How to replace Judial Review

[kaz]

Then what was the point of having a Bill of Rights if no enumerated power was included to give the federal government the power to protect those rights, and no implied power could be legitimately invoked to do so?

I proposed how to protect those rights. Do you have any point which addresses my actual argument? If you want to argue this one, you have to argue it with someone who believes this.

Congress can wave it's magic commerce clause wand.

Which would include requiring the State controlled Senate going along with usurping State power. Power divided is power checked.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Take it up with Congress and SCOTUS then.

 

[bendog]

I proposed how to protect those rights. Do you have any point which addresses my actual argument? If you want to argue this one, you have to argue it with someone who believes this.

Congress can wave it's magic commerce clause wand.

Which would include requiring the State controlled Senate going along with usurping State power. Power divided is power checked.

I'm sorry. I thought you posted that requiring congress specifically state what power gave rise to it being able to pass a law.

To the exent that the indirect election of senators reflected truer state intentions than direct, your beleif is simply a historical fallacy flamed by the one percent who would have greater power with less direct citizen input, and nothing indicates that direct election does not better reflect the wishes of the state electorate. In fact, a brief trip down history lane would bring up people like .... William Lorimore

 

[Contumacious]

To the exent that the indirect election of senators reflected truer state intentions than direct, your beleif is simply a historical fallacy flamed by the one percent who would have greater power with less direct citizen input, and nothing indicates that direct election does not better reflect the wishes of the state electorate. In fact, a brief trip down history lane would bring up people like .... William Lorimore

As usual, you are totally wrong.


"the Amendment, which mandated the popular election of U.S. Senators (as opposed to the original system of appointment by state legislators) allows a small cabal of wealthy and influential people to dominate governmental decision-making. Getting elected to the U.S. Senate requires the raising of millions of dollars for television advertising and other elements of modern campaigning, so that senators have long been in the pockets of their major donors from all over the country, and the world, as opposed to the folks back home.


The founding fathers intended that state legislatures would appoint senators and then instruct them on how to vote in Congress. This was to safeguard against the corruption of senators by special interests.

.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Watching you discuss Constitutional law is like watching a clumsy sixth grader juggling jackknives.

Always amusing, and we can be certain the display will result in injury.

I'll take that to mean that you cannot find anything in the Constitution that empowers the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of laws, nor to dictate new law through fiat, then?

None of the liberals can - because it's not there. In fact the constitution says judges CANNOT repeal or write laws. The very first words of the C after the preamble are " all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

It's as clear as day that judicial review is unconstitutional and states need to say that.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[I'll take that to mean that you cannot find anything in the Constitution that empowers the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of laws, nor to dictate new law through fiat, then?

Over 200 years of binding case law proves it, for another thing.

Binding case law??? Case law gets overturned by the courts all the time. 170 years of case law said abortion was a state matter and then in 1973 the courts said it just became a federal matter!!!! Explain that, you moron.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

As any textbook on government will tell us, the power to interpret the Constitution is simply not expressed in the Constitution, and that is why Marbury is such an important Court decision, maybe one of the most important.

It is implied, and Marbury is simply an early example of how implied powers manifest themselves.

Implied??? HAHAHA. Are you sure you want to say that? Anyone can say anything is implied!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As any textbook on government will tell us, the power to interpret the Constitution is simply not expressed in the Constitution, and that is why Marbury is such an important Court decision, maybe one of the most important.

It is implied, and Marbury is simply an early example of how implied powers manifest themselves.

Implied??? HAHAHA. Are you sure you want to say that? Anyone can say anything is implied!!

More evidence that debating conservatives is pointless.

When presented with the facts most on the right ignore those facts, and adhere blindly to their contrivances and lies, responding only with insults.

 

[Contumacious]

[I'll take that to mean that you cannot find anything in the Constitution that empowers the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of laws, nor to dictate new law through fiat, then?

Over 200 years of binding case law proves it, for another thing.

Binding case law??? Case law gets overturned by the courts all the time. 170 years of case law said abortion was a state matter and then in 1973 the courts said it just became a federal matter!!!! Explain that, you moron.

You should have said:

Constitutions, individual rights and Case law gets overturned by the courts all the time.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

More evidence that debating conservatives is pointless.

When presented with the facts most on the right ignore those facts, and adhere blindly to their contrivances and lies, responding only with insults.

Law means whatever you wish it to mean at a particular moment. To the left, the law is the capricious utterance of judges. Written statute that is concise and consistent is such bother. Let the subjects know that they are always at the mercy of the court, which will find or invent a law to indict any who displeases, at any time.

Take not comfort in written codes, the meaning of "is" is malleable and can change at the whim of our lord high judges.

Cicero would slap you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To the exent that the indirect election of senators reflected truer state intentions than direct, your beleif is simply a historical fallacy flamed by the one percent who would have greater power with less direct citizen input, and nothing indicates that direct election does not better reflect the wishes of the state electorate. In fact, a brief trip down history lane would bring up people like .... William Lorimore

As usual, you are totally wrong.


"the Amendment, which mandated the popular election of U.S. Senators (as opposed to the original system of appointment by state legislators) allows a small cabal of wealthy and influential people to dominate governmental decision-making. Getting elected to the U.S. Senate requires the raising of millions of dollars for television advertising and other elements of modern campaigning, so that senators have long been in the pockets of their major donors from all over the country, and the world, as opposed to the folks back home.


The founding fathers intended that state legislatures would appoint senators and then instruct them on how to vote in Congress. This was to safeguard against the corruption of senators by special interests.

.

This was to make sure the senators stayed corrupted by only state special interests.

 

[Contumacious]

To the exent that the indirect election of senators reflected truer state intentions than direct, your beleif is simply a historical fallacy flamed by the one percent who would have greater power with less direct citizen input, and nothing indicates that direct election does not better reflect the wishes of the state electorate. In fact, a brief trip down history lane would bring up people like .... William Lorimore

As usual, you are totally wrong.


"the Amendment, which mandated the popular election of U.S. Senators (as opposed to the original system of appointment by state legislators) allows a small cabal of wealthy and influential people to dominate governmental decision-making. Getting elected to the U.S. Senate requires the raising of millions of dollars for television advertising and other elements of modern campaigning, so that senators have long been in the pockets of their major donors from all over the country, and the world, as opposed to the folks back home.


The founding fathers intended that state legislatures would appoint senators and then instruct them on how to vote in Congress. This was to safeguard against the corruption of senators by special interests.

.

This was to make sure the senators stayed corrupted by only state special interests.

James Madison wrote in Federalist #45 that because of this system the U.S. Senate would be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments.

.

 

[paperview]

To the exent that the indirect election of senators reflected truer state intentions than direct, your beleif is simply a historical fallacy flamed by the one percent who would have greater power with less direct citizen input, and nothing indicates that direct election does not better reflect the wishes of the state electorate. In fact, a brief trip down history lane would bring up people like .... William Lorimore

As usual, you are totally wrong.


"the Amendment, which mandated the popular election of U.S. Senators (as opposed to the original system of appointment by state legislators) allows a small cabal of wealthy and influential people to dominate governmental decision-making. Getting elected to the U.S. Senate requires the raising of millions of dollars for television advertising and other elements of modern campaigning, so that senators have long been in the pockets of their major donors from all over the country, and the world, as opposed to the folks back home.


The founding fathers intended that state legislatures would appoint senators and then instruct them on how to vote in Congress. This was to safeguard against the corruption of senators by special interests.

.

This whole discussion is f'in ridiculous. Back then, entire state legislatures were bought. And for a lot cheaper. Like somehow special interest doesn't corrupt the states. What freakin universe do *you* live in??

The bullshit that went on was part of WHY the people rose up (after nearly a century of calls for Amendments) and why -- for only the 6th time in over a 100 years --- passed an Amendment to change the Constitution.

History. Know it love it.

There's not a diddly squat chance in hell people are going to give up their direct elections of senators, and people who waste time imagining it would happen are out of their cottin' pickin mind.

 

[Contumacious]

There's not a diddly squat chance in hell people are going to give up their direct elections of senators, and people who waste time imagining it would happen are out of their cottin' pickin mind.

"The legislative appointment of U.S. senators was responsible for the most famous declarations of the states’ rights philosophy of the founders, the nullification philosophy as expressed in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798, authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison respectively (not by Calhoun, as Zeskind and others falsely claim). These Resolves were used as part of the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures’ instructions to their senators to vote to repeal the odious Sedition Act, which effectively prohibited free political speech. The origins of nullification do not lie in attempts to protect slavery or Jim Crow laws, as Zeskind once again falsely claims. Jim Crow laws existed throughout the Northern states for many decades before they were imposed on the South by the Republican Party’s military occupation authorities during Reconstruction."

.

 

[paperview]

More evidence that debating conservatives is pointless.

When presented with the facts most on the right ignore those facts....

Ain't that the truth brother. Ain't that the truth.

 

[paperview]

There's not a diddly squat chance in hell people are going to give up their direct elections of senators, and people who waste time imagining it would happen are out of their cottin' pickin mind.

"The legislative appointment of U.S. senators was responsible for the most famous declarations of the states’ rights philosophy of the founders, the nullification philosophy as expressed in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798, authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison respectively (not by Calhoun, as Zeskind and others falsely claim). These Resolves were used as part of the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures’ instructions to their senators to vote to repeal the odious Sedition Act, which effectively prohibited free political speech. The origins of nullification do not lie in attempts to protect slavery or Jim Crow laws, as Zeskind once again falsely claims. Jim Crow laws existed throughout the Northern states for many decades before they were imposed on the South by the Republican Party’s military occupation authorities during Reconstruction."

.

How heartening. You quote from the White Supremacist Thomas DiLorenzo, (without attribution) -- with gibberish that doesn't even come close to addressing the major point. Like that's a surprise.

I remember now why I wrote you off as WOT.

 

[M14 Shooter]

She's right that Ware v. Hylton was a case of Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison.

To my op, it's still a red herring. It only goes to the side discussion of whether the Supreme Court ever did Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison or not.

What it does not do is support in any way the court has Judicial Review based on anything except their own declaration that they do, it's still the court taking it upon itself to declare itself keeper and manipulator of the Constitution.

And that is a red herring in the end to the op as well since I'm proposing to codify that the States are the ones who should keep the Federal government in check and not the Courts.

The courts are the judiciary, they are to "interpret" the laws passed by the legislature in the cases brought by the executive branch who "enforce" the laws. That somehow inherent in that is that the judiciary then get to judge the laws is preposterous. And in the end, the liberals don't even believe that or care. They just care that it's working for them.

Read up, honeybuns.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2040&context=facpub

Marbury is classically thought of as having established judicial review… It is not novel to counter this point of view by observing that, before Marbury, judicial review had gained wide support.526 This Article, however, moves the debate about Marbury's significance forward by showing how relatively common the exercise of judicial review was before Marbury. The fact that judicial review was exercised much more frequently than previously recognized in the years before Marbury helps explain why Marshall's assertion of the power to exercise judicial review in the case elicited so little comment and also highlights the consistency between Marbury and the prior body of case law.

Given the evidence above and provided elsewhere in this thread, it’s clear that the ‘classical’ perception of Marbury is at least inaccurate, where the appropriate understanding of the case was to reaffirm the long-standing practice of judicial review. Chief Justice Marshall neither ‘invented’ judicial review nor did the Court “[give] itself the power to decide what the Constitution means,” as it already possessed that power, a power it inherited as the progeny of centuries of other English and Colonial courts.

Can you cite an example where the top judicial venue in the Amercan colonies invalidated a law because it ran afoul of the English constitution, a colonial charter, a state constitution, the articles of Confederation or the US constitution, prior to Marbury?
Case and date, please.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The problem is that fascist/socialist scumbags like Obama also gets to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court.

Do you want one of those "justices" to abolish the 2A under the guise of judicial review?

.

Is that a yes or a no?

Without the SCOTUS having the power of judicial review, gun rights would be a state by state matter.

In the late 1800's the SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms is NOT dependent on the Constitution and that Congress has not right to regulate it,

Case and language, please.

In the last case the SCOTUS ruled that Congress could regulate it.

Case and language, please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As usual, you are totally wrong.


"the Amendment, which mandated the popular election of U.S. Senators (as opposed to the original system of appointment by state legislators) allows a small cabal of wealthy and influential people to dominate governmental decision-making. Getting elected to the U.S. Senate requires the raising of millions of dollars for television advertising and other elements of modern campaigning, so that senators have long been in the pockets of their major donors from all over the country, and the world, as opposed to the folks back home.


The founding fathers intended that state legislatures would appoint senators and then instruct them on how to vote in Congress. This was to safeguard against the corruption of senators by special interests.

.

This was to make sure the senators stayed corrupted by only state special interests.

James Madison wrote in Federalist #45 that because of this system the U.S. Senate would be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments.

He was in error on both accounts and missed the private corrupted interests of the individual states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read up, honeybuns.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2040&context=facpub

Marbury is classically thought of as having established judicial review… It is not novel to counter this point of view by observing that, before Marbury, judicial review had gained wide support.526 This Article, however, moves the debate about Marbury's significance forward by showing how relatively common the exercise of judicial review was before Marbury. The fact that judicial review was exercised much more frequently than previously recognized in the years before Marbury helps explain why Marshall's assertion of the power to exercise judicial review in the case elicited so little comment and also highlights the consistency between Marbury and the prior body of case law.

Given the evidence above and provided elsewhere in this thread, it’s clear that the ‘classical’ perception of Marbury is at least inaccurate, where the appropriate understanding of the case was to reaffirm the long-standing practice of judicial review. Chief Justice Marshall neither ‘invented’ judicial review nor did the Court “[give] itself the power to decide what the Constitution means,” as it already possessed that power, a power it inherited as the progeny of centuries of other English and Colonial courts.

Can you cite an example where the top judicial venue in the Amercan colonies invalidated a law because it ran afoul of the English constitution, a colonial charter, a state constitution, the articles of Confederation or the US constitution, prior to Marbury?
Case and date, please.

Irrelevant and thus dismissed.