How to replace Judial Review

[kaz]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison. Ever since, they used that power to re-write the Constitution. They make up law, such as the right to an abortion in Roe. v. Wade, strike down laws they don't like such as DOMA, twist words such as what equal protection in the 14th amendment. Then they let Constitutional abominations like the New London ruling and Obamacare stand. Just removing the power from them would be an advancement in liberty from what we have now.

However, there is a better way, and it's simple. Repeal the 17th amendment, which directly elects senators by popular vote and restore the State governments the power to appoint their Senators. Then the Senate rather than representing Federal power would return to representing State rights. Power divided is power checked.

Then

- Go to zero based budgeting, so every Federal expenditure must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Go to zero based taxing, so every Federal tax must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Give the State controlled Senate the power to eliminate any Federal regulation based on Constitutionality. So if you are appealing a case on a point of law, ultimately it goes to SCOTUS. If you are appealing a law on constitutionality, it goes to the US Senate. If you want to change the Constitution, SCOTUS loses that power and you have to follow the prescribed 2/3, 2/3, 3/4.

 

[SwimExpert]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison.

No, the constitution gave that power to the court, and all of the judiciary.

[/thread]

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison. Ever since, they used that power to re-write the Constitution. They make up law, such as the right to an abortion in Roe. v. Wade, strike down laws they don't like such as DOMA, twist words such as what equal protection in the 14th amendment. Then they let Constitutional abominations like the New London ruling and Obamacare stand. Just removing the power from them would be an advancement in liberty from what we have now.

However, there is a better way, and it's simple. Repeal the 17th amendment, which directly elects senators by popular vote and restore the State governments the power to appoint their Senators. Then the Senate rather than representing Federal power would return to representing State rights. Power divided is power checked.

Then

- Go to zero based budgeting, so every Federal expenditure must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Go to zero based taxing, so every Federal tax must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Give the State controlled Senate the power to eliminate any Federal regulation based on Constitutionality. So if you are appealing a case on a point of law, ultimately it goes to SCOTUS. If you are appealing a law on constitutionality, it goes to the US Senate. If you want to change the Constitution, SCOTUS loses that power and you have to follow the prescribed 2/3, 2/3, 3/4.

That absurdity would essentially eliminate all powers of the Executive and Judicial branches on matters of constitutionality.

 

[kaz]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison.

No, the constitution gave that power to the court, and all of the judiciary.

[/thread]

I'll give $100 to the ACLU if you can find that in the Constitution.

I'll never get with liberals when I even told you the case why you are willing to look stupid rather than take 30 seconds and Google what I just told you. It's fascinating.

 

[kaz]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison. Ever since, they used that power to re-write the Constitution. They make up law, such as the right to an abortion in Roe. v. Wade, strike down laws they don't like such as DOMA, twist words such as what equal protection in the 14th amendment. Then they let Constitutional abominations like the New London ruling and Obamacare stand. Just removing the power from them would be an advancement in liberty from what we have now.

However, there is a better way, and it's simple. Repeal the 17th amendment, which directly elects senators by popular vote and restore the State governments the power to appoint their Senators. Then the Senate rather than representing Federal power would return to representing State rights. Power divided is power checked.

Then

- Go to zero based budgeting, so every Federal expenditure must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Go to zero based taxing, so every Federal tax must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Give the State controlled Senate the power to eliminate any Federal regulation based on Constitutionality. So if you are appealing a case on a point of law, ultimately it goes to SCOTUS. If you are appealing a law on constitutionality, it goes to the US Senate. If you want to change the Constitution, SCOTUS loses that power and you have to follow the prescribed 2/3, 2/3, 3/4.

That absurdity would essentially eliminate all powers of the Executive and Judicial branches on matters of constitutionality.

No duh, that's actually the point.

And BTW, other than Obama who was apparently elected dictator rather than President, the Executive branch has no say on Constitutionality now.

 

[SwimExpert]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison.

No, the constitution gave that power to the court, and all of the judiciary.

[/thread]

I'll give $100 to the ACLU if you can find that in the Constitution.

I'll never get with liberals when I even told you the case why you are willing to look stupid rather than take 30 seconds and Google what I just told you. It's fascinating.

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.

 

[kaz]

No, the constitution gave that power to the court, and all of the judiciary.

[/thread]

I'll give $100 to the ACLU if you can find that in the Constitution.

I'll never get with liberals when I even told you the case why you are willing to look stupid rather than take 30 seconds and Google what I just told you. It's fascinating.

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.

That doesn't say that Judicial Review resides with the Supreme court, which is what the thread it about. Seriously, dude, Google Marbury v. Madison and read just the blurb and you'll realize you are just flat out wrong on this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison. Ever since, they used that power to re-write the Constitution. They make up law, such as the right to an abortion in Roe. v. Wade, strike down laws they don't like such as DOMA, twist words such as what equal protection in the 14th amendment. Then they let Constitutional abominations like the New London ruling and Obamacare stand. Just removing the power from them would be an advancement in liberty from what we have now.

However, there is a better way, and it's simple. Repeal the 17th amendment, which directly elects senators by popular vote and restore the State governments the power to appoint their Senators. Then the Senate rather than representing Federal power would return to representing State rights. Power divided is power checked.

Then

- Go to zero based budgeting, so every Federal expenditure must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Go to zero based taxing, so every Federal tax must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Give the State controlled Senate the power to eliminate any Federal regulation based on Constitutionality. So if you are appealing a case on a point of law, ultimately it goes to SCOTUS. If you are appealing a law on constitutionality, it goes to the US Senate. If you want to change the Constitution, SCOTUS loses that power and you have to follow the prescribed 2/3, 2/3, 3/4.

That absurdity would essentially eliminate all powers of the Executive and Judicial branches on matters of constitutionality.

No duh, that's actually the point.

And BTW, other than Obama who was apparently elected dictator rather than President, the Executive branch has no say on Constitutionality now.

So the point is to abandon separation of powers?

The president appoints judges, and the Senate has the power to confirm or reject those appointments.

That's enough power for the Senate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'll give $100 to the ACLU if you can find that in the Constitution.

I'll never get with liberals when I even told you the case why you are willing to look stupid rather than take 30 seconds and Google what I just told you. It's fascinating.

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.

That doesn't say that Judicial Review resides with the Supreme court, which is what the thread it about. Seriously, dude, Google Marbury v. Madison and read just the blurb and you'll realize you are just flat out wrong on this.

Judicial review was a well established judicial power in the colonies/states prior to the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

How on earth would removing the power to elect Senators from We the People have any impact on Judicial Review?

 

[occupied]

Doing what you said would result in the union breaking up and another civil war(s) within just a few years. Perhaps many wars as rights and laws become drastically different from state to state and no equal protection.

 

[kaz]

That absurdity would essentially eliminate all powers of the Executive and Judicial branches on matters of constitutionality.

No duh, that's actually the point.

And BTW, other than Obama who was apparently elected dictator rather than President, the Executive branch has no say on Constitutionality now.

So the point is to abandon separation of powers?

The president appoints judges, and the Senate has the power to confirm or reject those appointments.

That's enough power for the Senate.

You have to comprehend my whole post at once. The "US Senate" is now referring to a chamber which represents the States. It is not referring to the US Senate as we have it today.

Now) There is no division of power, the Federal government simply grants itself more power. For example, Obamacare. The Federal government passed it, the Federal government said sure, it has the right.

My system) The States would have to agree to have their authority usurped.

That you would go to "separation of powers" as an argument against my proposal shows how fundamentally you don't grasp my proposal. Separation of powers is the whole point of my proposal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Revoking the 17th won't work.

Article III bedrocks the foundation of judicial review.

The Constitution would have to be amended.

 

[rightwinger]

No duh, that's actually the point.

And BTW, other than Obama who was apparently elected dictator rather than President, the Executive branch has no say on Constitutionality now.

So the point is to abandon separation of powers?

The president appoints judges, and the Senate has the power to confirm or reject those appointments.

That's enough power for the Senate.

You have to comprehend my whole post at once. The "US Senate" is now referring to a chamber which represents the States. It is not referring to the US Senate as we have it today.

Now) There is no division of power, the Federal government simply grants itself more power. For example, Obamacare. The Federal government passed it, the Federal government said sure, it has the right.

My system) The States would have to agree to have their authority usurped.

That you would go to "separation of powers" as an argument against my proposal shows how fundamentally you don't grasp my proposal. Separation of powers is the whole point of my proposal.

Still doesn't work that way

States would appoint their Senators but those Senators would still function as part of a Senate. Obamacare would still pass when the majority of Senators vote for it. They do not have to go back to their state for "permission" to vote for Obamacare

 

[kaz]

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.

That doesn't say that Judicial Review resides with the Supreme court, which is what the thread it about. Seriously, dude, Google Marbury v. Madison and read just the blurb and you'll realize you are just flat out wrong on this.

Judicial review was a well established judicial power in the colonies/states prior to the Constitution.

The courts interpreted the Constitution before the Constitution existed. Bam, you and the simpleton RW who thanked you are so stupid it's funny.

OK, you morons are not going to Google anything you don't understand. I got I.

 

[rightwinger]

Revoking the 17th won't work.

Article III bedrocks the foundation of judicial review.

The Constitution would have to be amended.

There is just one reason why Republicans want to repeal the 17 th amendment. They can no longer win the Senate through the popular vote......but they do control the state legislatures

Better to have those Republican legislatures select senators

 

[kaz]

Revoking the 17th won't work.

Article III bedrocks the foundation of judicial review.

The Constitution would have to be amended.

Article III doesn't mention Judicial Review.

Liberals just wallow in ignorance. I like how your reassuring each other is all you need to believe falsehoods are facts even when you're on the Internet and could just Google your ignorance to learn it's wrong.

Sort of how you vote. Socialism improves capitalism. The minimum wage increases wages and doesn't cause unemployment. We can reject every form of energy and have prices go down. You know that because you learned it in a liberal circle jerk.

 

[rightwinger]

Nowhere in the Constitution does the Senate determine the Constitutionality of our laws. That power rightfully rests with our courts

 

[kaz]

So the point is to abandon separation of powers?

The president appoints judges, and the Senate has the power to confirm or reject those appointments.

That's enough power for the Senate.

You have to comprehend my whole post at once. The "US Senate" is now referring to a chamber which represents the States. It is not referring to the US Senate as we have it today.

Now) There is no division of power, the Federal government simply grants itself more power. For example, Obamacare. The Federal government passed it, the Federal government said sure, it has the right.

My system) The States would have to agree to have their authority usurped.

That you would go to "separation of powers" as an argument against my proposal shows how fundamentally you don't grasp my proposal. Separation of powers is the whole point of my proposal.

Still doesn't work that way

States would appoint their Senators but those Senators would still function as part of a Senate. Obamacare would still pass when the majority of Senators vote for it. They do not have to go back to their state for "permission" to vote for Obamacare

Accountability is just not part of your world, is it big guy?

The function and procedures of the Senate would be the same, yes. The difference is the Senators would be accountable to their State legislatures. Now they are part of the Federal government, they increase their power when the Federal government grows. If they can be recalled by the States, they will represent their interests. Now, they don't.

Look at all the Democratic Senators who talk about conservatism to get elected in Red States who turn around vote lock step with Harry Reid, they are not representing their State's interest, they are representing their own.

 

[kaz]

Nowhere in the Constitution does the Senate determine the Constitutionality of our laws. That power rightfully rests with our courts

No where in the Constitution do the courts determine the Constitutionality of our laws. That power was given to the courts by themselves.