R congressman says SCOTUS doesn't decide what is Constitutional

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

Let me get this straight, when Obama decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and that he was no longer going to apply it, he was violating the Constitution.

Isn't that an impeachable offense?

 

[Darkwind]

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

One for my soul, the other for my freedom.

Have fun with that. I hold the thoughts and ideals of my forefathers close to my heart however, I am also smart enough to realize times change and the peoples needs change. To adhere to a transcript that was meant to be altered anyways as some sort of faith based ideal is little more than a lesson in futility.

Conservatives understand you're just not that smart.

Trust me on this.

This reply underlines the depths of your ignorance, and in fact, marginalizes you utterly. My two-year-old grandson is smarter than you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They don't. The Constitution does.

The Supreme Court is the body that interprets the Constitution.

According to the Constitution, only their interpretation counts.

Not yours, or that Congressman's.

I challenge you to show me where the Constitution says that the Supreme Court is the only authority on the Constitution. It shouldn't be hard to find, there are only about 4500 words.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Is there a point hidden in there someplace?

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

You just quoted it!


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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not being sarcastic snotty but I really do believe the right takes pride in being ignorant. They hold their ignorance as close as their guns - like it keeps them warm at night.

Accusations of ignorances coming from the one who says the Supreme Court determines Constitutionality rather than the Document itself.

The Constitution is incapable of making a determination because it is only a document. The SCOTUS is the arbiter of the Constitution. They make the decision as to whether or not something falls within the constraints of the Constitution based upon a majority consensus of justices.

That is the best description of the process I have ever read.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Or when they said the Washington D.C. gun ban was unConstitutional?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

One for my soul, the other for my freedom.

Have fun with that. I hold the thoughts and ideals of my forefathers close to my heart however, I am also smart enough to realize times change and the peoples needs change. To adhere to a transcript that was meant to be altered anyways as some sort of faith based ideal is little more than a lesson in futility.

There is the problem, if you think that the proper way to alter the Constitution is to argue that times have changed you are, effectively, ignoring that the Constitution is actually designed to be changed. It is a lot better to go through the Amendment process and actually change the Constitution than it is to look like you are ignoring it. Currently, the government prefers ignoring it to changing it.

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

Hey dope - he argued that SCOTUS got it wrong. He didn't argue that SCOTUS didn't have the authority to rule on it definitively.


I swear you get dumber ever day.

 

[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".

Let me get this straight, when Obama decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and that he was no longer going to apply it, he was violating the Constitution.

Isn't that an impeachable offense?

When did he say it was un-Constitutional?

 

[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

We hear the above ignorance and nonsense from many republicans and conservatives all the time; indeed, right here on this very forum.

It’s really not that surprising or new.

And Rand Paul has already established himself as among the most ignorant of conservatives with regard to the Constitution and its case law, his complete lack of knowledge with regard to Commerce Clause jurisprudence is one of many glaring examples.

Conservatives must accept the fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as decided by the Supreme Court; and that case law becomes the law of the land.

One might be entitled to his own opinion as to what the Constitution means, but he is not entitled to his own facts.

If no one is entitled to their own facts why do you keep making up your own facts?

Fact, the Constitution does not exist only in the context of case law, case law exists only in the context of the Constitution. Until you get that right you are not going to be able to effectively discuss either the Constitution or the law.

 

[Synthaholic]

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

One for my soul, the other for my freedom.

Have fun with that. I hold the thoughts and ideals of my forefathers close to my heart however, I am also smart enough to realize times change and the peoples needs change. To adhere to a transcript that was meant to be altered anyways as some sort of faith based ideal is little more than a lesson in futility.

There is the problem, if you think that the proper way to alter the Constitution is to argue that times have changed you are, effectively, ignoring that the Constitution is actually designed to be changed. It is a lot better to go through the Amendment process and actually change the Constitution than it is to look like you are ignoring it. Currently, the government prefers ignoring it to changing it.

Then you agree that the Constitution is a living document? You disagree with Scalia (and of course, Thomas, who is Scalia's parrot)?

 

[Darkwind]

Listen up people.

The SCOTUS IS NOT the last word on laws and legislation.

Unless you subscribe to the notion that when Congress passes a law, the President cannot veto it as well. After all, the Executive does not decide Constitutionality of laws.

Perhaps you people should read more and fight less.

When most Americans read that the Supreme Court has used judicial review to strike down federal legislation, they usually understand the Court’s action as an invalidation of the legislation. In other words, the Court has undone the work of Congress and ended the life of the statute —kaput, poof, and it’s gone. It is not surprising that this would be the common reaction: it is how the Court’s power of judicial review is most commonly taught in high school, college, and even law school classes on the subject. However, what many deem to be conventional wisdom about the death sentence imposed on legislation by judicial review turns out to be false wisdom.

The reality is that judicial review does not usually end the life of federal legislation, and Congress often responds to the Court by amending legislation to make it constitutional. This is an important insight into the balance of powers between the Court and Congress because that relationship is nearly always mischaracterized as one in which the Court has the final say over the constitutionality of a statute.

and

A number of constitutional experts have challenged the role of judicial supremacy in the U.S. system of government. Arguments against judicial supremacy have been put forth as “coordinate construction,” “departmentalism,” and “tripartite” theories, and more recently as “the Constitution outside the Court” and “popular constitutionalism.” These opponents of judicial supremacy argue that the Constitution is more than simply a legal document. It creates and structures political institutions as well as lawmaking and policy-making processes, and it establishes the parameters for federal power. In short, it structures political debates as well as legal ones. And the members of each co-equal branch of government take oaths to uphold the Constitution. Thus, members of Congress and presidents possess legitimate and sometimes necessary authority to interpret the Constitution on their own.

finally

Invalidated Statutes?

In order to assess the relationship between the Court and Congress over constitutional matters with a little more precision, I collected data on Court decisions invalidating federal legislation and tracked what happened to the legislation after the Court decision (Pickerill, 2004). From the beginning of the Warren Court in 1953 through 1997, the Supreme Court struck down 74 separate federal statutory provisions. However, most of those statutes are currently “good law.” That is, they are operable and are being applied (or capable of being applied) by the executive branch and/or appropriate administrative agencies. One reason is that Congress often times responds to the Court to revive the provisions struck down by the Court. If members of Congress are committed to the policy in a statute that has been struck down, they may save the policy in one of three ways: they may amend the Constitution, in effect overruling the Court; they may pass an amendment to the legislation; or they may repeal the old and pass new legislation.

I suggest some reading on all of your parts...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...iIHACw&usg=AFQjCNHybkmy9IaHgXqsdc0mIu6F0iwF3w

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Which proves the point of the op.

And, your idea that every American can decide what is Constitution is just plain silly.

Can you show me anything in the Constitution that prohibits me from determining what the Constitution says?

By the way, the Supreme Court actually ruled that people have the right to challenge whether or not a law is constitutional, and that ruling was unanimous. In other words, a woman decided a law was unconstitutional all by herself, took it to court, and won.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

 

[Synthaholic]

Listen up people.

The SCOTUS IS NOT the last word on laws and legislation.

Unless you subscribe to the notion that when Congress passes a law, the President cannot veto it as well. After all, the Executive does not decide Constitutionality of laws.http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...iIHACw&usg=AFQjCNHybkmy9IaHgXqsdc0mIu6F0iwF3w

It's not a law until POTUS signs it. Congress can only craft that law - they cannot pass it unilaterally.

 

[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.

Which proves the point of the op.

And, your idea that every American can decide what is Constitution is just plain silly.

Can you show me anything in the Constitution that prohibits me from determining what the Constitution says?

By the way, the Supreme Court actually ruled that people have the right to challenge whether or not a law is constitutional, and that ruling was unanimous. In other words, a woman decided a law was unconstitutional all by herself, took it to court, and won.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

Nope. There's also nothing in the Constitution that says your opinion is worth a shit - the polar opposite of SCOTUS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The constitution grants certain powers to the federal government. That is all the main document does.
You will not find anything in the constitution granting the supreme court the authority to make decisions of constitutionality.

The supreme court does not have any powers not granted to it by the constitution. Those powers are reserved by the tenth amendment to the states or the people - respectively.

Between the main document and the 10th amendment is a list of rights that are inalienable and thus untouchable by any governmental power or even by the people.

Study the constitution and you will find that anyone who believes differently is ignorant of the facts.

The 10th amendment only says that states can have any powers that the Constitution doesn't prohibit them from having.

That is all it says? Why does it mention people then?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[
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.

I suggest you study a little history, Adams actually appointed Marshall because he was not a Federalist, which makes your entire argument based on a delusion that you hold that has no basis in reality.

Adams Appoints Marshall | American History Lives at American Heritage

 

[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

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

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?

Hey dope - he argued that SCOTUS got it wrong. He didn't argue that SCOTUS didn't have the authority to rule on it definitively.


I swear you get dumber ever day.

In order for me to be a dumb ass you will have to show me where I ever said that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to review laws.

Since I never said that, I am not the one getting dumber everyday, you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So?

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

Let me get this straight, when Obama decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and that he was no longer going to apply it, he was violating the Constitution.

Isn't that an impeachable offense?

When did he say it was un-Constitutional?

Seriously? Do you live under a rock?