But even if one assumes that the “made in pursuance thereof” caveat requires compliance with the Constitution as construed by the federal judiciary,73 that means that Article VI merely withholds the status of supreme law from statutes that the judiciary finds unconstitutional. It does not indicate or suggest that these federal statutes no longer qualify as “Laws of the United States.”74
Another portion of the supremacy clause directs “the Judges in every State” to follow “supreme” federal law over “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary.”75 But this is nothing more than a rule of priority for courts when resolving conflicts between different sources of law.76 The state statutes that contradict “supreme” federal law continue to exist as “laws,” even as they go unenforced, and they would become enforceable if federal law were amended or reinterpreted to remove the conflict.
It is instructive to compare the language of the federal Constitution with state constitutions that explicitly empower their judiciaries to pronounce statutes “void.” The Georgia Constitution, for example, provides that “Legislative acts in violation of this Constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, are void, and the Judiciary shall so declare them.”77 The Georgia Supreme Court therefore regards judicial pronouncements of unconstitutionality as a formal revocation of the underlying statute — to the point that it refuses to give effect to statutes that purport to amend a law that the state judiciary has pronounced unconstitutional.78 A “void” statute cannot be amended because it is a legal nullity, even when the amending statute would have cured the constitutional defects.79
The federal Constitution contains no language of this sort..."
I bring in bureaucrats because it is unelected, faceless and mostly unaccountable bureaucrats who in fact write most of the laws we live under both at the federal and state levels.
For example the original Obamacare/Affordable Care Act, written by bureaucrats, ran 906 pages passed by only Democrats who controlled Congress, none of whom had read the legislation. As Pelosi said, they had to pass it to find out what was in it. That was the height of irresponsibility by people who are supposed to be representing those who elected them.
Since passage of the ACA in March, 2010, fourteen years ago, more than 10,000 pages of rules and regulations, and estimated 9 or 10 million words, all with the force of law to implement the original law, have been added by those faceless unelected bureaucrats. There is no healthcare facility on Earth with sufficient legal support to keep up with all that and comply with everything so all facilities do some of their own interpretation of what the law requires and that usually is not good for their patients. There is no member of Congress with sufficient staff to monitor and oversee all that.
Still the lower courts and SCOTUS would likely not declare much if any of the law unconstitutional because it was passed by the people's elected representatives and there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a member of congress has to read the legislation before voting on it. (I would support an amendment that would make a Senator or Representative voting on a law the person hadn't read would be illegal/unconstitutional though it would likely not make a lot of difference in what laws are passed.)
Last edited:
Delldude
Sheep Dipped Boy Scout
One instance of SCOTUS making law, instead of deferring to Congress, as the COTUS specifies, was a little one, many may have heard of, think it was called Roe versus Wade.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Majorities of Americans think Donald Trump is arrogant, opportunistic, and reckless- Started by IM2
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
The national debt just crossed $39 trillion—almost doubling since Trump vowed to erase it- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 3
-
