R congressman says SCOTUS doesn't decide what is Constitutional

[ShootSpeeders]

[
But where in the Constitution does it say the Court has this power? The Court took this power unto itself in the most famous court case, Marbury v. Madison.

Libs have no answer for that. SCOTUS in 1803 simply insisted it had the power with no constitutional authorization and in brazen defiance of the tenth amendment. I don't know why the states back then let them do it. They probably figured it wasn't gonna be a big deal but they were wrong on that.

 

[ogibillm]

The Supreme Court is the body that interprets the Constitution.

According to the Constitution, only their interpretation counts.

Not yours, or that Congressman's.

But where in the Constitution does it say the Court has this power? The Court took this power unto itself in the most famous court case, Marbury v. Madison.

Bingo... an illegal power grab in the first place.. which has helped lead to more illegal power grabs throughout the government

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

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 Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

so who decides the constitutionality of a law if not the courts?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

We need to also stop the SCOTUS from LEGISLATING like they did in roe v wade and plyler v doe (giving illegals free k-12).

The constitution says all legislative power is vested in congress.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Article III Section 2 and Marbury v Madison decided this long time ago.

 

[regent]

[
But where in the Constitution does it say the Court has this power? The Court took this power unto itself in the most famous court case, Marbury v. Madison.

Libs have no answer for that. SCOTUS in 1803 simply insisted it had the power with no constitutional authorization and in brazen defiance of the tenth amendment. I don't know why the states back then let them do it. They probably figured it wasn't gonna be a big deal but they were wrong on that.

It was a conservative court that interpreted the constitution to mean that that the Court had the power to interpret the constitution. Chief justice Marshall had been appointed by Adams, a Federalist, just before the new liberal president, Jefferson took office.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Now once the scotus says its law then its law.


UNTIL the SCOTUS overrules its self

I take it you have completely forgotten the aftermath of the Kelo decision.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We need to also stop the SCOTUS from LEGISLATING like they did in roe v wade and plyler v doe (giving illegals free k-12).

The constitution says all legislative power is vested in congress.

The shrub.

Worst decision SCOTUS ever made.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

We need to also stop the SCOTUS from LEGISLATING like they did in roe v wade and plyler v doe (giving illegals free k-12).

The constitution says all legislative power is vested in congress.

The shrub.

Worst decision SCOTUS ever made.

Shrub? Are you talking about bush v gore in 2000. Yes that was terrible. The electoral college was set up because the states are supposed to be sovereign and they conduct elections as they please. The SCOTUS should have simply said " we have no jurisdiction".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama said, "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"

Hmmm

 

[bodecea]

Here's what Rand Paul said:

“Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so," Paul said in the statement. "The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right."

Read more: RAND PAUL: The Supreme Court Doesn't Get To Decide What's Constitutional - Business Insider

He's right, of course.

No, he's wrong and an embarrassment to anyone who voted for this yahoo.

 

[sfcalifornia]

It is a grave mistake to hold the Constitution as close as some do the Bible. It is not meant to be read or interpreted like that. Where in the hell did this insane right wing mine set even come from.

Please believe, we all adore and wish to adhere to the Forefathers land mark documentation. However, times change, and at this point if you cant think outside of the box provided by our founding fathers you are guilty of the same behavior they ran from.

The Constitution is written in plain English. Not in legalize for a specific purpose.

The founders wanted the average man and woman to be able to read it and understand exactly what it means.

I hold that Constitution as close to my heart as I do the Bible.

One for my soul, the other for my freedom.

That's a crock.

Lots of things which seems plainly written to you are interpreted differently by others, including the Constitution and the Bible. Haven't you noticed the reason why we debate on these threads every day, interpreting things to mean what we want them to mean?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
That's a crock.

Lots of things which seems plainly written to you are interpreted differently by others, including the Constitution and the Bible. Haven't you noticed the reason why we debate on these threads every day, interpreting things to mean what we want them to mean?

Yes indeed. The constitution is very ambiguous and it has to be interpreted, Unfortunately the SCOTUS has no authority to do so but they do it anyway and pretty much read anything they want to into it - in exchange for huge bribes.

Congress needs to rein in these 9 un-elected crooks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
That's a crock.

Lots of things which seems plainly written to you are interpreted differently by others, including the Constitution and the Bible. Haven't you noticed the reason why we debate on these threads every day, interpreting things to mean what we want them to mean?

Yes indeed. The constitution is very ambiguous and it has to be interpreted, Unfortunately the SCOTUS has no authority to do so but they do it anyway and pretty much read anything they want to into it - in exchange for huge bribes.

Congress needs to rein in these 9 un-elected crooks.

Who has the authority? If the Constitution has to be interpreted, as you state, but it's not the SCOTUS's authority to do so,

then who is supposed to be doing the interpreting you say needs to be done?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court is the body that interprets the Constitution.

According to the Constitution, only their interpretation counts.

Not yours, or that Congressman's.

But where in the Constitution does it say the Court has this power? The Court took this power unto itself in the most famous court case, Marbury v. Madison.

Bingo... an illegal power grab in the first place.. which has helped lead to more illegal power grabs throughout the government

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

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 Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Judicial review was a practice that predated the Constitution; the founders were quite familiar with it.

Maybe you will answer the question nobody else will:

If the Supreme Court should not have the power to review constitutional challenges to state laws, and rule on them based on the SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution,

how would the Chicago ban on handguns have been overturned as unconstitutional??

 

[Agit8r]

What a maroon. Hasn't he learned what the common law means? What backwards hell-hole did he get educated in?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Before you rw's start saying its not true, take note that there's video. You can't pretend this idiot didn't say this. Get ready to see a whole hell of a lot of stupid -

GOP Congressman Says Supreme Court Doesn't Actually Get To Decide Whether Laws Are Constitutional | ThinkProgress

“Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional,” Bridenstine said in a Daily Caller interview posted Sunday. After accusing Democrats of “stacking the courts in their favor” — five of the current nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents — Bridenstine dismissed the idea that Congress must write laws within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court. “That’s not the case,” the Oklahoma congressman said.

Bridenstine should know better and its just stunning that he does not - but here's where he learned this -

RAND PAUL: The Supreme Court Doesn't Get To Decide What's Constitutional - Business Insider

“Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so," Paul said in the statement. "The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right."

“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare,” he continued.

Read more: RAND PAUL: The Supreme Court Doesn't Get To Decide What's Constitutional - Business Insider

Funny, I seem to remember you whinging about the Supreme court getting it wrong on Citizen's United and how that, even though they said it was constitutional corporations to run ads, they were wrong. did you change your mind about that?

 

[Synthaholic]

Hmmmm

Perhaps you need to read this..

"Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decision"

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/048.pdf

The SCotUS has over-ruled previous decisions over 220 times in it's history.

So?

That doesn't change the fact that they are the only ones with the power to decide whether or not laws are "Constitutional".

No they are not.

They have the final say, but every Congresscritter, The President, and most of importantly of all, the People of the United States can say if a law is Constitutional or not.

But every elected official swears to uphold the Constitution, and if they can't decide that a law is Constitutional or not, they can not uphold the Constitution.

They might was well be throwing pasta against the wall to see if it sticks or not.

I can say that the sky is green. Doesn't make it true.

The SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter on whether anything is Constitutional. Although Congress can thwart that by amending the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How can Congress override a US Supreme Court decision


Answer:



Congress cannot override a Supreme Court decision.

If the decision interprets the Constitution or an Amendment, Congress cannot override the decision except by calling for a Constitutional Convention to change that provision of the Constitution or Amendment. (Not likely) This would require cooperation from the States, and is not something Congress could accomplish on its own.

If the decision interprets a federal law, Congress can amend or replace the law to correct its deficiency.

If the Supreme Court interprets both by comparing the law to the Constitution or Amendment to see if the law is constitutional and decides the law is unconstitutional because it is vague or can be applied in a discriminatory manner, Congress can amend the law in such a way that the Constitutional problem is solved. Technically, this is not "overriding" the decision, but it is one way Congress can make a law do its intended purpose without being unconstitutionally vague about the subject and purpose.

Other than that, only the Supreme Court can overturn its own precedent.

You need to get a better source.

Look up the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and see how it actually reversed a Supreme Court decision. While you are at it feel free to look up all the different states that changed their laws to reverse Kelo v City of New London.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now once the scotus says its law then its law.


UNTIL the SCOTUS overrules its self

Or Congress, or a state, makes a new law.

 

[Synthaholic]

Now once the scotus says its law then its law.


UNTIL the SCOTUS overrules its self

...or until the judges are impeached.

When has that happened?


You are clearly a dumbass.