How to replace Judial Review

[Quantum Windbag]

So you show me how the bolded above leaves any power of determining constitutionality with the executive and judicial branches.

Why should I?

To demonstrate that you actually had a substantive argument to support your attack on my post.

I attacked your basic understanding of how the government works, not your post. Since you just proved, again, that you don't understand that, I see no reason to address anything you say based on your idiotic assumption that you know what you are talking about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How to replace Judial Review

2/3 2/3 3/4

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What balance of power would there be on the legislative branch if not for judicial review?

The legislature could override a presidential veto, and they could proclaim their own laws constitutional.

One of the primary motives to creating the federal system was a valid balance of powers, if the judicial branch doesn't have a check on the legislature then there really isn't one. A presidential veto is not enough.

All three Branches have a co-equal responsibility to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility has never rested solely with the Judicial Branch nor should it. The answer to your question above is very simple.

There are three Constitutional remedies for bad law.


1. Presidential Veto which requires a 2/3 override by both the House and Senate. This is a very high bar to climb.

2. Legislative action to repeal or amend bad law.

3. We the People can vote the bastards out that made the bad law.


There is no provision or authority granted to the Courts to repeal or nullify existing law under the Constitution. The Court may point out perceived conflict with existing law and the Constitution...but the Court has no authority to repeal or nullify any law. Period. Article III has zero language referencing Judicial Review.

lol, so your belief is that the power to decide whether or not a law is constitutional rests in the hands of the people who passed the law.

jeezus, what next?

You do know that, if Congress actually did what it should, it would be determining whether laws pass constitutional muster before they passed them? And that, in turn, the President would do the same thing. Imagine that, a country where we didn't have the PATRIOT Act because Congress actually followed the Constitution because they knew the President would veto any law that was unconstitutional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Revoking the 17th won't work.

Article III bedrocks the foundation of judicial review.

The Constitution would have to be amended.

Wrong...the Constitution would have to be amended to allow for Judicial Review as the Court gave itself that power in Marbury v Madison and that power has never been explicitly authorized in the Constitution or by We the People.

Your opinion is erroneous, of course. We the People approved the Constitution with Article III. Judicial Review is inherent in the document. No amendment is required at all.

Argue all you want, but it means nothing.

You personally approved the Constitution?

Why don't I believe that?

 

[kaz]

Your opinion is erroneous, of course. We the People approved the Constitution with Article III. Judicial Review is inherent in the document. No amendment is required at all.

Argue all you want, but it means nothing.

Point to the language authorizing Judicial Review. Otherwise, your opinion means nothing.

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. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

.

So seriously, you don't know the difference between "judicial power" and "judicial review?" I expect that from the liberals, but not from you.

 

[kaz]

How to replace Judial Review

2/3 2/3 3/4

The left get 5/9, everyone else gets 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. Got it.

One thing this thread has laid bare though is the pathetic liberal lie that you all believe the court is somehow conservative. Now that you have the 5/9 system of changing the Constitution, you are all fighting like the devil to keep it. You obviously know it's working completely in your favor.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If the Supremacy Clause requires laws to be constitutional can you explain why the court consistently said that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states until after a constitutional amendment was passed saying that it did?

Didn't think so.

While you are at it, give a list of all the laws that have been struck down because they violated the supremacy clause. It should be easy, unless you factor in that the Court actually ruled that the feds cannot force states to expand medicaid by cutting off all funding if they don't.

 

[kaz]

Bad decisions by the Supreme Court are tolerated because the stupid pop-culture media isn't paying attention.

No, it's because they like the results. Why would the left object to the constant left rulings undermining Constitutional protections?

1st - so called campaign finance overtly regulates political speech going into elections for the pure benefit of the incumbents.

2nd - one recent ruling aside, the right to keep and bear arms has been steadily eroded.

4th - the Patriot act, war on drugs and standard IRS policies bypass subpoenas and assume you are guilty until proven otherwise

5th - Property can now be taken from one citizen and given to another for the pure benefit of government and not only for public use

9th/10th - There is no longer any limit on Federal Constitutional authority

Roe v. Wade - A constitutional abomination just making up law

Commerce clause - was implemented to protect interstate commerce, now it's used to control and restrict intrastate commerce

14th amendment - equal protection now means making life fair in the eyes of a liberal judge.

The list of atrocities goes on, liberals love it. Why would that mean they didn't notice? They want it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Court has every right to point out conflict with a State's law and the Constitution. The Court has zero authority to repeal or nullify the law. There is the difference. The Constitution is very clear in enumerated powers that only Congress may pass, repeal, or amend law. The Courts has no such authority. They never have.

No one ever said it did.

But the Federal courts do have the authority to invalidate laws determined to be un-Constitutional and render them unenforceable.

Nope. You can say that all you want. The Constitutional language does not exist.

How can the Bill of Rights meaningfully exist without a means of appeal in cases where one believes one's rights have been violated?

 

[Contumacious]

The Supremacy Clause simply states that, in the event there is a conflict between state and federal law federal law will prevail.

Partially correct.

With respect to federal laws, then, the Supremacy Clause gives "supreme" status only to those that are "made in Pursuance" of "[t]his Constitution." Ibid.; see

3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1831, p. 694 (1833

This structural limitation may be implicated in a pre-emption case if the federal law at issue is beyond the scope of Congress' enumerated powers. Expansion of congressional power through an "increasingly generous ... interpretation of the commerce power of Congress," for example, creates "a real risk that Congress will gradually erase the diffusion of power between State and Nation on which the Framers based their faith in the efficiency and vitality of our Republic." Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 583-584 (1985) (O'Connor, J., dissenting); see also Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803) ("The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written").

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one ever said it did.

But the Federal courts do have the authority to invalidate laws determined to be un-Constitutional and render them unenforceable.

Nope. You can say that all you want. The Constitutional language does not exist.

How can the Bill of Rights meaningfully exist without a means of appeal in cases where one believes one's rights have been violated?

How can it meaningfully exist when a means of appeal allows the government to argue that it makes it harder for them to **** people over?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If the Supremacy Clause requires laws to be constitutional can you explain why the court consistently said that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states until after a constitutional amendment was passed saying that it did?

Didn't think so.

While you are at it, give a list of all the laws that have been struck down because they violated the supremacy clause. It should be easy, unless you factor in that the Court actually ruled that the feds cannot force states to expand medicaid by cutting off all funding if they don't.

I have no idea what you're trying to argue,

except to guess that you believe that the Constitution is an unenforceable document, and should be that way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Supremacy Clause simply states that, in the event there is a conflict between state and federal law federal law will prevail.

Partially correct.

With respect to federal laws, then, the Supremacy Clause gives "supreme" status only to those that are "made in Pursuance" of "[t]his Constitution." Ibid.; see

3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1831, p. 694 (1833

This structural limitation may be implicated in a pre-emption case if the federal law at issue is beyond the scope of Congress' enumerated powers. Expansion of congressional power through an "increasingly generous ... interpretation of the commerce power of Congress," for example, creates "a real risk that Congress will gradually erase the diffusion of power between State and Nation on which the Framers based their faith in the efficiency and vitality of our Republic." Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 583-584 (1985) (O'Connor, J., dissenting); see also Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803) ("The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written").

.

I actually went back and rephrased what I said because I realized I didn't make the point I was trying to make. The original intent was to prevent judges from using laws in other countries, or states, in order to invalidate federal law, not to restrict the states from passing laws.

 

[Contumacious]

Point to the language authorizing Judicial Review. Otherwise, your opinion means nothing.

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. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."



.

So seriously, you don't know the difference between "judicial power" and "judicial review?" I expect that from the liberals, but not from you.

There is no distinction.

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton agreed that the purpose of Article III is to authorize judicial review.

However Judicial Review was defined as APPLYING THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN or AS INTENDED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If the Supremacy Clause requires laws to be constitutional can you explain why the court consistently said that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states until after a constitutional amendment was passed saying that it did?

Didn't think so.

While you are at it, give a list of all the laws that have been struck down because they violated the supremacy clause. It should be easy, unless you factor in that the Court actually ruled that the feds cannot force states to expand medicaid by cutting off all funding if they don't.

I have no idea what you're trying to argue,

except to guess that you believe that the Constitution is an unenforceable document, and should be that way.

Of course you don't, doing so would require you to actually understand the subject. Nonetheless, I will attempt to explain.

Your argument is that the Supremacy Clause allows the courts to strike down state laws that violate the constitution, I said that is bullshit. It has never happened, and never will, because the Supremacy Clause only kicks in if there is a conflict in court between state and federal law.

I can give hundreds of examples without even trying that prove I am right, your challenge is to prove that I am wrong, and that you are right. Find a single example anywhere of any court decision that cited the Supremacy Clause as justification for striking down a law that the court specifically said violates the constitution. All you have to do is provide one to prove that you are right.

Go for it, or go back to where I told you to learn how the government actually works and take my advice.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

If the Supremacy Clause requires laws to be constitutional can you explain why the court consistently said that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states until after a constitutional amendment was passed saying that it did?

Didn't think so.

While you are at it, give a list of all the laws that have been struck down because they violated the supremacy clause. It should be easy, unless you factor in that the Court actually ruled that the feds cannot force states to expand medicaid by cutting off all funding if they don't.

I have no idea what you're trying to argue,

except to guess that you believe that the Constitution is an unenforceable document, and should be that way.

Unfortunately , the Constitution is no longer enforceable.

1) Power was concentrated in DC when the so-called 17th Amendment was adopted.

2) The Liberal vs Conservative dichotomy is false one - both sets of Justices are government supremacists. The federal government is now a behemoth.

While the Justices were somewhat effective prior to 1935 they collapsed after FDR threatened to abolish the Court.

While the "justices" have no problem concluding that Americans have a right to get butt-fucked they will give into whatever the Executive Branch or Congress wants to do.

Case in point : the Unaffordable Care Act

Secondly, even though they "recognized" that the right to bear arms is an individual one they refused to invalidate federal laws regulating that right.

.

 

[Contumacious]

[ Find a single example anywhere of any court decision that cited the Supremacy Clause as justification for striking down a law that the court specifically said violates the constitution. All you have to do is provide one to prove that you are right.

Go for it, or go back to where I told you to learn how the government actually works and take my advice.

Accordingly, the dissent's fear that "no state jurisdictional rule will be upheld as constitutional" is entirely unfounded. Post, at 29, n. 10. Our holding addresses only the unique scheme adopted by the State of New York -- a law designed to shield a particular class of defendants (correction officers) from a particular type of liability (damages) brought by a particular class of plaintiffs (prisoners). Based on the belief that damages suits against correction officers are frivolous and vexatious, see supra, at 3-4, n. 3, Correction Law §24 is effectively an immunity statute cloaked in jurisdictional garb. Finding this scheme unconstitutional merely confirms that the Supremacy Clause cannot be evaded by formalism.*fn9


Haywood v. Drown, 129 S.Ct. 2108, 173 L.Ed.2d 920 (U.S. 05/26/2009)

.

 

[WelfareQueen]

No one ever said it did.

But the Federal courts do have the authority to invalidate laws determined to be un-Constitutional and render them unenforceable.

Nope. You can say that all you want. The Constitutional language does not exist.

How can the Bill of Rights meaningfully exist without a means of appeal in cases where one believes one's rights have been violated?

The right of legal redress of grievances exists and is explicit in the Constitution. The right of Courts to invalidate law is not.

 

[Contumacious]

Nope. You can say that all you want. The Constitutional language does not exist.

How can the Bill of Rights meaningfully exist without a means of appeal in cases where one believes one's rights have been violated?

The right of legal redress of grievances exists and is explicit in the Constitution. The right of Courts to invalidate law is not.

You must be opposing Judicial Activism not judicial review:


" It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

Alexander Hamilton
Saturday, June 14, 1788

.

 

[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. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."



.

So seriously, you don't know the difference between "judicial power" and "judicial review?" I expect that from the liberals, but not from you.

There is no distinction.

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton agreed that the purpose of Article III is to authorize judicial review.

However Judicial Review was defined as APPLYING THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN or AS INTENDED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

.

Well, by that logic, the Legislature has Legislative Review because the word legislative is in it. And the Executive Branch has Executive Review because the name Executive is in it.

BTW, The term judicial Review isn't in that link. Instead of belching a document, can you point to the text you're referring to?