How to replace Judial Review

[occupied]

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

Horrible idea, only in conservativeland can concentrating power into fewer hands result in something other than greater tyranny. These are politicians we are talking about after all, why anyone would want take away power we the people have and put it in their greedy hands?

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

You seem to be under the false impression I don't know the case. Judicial review is a judicial power. See, it's even in the name.

 

[kaz]

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

You can take that discussion up with a Republican.

As a libertarian, I believe in State rights, which is why I propose we shift more power to ... the States ...

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Speaking of being too much of an ignorant asshole to google:

https://www.google.com/search?q=jud...-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the power of judicial review had been exercised in a number of states. In the years from 1776 to 1787, state courts in at least seven of the thirteen states had engaged in judicial review and had invalidated state statutes because they violated the state constitution or other higher law.[5] These state courts treated state constitutions as statements of governing law to be interpreted and applied by judges. These courts reasoned that because their state constitution was the fundamental law of the state, they must apply the state constitution rather than an act of the legislature that was inconsistent with the state constitution.[6]

These state court cases involving judicial review were reported in the press and produced public discussion and comment.[7] At least seven of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Randolph, had personal experience with judicial review because they had been lawyers or judges in these state court cases involving judicial review.[8] Other delegates referred to some of these state court cases during the debates at the Constitutional Convention.[9] The concept of judicial review therefore was familiar to the framers and to the public before the Constitutional Convention.

Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because you can vote, your stupidity depresses me.

 

[kaz]

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.

You seem to be under the false impression I don't know the case. Judicial review is a judicial power. See, it's even in the name.

Judicial is in the name Judicial Review, Grasshopper. However, Judicial Review is not in the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Well there is our dilemma then

Most Americans would prefer it reside with the courts where it has been for 200 years

 

[kaz]

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.

Speaking of being too much of an ignorant asshole to google:

https://www.google.com/search?q=jud...-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the power of judicial review had been exercised in a number of states. In the years from 1776 to 1787, state courts in at least seven of the thirteen states had engaged in judicial review and had invalidated state statutes because they violated the state constitution or other higher law.[5] These state courts treated state constitutions as statements of governing law to be interpreted and applied by judges. These courts reasoned that because their state constitution was the fundamental law of the state, they must apply the state constitution rather than an act of the legislature that was inconsistent with the state constitution.[6]

These state court cases involving judicial review were reported in the press and produced public discussion and comment.[7] At least seven of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Randolph, had personal experience with judicial review because they had been lawyers or judges in these state court cases involving judicial review.[8] Other delegates referred to some of these state court cases during the debates at the Constitutional Convention.[9] The concept of judicial review therefore was familiar to the framers and to the public before the Constitutional Convention.

Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because you can vote, your stupidity depresses me.

We were discussing the Federal government and Judicial Review for the US Constitution. No where did she say she either that she was changing the subject to State Courts or State Constitutions. If that was what she meant, that is what she should have said. It's still completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Herein lays the problem.

The SCOTUS stole that power in Marbury v. Madison.....and it was tolerable in so far that it allowed the Court to act as a buffer against a corrupt Congress. After all, it is likely that the founders knew that the power accumulated in Congress could one day act as a means to ensure that elected officials became part of a 'ruling class'. And that these elites could then pass any laws they wished, limiting and removing liberty from the citizen.

Now, however; since Chief Justice Roberts has opined that the Courts do not act as a buffer against a corrupt Congress to protect the people, the Marbury v. Madison ruling has essentially become worthless.

We have become the very thing that was most feared. I am not sure I agree with Kaz and his solution, but one thing is certain. The powers that the SCOTUS was never intended to have, are now basically nothing more than a Ducal court, held at the behest of the President, to enforce the rules of the elite, all across the realm.

 

[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

You can take that discussion up with a Republican.

As a libertarian, I believe in State rights, which is why I propose we shift more power to ... the States ...

What you are proposing does not do that

It shifts power away from the PEOPLE of a state to the POLITICIANS of a state

Should Senators be accountable to the people of a state or the back room politicians?

The states maintain their same power.......Two Senators per state

 

[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.

Well there is our dilemma then

Most Americans would prefer it reside with the courts where it has been for 200 years

So that's the standard for Federal power and what our Constitution says, an opinion poll?

Most Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion. So therefore (by your logic) unrestricted abortion is Unconstitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You act as though the Federal government fell out the sky and took over the country.

They are elected representatives. They were elected by the People. The People delegate them power, as the People's representatives.

Just because you're a rightwing crackpot who will never ever see a federal government run by rightwing crackpots does not mean that the entire system is fatally flawed.

 

[kaz]

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

You can take that discussion up with a Republican.

As a libertarian, I believe in State rights, which is why I propose we shift more power to ... the States ...

What you are proposing does not do that

It shifts power away from the PEOPLE of a state to the POLITICIANS of a state

Should Senators be accountable to the people of a state or the back room politicians?

The states maintain their same power.......Two Senators per state

We are not gong to be a people's democracy and vote on every issue. Power divided is power checked. Now it's all Federal power and unchecked.

When you have a proposal for a perfect system, let us know. So far, you have not offered such a thing so we'll just have to try for the best system available.

 

[kaz]

Just because you're a rightwing crackpot who will never ever see a federal government run by rightwing crackpots does not mean that the entire system is fatally flawed.

I like how you think you're the intelligent party and you appreciate diversity. You and the simpleton RW keep calling me "right" and "Republican." It just shows how stupid, intolerant and monolithic you are. If you can't address my views, I'm ignorning you for this conversation.

 

[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

Horrible idea, only in conservativeland can concentrating power into fewer hands result in something other than greater tyranny. These are politicians we are talking about after all, why anyone would want take away power we the people have and put it in their greedy hands?

Americans have seen their politicians act recently

Why would we want the selection of our Senators put into the hands of back room politicians?

 

[occupied]

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.

Herein lays the problem.

The SCOTUS stole that power in Marbury v. Madison.....and it was tolerable in so far that it allowed the Court to act as a buffer against a corrupt Congress. After all, it is likely that the founders knew that the power accumulated in Congress could one day act as a means to ensure that elected officials became part of a 'ruling class'. And that these elites could then pass any laws they wished, limiting and removing liberty from the citizen.

Now, however; since Chief Justice Roberts has opined that the Courts do not act as a buffer against a corrupt Congress to protect the people, the Marbury v. Madison ruling has essentially become worthless.

We have become the very thing that was most feared. I am not sure I agree with Kaz and his solution, but one thing is certain. The powers that the SCOTUS was never intended to have, are now basically nothing more than a Ducal court, held at the behest of the President, to enforce the rules of the elite all across the realm.

Quit sending them a bunch of unconstitutional prohibitions on civil rights and it will not seem so bad for conservatives. The conservatives win some too, now billionaires can meddle in politics all they want to, isn't that lovely?

 

[rightwinger]

You can take that discussion up with a Republican.

As a libertarian, I believe in State rights, which is why I propose we shift more power to ... the States ...

What you are proposing does not do that

It shifts power away from the PEOPLE of a state to the POLITICIANS of a state

Should Senators be accountable to the people of a state or the back room politicians?

The states maintain their same power.......Two Senators per state

We are not gong to be a people's democracy and vote on every issue. Power divided is power checked. Now it's all Federal power and unchecked.

When you have a proposal for a perfect system, let us know. So far, you have not offered such a thing so we'll just have to try for the best system available.

Nobody is saying have the people vote on every issue, that is stupid. But we will damned well elect our Representatives
Selection of Senators by the people is more perfect than selection by back room politicians

 

[kaz]

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.

Herein lays the problem.

The SCOTUS stole that power in Marbury v. Madison.....and it was tolerable in so far that it allowed the Court to act as a buffer against a corrupt Congress. After all, it is likely that the founders knew that the power accumulated in Congress could one day act as a means to ensure that elected officials became part of a 'ruling class'. And that these elites could then pass any laws they wished, limiting and removing liberty from the citizen.

Now, however; since Chief Justice Roberts has opined that the Courts do not act as a buffer against a corrupt Congress to protect the people, the Marbury v. Madison ruling has essentially become worthless.

We have become the very thing that was most feared. I am not sure I agree with Kaz and his solution, but one thing is certain. The powers that the SCOTUS was never intended to have, are now basically nothing more than a Ducal court, held at the behest of the President, to enforce the rules of the elite, all across the realm.

I am open to other ideas, but you summed up how pathetic the current situation is. Obamacare just being the latest but it goes far beyond that. The Court has ignored Federal Constitutional Authority limits of the 10th amendment since FDR. New London was as bad as the Obamacare ruling. We have a corrupt, arrogant, criminal SCOTUS.

My solution is to balance Federal power by State power. Even politicians of the same party in States don't like the Feds usurping their power. And look at what the people pass even in liberal's liberal California when they have a choice.

Any other suggestions?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The Senate represents the States. The manner of electing Senators you're referring to is a distinction without a difference.

 

[WillReadmore]

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.

So, you're confused about "separation of powers", too.

You have some work to do. Judicial review hasn't ever been in doubt.

The idea of giving the legislature the power to interpret the constitution is just about as crazy as one could get - even if you ignore our current congress.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just because you're a rightwing crackpot who will never ever see a federal government run by rightwing crackpots does not mean that the entire system is fatally flawed.

I like how you think you're the intelligent party and you appreciate diversity. You and the simpleton RW keep calling me "right" and "Republican." It just shows how stupid, intolerant and monolithic you are. If you can't address my views, I'm ignorning you for this conversation.

I should get a dollar for everytime someone on this forum threatens to ignore me because they've just had their head handed to them in an argument.

Try to resemble a man for once, crybaby.