How to replace Judial Review

[kaz]

You are saying that. I am saying that is in Article III. Article III's grant of original jurisdiction on all matters constitutional (have you read the document) empowers the Court.

I have, and it's not there. Which is why you keep repeating your claim without quoting where it says in Article III or anywhere else in the Constitution that the Courts own in any way interpretation of the Constitution itself.

 

[Darkwind]

And you are also incorrect, as is the OP. See post #88.

No, I am not incorrect. Precedence in other countries is not a valid argument to count the fact that the SCOTUS did not start out with the power to review legislation for Constitutional merits. That was decided in Marbury v. Madison. Sorry, but you simply cannot get away from the fact that prior to that ruling, no such authority was established by the Constitution.

With regards to your other post, a Congress that knowingly passes legislation that will not muster the Constitutional test is a sign of corruption. The ACA had to be so narrowly defined that it proved the corruption of the Congress, and is also where I base My opinion on the lack of Constitutional legitimacy of the law.

Many people don' know it, but the SCOTUS can't actually invalidate a law. They rule it un Constitutional and kick it back to the Congress. The Congress then has the right and ability to modify the law once again vote on it.

But that is a deeper subject than is expected of this thread.

The Constitution doesn't actually say that, it's only the judiciary's job to interpret the law as it was passed by the legislative branch, it doesn't say they have the power to own interpreting the Constitutional basis for the law. But it's not unreasonable that in their rulings they would question the Constitutionality of a law.

Which is basically, what I am saying. The SCOTUS could interpret how a law was applied in practicality prior to Marbury...however, after Marbury, they took it upon themselves to interpret the validity of the law as it was applied to Constitutional enumeration of power by the Federal Government.

No law has ever been overturned by the SCOTUS, however. Any law deemed 'unConstitutional' by the SCOTUS has been simply kicked back to the Congress. If the Congress won't be bothered to rewrite the law to fit inside the Boundaries of the Constitution, then it is simply dead legislation. Much like Legislation that failed to pass a majority vote.

This may be a distinction without difference, but it is an important one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are saying that. I am saying that is in Article III. Article III's grant of original jurisdiction on all matters constitutional (have you read the document) empowers the Court.

I have, and it's not there. Which is why you keep repeating your claim without quoting where it says in Article III or anywhere else in the Constitution that the Courts own in any way interpretation of the Constitution itself.

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court 'judicial power', and judicial review is a power contained therein.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are saying that. I am saying that is in Article III. Article III's grant of original jurisdiction on all matters constitutional (have you read the document) empowers the Court.

I have, and it's not there. Which is why you keep repeating your claim without quoting where it says in Article III or anywhere else in the Constitution that the Courts own in any way interpretation of the Constitution itself.

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court 'judicial power', and judicial review is a power contained therein.

Anti-constitutionalists, such as kaz, much like the anti-federalists, refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And you are also incorrect, as is the OP. See post #88.

No, I am not incorrect. Precedence in other countries is not a valid argument to count the fact that the SCOTUS did not start out with the power to review legislation for Constitutional merits. That was decided in Marbury v. Madison. Sorry, but you simply cannot get away from the fact that prior to that ruling, no such authority was established by the Constitution.

With regards to your other post, a Congress that knowingly passes legislation that will not muster the Constitutional test is a sign of corruption. The ACA had to be so narrowly defined that it proved the corruption of the Congress, and is also where I base My opinion on the lack of Constitutional legitimacy of the law.

Many people don' know it, but the SCOTUS can't actually invalidate a law. They rule it un Constitutional and kick it back to the Congress. The Congress then has the right and ability to modify the law once again vote on it.

But that is a deeper subject than is expected of this thread.

The Constitution doesn't actually say that, it's only the judiciary's job to interpret the law as it was passed by the legislative branch, it doesn't say they have the power to own interpreting the Constitutional basis for the law. But it's not unreasonable that in their rulings they would question the Constitutionality of a law.

The Supremacy clause requires laws to be constitutional, and with that is the implied power of the federal government to enforce that. Since constitutinality determinations were an established function of the judiciary,

it is logical that the Supreme Court would hold that power under the US Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have, and it's not there. Which is why you keep repeating your claim without quoting where it says in Article III or anywhere else in the Constitution that the Courts own in any way interpretation of the Constitution itself.

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court 'judicial power', and judicial review is a power contained therein.

Anti-constitutionalists, such as kaz, much like the anti-federalists, refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

He still hasn't told me how, once the SCOTUS was stripped of its power of judicial review,

unconstitutional gun control laws would be struck down.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, I am not incorrect. Precedence in other countries is not a valid argument to count the fact that the SCOTUS did not start out with the power to review legislation for Constitutional merits. That was decided in Marbury v. Madison. Sorry, but you simply cannot get away from the fact that prior to that ruling, no such authority was established by the Constitution.

With regards to your other post, a Congress that knowingly passes legislation that will not muster the Constitutional test is a sign of corruption. The ACA had to be so narrowly defined that it proved the corruption of the Congress, and is also where I base My opinion on the lack of Constitutional legitimacy of the law.

Many people don' know it, but the SCOTUS can't actually invalidate a law. They rule it un Constitutional and kick it back to the Congress. The Congress then has the right and ability to modify the law once again vote on it.

But that is a deeper subject than is expected of this thread.

The Constitution doesn't actually say that, it's only the judiciary's job to interpret the law as it was passed by the legislative branch, it doesn't say they have the power to own interpreting the Constitutional basis for the law. But it's not unreasonable that in their rulings they would question the Constitutionality of a law.

Which is basically, what I am saying. The SCOTUS could interpret how a law was applied in practicality prior to Marbury...however, after Marbury, they took it upon themselves to interpret the validity of the law as it was applied to Constitutional enumeration of power by the Federal Government.

No law has ever been overturned by the SCOTUS, however. Any law deemed 'unConstitutional' by the SCOTUS has been simply kicked back to the Congress. If the Congress won't be bothered to rewrite the law to fit inside the Boundaries of the Constitution, then it is simply dead legislation. Much like Legislation that failed to pass a majority vote.

This may be a distinction without difference, but it is an important one.

I already posted that the Supreme Court had struck down, and upheld btw, laws after ratification but prior to Marbury.

 

[regent]

The framers simply left out judicial review in the third article of the Constitution, why is not known. The argument that the framers intended is of no value or that it was written in some letters to the editor (Federalist Papers) is meaningless. Madison wanted a system with both judges and some members of the executive branch to form a committee to review laws. Marshall simply went beyond the Constitution and took the power, and America has accepted Marshall's interpretation.

Again, incorrect. And again, see post #88.

The doctrine of judicial review existed before the Constitution and the advent of the Foundation Era, where it as practiced in Colonial courts for well over a century – and the Framers fully expected that practice to continue in the Republic.

In Marbury Marshall only acknowledged and reaffirmed the doctrine of judicial review; Marshall neither ‘went beyond’ the Constitution nor did he ‘take’ any power. The Court couldn’t ‘take’ the authority of judicial review it already possessed as a consequence of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition.

The argument is the framers did not put judicial review in the Constitution. It is not there, nor can anyone find it. To argue that it is a tradition, or the framers meant it to be there, or it should have been there, or it was in state Constitutions, or lots of people like it or lots of people think it's there, is not the debate, the debate is where in the Constitution is judicial review? It's just not there, and you might check by looking up Marbury v. Madison or any college text with the court system. The irony is that some of the Court are originalists, they want to see things in the original Constitution but judicial review is not there.

 

[Pete7469]

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

Has it occurred to you that our freedoms began being reduced after the 17th A? The senators are now controlled by lobbyists, who give them millions of dollars in order to promote whatever propaganda the constituency wants to hear. The people have less control over the feds now, than they would if their senators could be recalled more easily.

The other big problem we have are the bloated regulator agencies. Truman said the "buck stops here", at his office. Now the buck can be passed around to so many people even congress is powerless to hold anyone accountable.

I know you bed wetters are in love with an all powerful government, as long as it takes away money from people you're programmed to hate, and prevents people who oppose you from gaining any protection from your agenda of deviance and authoritarianism. The lot of you are lower forms of life than Helminths, and if you're note eventually treated, western culture is sure to perish.

 

[kaz]

No, I am not incorrect. Precedence in other countries is not a valid argument to count the fact that the SCOTUS did not start out with the power to review legislation for Constitutional merits. That was decided in Marbury v. Madison. Sorry, but you simply cannot get away from the fact that prior to that ruling, no such authority was established by the Constitution.

With regards to your other post, a Congress that knowingly passes legislation that will not muster the Constitutional test is a sign of corruption. The ACA had to be so narrowly defined that it proved the corruption of the Congress, and is also where I base My opinion on the lack of Constitutional legitimacy of the law.

Many people don' know it, but the SCOTUS can't actually invalidate a law. They rule it un Constitutional and kick it back to the Congress. The Congress then has the right and ability to modify the law once again vote on it.

But that is a deeper subject than is expected of this thread.

The Constitution doesn't actually say that, it's only the judiciary's job to interpret the law as it was passed by the legislative branch, it doesn't say they have the power to own interpreting the Constitutional basis for the law. But it's not unreasonable that in their rulings they would question the Constitutionality of a law.

Which is basically, what I am saying. The SCOTUS could interpret how a law was applied in practicality prior to Marbury...however, after Marbury, they took it upon themselves to interpret the validity of the law as it was applied to Constitutional enumeration of power by the Federal Government.

No law has ever been overturned by the SCOTUS, however. Any law deemed 'unConstitutional' by the SCOTUS has been simply kicked back to the Congress. If the Congress won't be bothered to rewrite the law to fit inside the Boundaries of the Constitution, then it is simply dead legislation. Much like Legislation that failed to pass a majority vote.

This may be a distinction without difference, but it is an important one.

I was thinking distinction without a difference as I read your argument, and I still see it as a distinction without a difference.

The difference of what I am saying is that the court has no constitutional authority to "kick it back to Congress" and make it "dead legislation." They only have the power to "interpret" the law and express an opinion that it isn't Constitutional. They have no right to even overturn a specific case on the basis that they consider a law unconstitutional.

In the end, no matter how you slice it, once they have the power to invalidate laws, they have the power to effectively re-write them and we end up with the corrupt, criminal court we have now. In English, your view is more moderate. In practicality, it inevitably ends up being the system we have now.

 

[kaz]

I have, and it's not there. Which is why you keep repeating your claim without quoting where it says in Article III or anywhere else in the Constitution that the Courts own in any way interpretation of the Constitution itself.

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court 'judicial power', and judicial review is a power contained therein.

Anti-constitutionalists, such as kaz, much like the anti-federalists, refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

anti-constitutionalists...

And from a socialist who considers the Constitution to be toilet paper.

Notice you still haven't quoted the Judicial Review part of Article III you keep saying is there. But deflect away.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court 'judicial power', and judicial review is a power contained therein.

Anti-constitutionalists, such as kaz, much like the anti-federalists, refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

He still hasn't told me how, once the SCOTUS was stripped of its power of judicial review,

unconstitutional gun control laws would be struck down.

I stopped responding to your arguments because you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with Republicans and I'm not interested in defending anyone else's view.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court 'judicial power', and judicial review is a power contained therein.

Anti-constitutionalists, such as kaz, much like the anti-federalists, refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

anti-constitutionalists...

And from a socialist who considers the Constitution to be toilet paper.

Notice you still haven't quoted the Judicial Review part of Article III you keep saying is there. But deflect away.

You're begging the question by basing it on the premise that there are no such things as implied powers in the Constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

how do you propose anything in the constitution is determined to have meaning, or what that meaning is? Let's say that a state passes a law that prohibits the practice of Christianity. People are charged with crimes for practicing Christianity. The defendants argue that the law violates their constitutional rights. How can the court entertain such a defense if they don't have the power of judicial review?

Bam again, you simpleton.

I understand your point.

But what happens when corrupt justices take advantage of their position to Amend the Constitution?

The rule of construction was that

1) The Constitution means what it says and if the meaning is not clear then

2) The INTENT of the lawmaker

Case in point:

The Constitution does NOT authorize Congress to provide health insurance

It does NOT authorize congress to Tax "A" to benefit "B"

A Constitutional tax was previously defined as one to support the government in performing the powers specifically enumerated.

So how then is the UNaffordable Care Act Constitutional?

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anti-constitutionalists, such as kaz, much like the anti-federalists, refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

anti-constitutionalists...

And from a socialist who considers the Constitution to be toilet paper.

Notice you still haven't quoted the Judicial Review part of Article III you keep saying is there. But deflect away.

You're begging the question by basing it on the premise that there are no such things as implied powers in the Constitution.

Which we know to be incorrect.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied. See McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

 

[regent]

This is an old trick by teachers of government, civics, law and so forth to ask the students to find in the Constitution the power to interpret that document. A period can be used up with the lesson.

 

[Contumacious]

anti-constitutionalists...

And from a socialist who considers the Constitution to be toilet paper.

Notice you still haven't quoted the Judicial Review part of Article III you keep saying is there. But deflect away.

You're begging the question by basing it on the premise that there are no such things as implied powers in the Constitution.

Which we know to be incorrect.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied. See McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

Implied powers doctrine is pure bullshit.

The authority USURPED under that doctrine is huge.

While the rights RETAINED by the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment has been COMPLETELY IGNORED by the so-called federal "judiciary".

.

 

[Nyvin]

It's quite bizzare to hear right winger people want to strip the supreme court of authority. If DOMA and ACA cases went the other way I'm sure this wouldn't be the case. I think the Supreme Court has done some wonderful and moving things in the past and it is a completely reasonable check to the legislative branch's power.

If there was no judicial review then we'd just have presidential vetoes, which the legislature could override, it's not enough!

 

[Contumacious]

It's quite bizzare to hear right winger people want to strip the supreme court of authority. If DOMA and ACA cases went the other way I'm sure this wouldn't be the case. I think the Supreme Court has done some wonderful and moving things in the past and it is a completely reasonable check to the legislative branch's power.

If there was no judicial review then we'd just have presidential vetoes, which the legislature could override, it's not enough!

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account."

--Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, I am not incorrect. Precedence in other countries is not a valid argument to count the fact that the SCOTUS did not start out with the power to review legislation for Constitutional merits. That was decided in Marbury v. Madison. Sorry, but you simply cannot get away from the fact that prior to that ruling, no such authority was established by the Constitution.

With regards to your other post, a Congress that knowingly passes legislation that will not muster the Constitutional test is a sign of corruption. The ACA had to be so narrowly defined that it proved the corruption of the Congress, and is also where I base My opinion on the lack of Constitutional legitimacy of the law.

Many people don' know it, but the SCOTUS can't actually invalidate a law. They rule it un Constitutional and kick it back to the Congress. The Congress then has the right and ability to modify the law once again vote on it.

But that is a deeper subject than is expected of this thread.

The Constitution doesn't actually say that, it's only the judiciary's job to interpret the law as it was passed by the legislative branch, it doesn't say they have the power to own interpreting the Constitutional basis for the law. But it's not unreasonable that in their rulings they would question the Constitutionality of a law.

The Supremacy clause requires laws to be constitutional, and with that is the implied power of the federal government to enforce that. Since constitutinality determinations were an established function of the judiciary,

it is logical that the Supreme Court would hold that power under the US Constitution.

It’s both logical and consistent, given the fact that the Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition.

And part of those centuries of judicial tradition is the doctrine of judicial review, where judicial review is part of the foundation of our Constitutional Republic.

Indeed, there would be no Constitutional Republic absent judicial review, where the people are subject to the rule of law, not men.