SCOTUS vs. the Constitution

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by NewGuy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by NewGuy
The supreme court has no authority over the Constitution.

Therefore, they are invalid in making such a decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by ajwps
Please be so kind as to point out in the US Constitution just where it says that women have no right to have abortions? That would be a real coup alright.

In your usual fashion, you have tried to take a complex subtopic and derail the entire issue because you have no reality based answer to it.

I SAID the supreme court has no authority over the Constitution.

YOU want to have me prove something different when you cannot adress the issue instead. You like to introduce tangents to threads when you know you cannot deal with the discussion so people choose to not read because of your chaos.

Open another thread, or wait until this topic is over before introducing more.

Originally posted by ajwps
By the way, the Constitution does give the right to the Supreme Court to define the meanings in this document and to pass make decisions that affect all American's lives.

Prove it.

The Constitution says it is the highest authority to the land and ALL judges and courts must submit to its authority.

That point right there makes yours stupid and invalid. Add the Amendment addition clause and you simply have a process to DEFINE the Constitution where no set rule has been determined.

IE: The Ammendments in the Bill of Rights were CLARIFICATION as to what power the CITIZENS had over the government. Since the COnstitution gave citizens the highest authority over government branches, the Bill of Rights defined those powers.

-YET IT HAD TO BE IN CONTEXT WITH THE CONSTITUTION or else it would be invalid.

Prove this is NOT the case, using only the Constitution, and you will have won the point.

Since that is a physical impossibility, I await your typical name calling and topic switching.

This makes anything the supreme court says regarding abortion, when the Constitution claims murder illegal, USELESS.

Note - This post is from the religion forum.

NewGuy, I have two issues with your post.

1. The Supreme's Court authority under the Constitution. Obviously, the Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, and derives its power from that document. Article III, Section I, states: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." In other words, any constitutional issue, where the intent of a law or executive order/regulation is thought to be contradictory to the Constitution, the judicial branch (and ultimately SCOTUS) has jurisdiction. Therefore, the judicial branch/SCOTUS may from time to time put out rulings about how far the right to free speech, or the powers of Congress, or the Equal protection clause goes. That is part of their jurisdiction, as set forth in Article III.

2. Amending the Constitution. I think we were about to get into this before you got sick. Again, I refer to Article V, which states: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Nowhere is there mention taht the Constitution may only be amended to clarify; the Founders clearly allowed for actual changes in the Constitution to take place.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by gop_jeff

aj, I think you and NewGuy (and I) agree that there is no Constitutional right to abortion. NG's objections were of the limitation of the powers of the Supreme Court, for which I started a new thread (see three posts up).

Actually there is no reference whatsoever to the topic of abortion in the US Constitution. The Supreme Court was established under the US Constitution to interpret and clarify any situations, technologies and new ideas such as LIFE in the unborn come along the highway of time. At least that is what the Supreme Court has decided to undertake.

Thus the framers of the constitution made a living and evolving document of the most important document (beside the biggest best seller) since recorded history.

 

[NewGuy]

NewGuy, I have two issues with your post.

Cool. We will work on 1 at a time until resolved.

1. The Supreme's Court authority under the Constitution. Obviously, the Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, and derives its power from that document. Article III, Section I, states: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." In other words, any constitutional issue, where the intent of a law or executive order/regulation is thought to be contradictory to the Constitution, the judicial branch (and ultimately SCOTUS) has jurisdiction.

OK.....the obvious issue here is CONTEXT of "under".

Section. 2.

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.

How does this square with the following? :

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

-notice the semi-colon....new idea coming:

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Add the following:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

What does this mean?

All .....ALL judicial are bound by the Constitution's authority.

NONE....NONE are allowed to go against it, or they are unConstitutional.

In other words, no court has equal or superior power to it.

This means "under" means "BENEATH"....not "WITHIN".

If no power can equal the Constitution, and none can say OVER it, then no individual ANYWHERE has authority to do anything WITH it unless specifically specified by the document.

The document specifies who and what can Amend. Therefore, only amendments, IN CONTEXT AND IN LINE WITH existing Constitutional law can be made.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Cool. We will work on 1 at a time until resolved. OK.....the obvious issue here is CONTEXT of "under". How does this square with the following? : -notice the semi-colon....new idea coming:
Add the following: What does this mean? All .....ALL judicial are bound by the Constitution's authority. NONE....NONE are allowed to go against it, or they are unConstitutional. In other words, no court has equal or superior power to it. This means "under" means "BENEATH"....not "WITHIN". If no power can equal the Constitution, and none can say OVER it, then no individual ANYWHERE has authority to do anything WITH it unless specifically specified by the document. The document specifies who and what can Amend. Therefore, only amendments, IN CONTEXT AND IN LINE WITH existing Constitutional law can be made.

Very nice indeed.

The only problem with your detailed powers in the US Constitution neither includes any references to being under, above, aside of or around any matter not so innumerated in the Constitution of the United States.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by ajwps
Very nice indeed.

The only problem with your detailed powers in the US Constitution neither includes any references to being under, above, aside of or around any matter not so innumerated in the Constitution of the United States.

Becasue the document is not a document of detailed law but one of structured order of foundation. EVERYTHING must fall under its context.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by NewGuy

Becasue the document is not a document of detailed law but one of structured order of foundation. EVERYTHING must fall under its context.

What does this mean? Where did you come up with these never heard before ideas that the United States Constitution is either a 'structured order of foundation (?) or that our Constitution includes EVERYTHING falling under its context????

Does that EVERYTHING include things like Bill Clinton lying to a Federal Grand Jury under his oath of office of President of the United States and his automatic removal from office?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by NewGuy
OK.....the obvious issue here is CONTEXT of "under".

How does this square with the following? :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

Constitution is the Supreme Law of the US. No disagreement there.

-notice the semi-colon....new idea coming:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Judges are bound by the Consitution - though this particular sentence refers to state-level judges, not federal judges. But still no disagreements here.

Add the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Federal judges must support the Constitution. Got it.

What does this mean?

All .....ALL judicial are bound by the Constitution's authority.

NONE....NONE are allowed to go against it, or they are unConstitutional.

In other words, no court has equal or superior power to it.

This means "under" means "BENEATH"....not "WITHIN".

If no power can equal the Constitution, and none can say OVER it, then no individual ANYWHERE has authority to do anything WITH it unless specifically specified by the document.

The document specifies who and what can Amend. Therefore, only amendments, IN CONTEXT AND IN LINE WITH existing Constitutional law can be made.

I think you are missing something. Yes, you are correct that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the country, and that judges are held by their own oath to support it. But, as I posted before, federal judges have jurisdiction over "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." You'll note that the bolded text is almost identical to the text in Article VI, which upholds the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties to be the Supreme Law of the land. It is clear, therefore, that although federal judges derive their power from the Constitution, and are bound by oath to uphold it, they have jurisdiction over cases that may come up regarding its execution.

For example, how would a judge decide a case in which one side claimed that free exercise of religion supported their views, and the other side claimed that the Establishment clause supported their views? (Case in point: a school district was sued by a student group that wanted to start a Bible study that would meet at school after hours, just like other clubs were doing. The school claimed that the Establishment Clause prohibited it; the students claimed the Free Exercise Clause allowed it.) Under your views, no judge would be able to rule on such a case, because the Constitution is involved.

BTW - are we waiting on the amendment issue until we sort this one out?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I think you are missing something. Yes, you are correct that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the country, and that judges are held by their own oath to support it. But, as I posted before, federal judges have jurisdiction over "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." You'll note that the bolded text is almost identical to the text in Article VI, which upholds the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties to be the Supreme Law of the land. It is clear, therefore, that although federal judges derive their power from the Constitution, and are bound by oath to uphold it, they have jurisdiction over cases that may come up regarding its execution.

If that is the case, then as I have proven below, even the court cannot give a decision contrary to Constitutional framework.

This would mean they cannot be judges in the capacity of deciding one way or the other. They would merely be a rubber stamp.

That is impossible.

They can only decide one way or the other where the Constitution does not directly affect their "one way or the other" function.

In other words, it is only physically possible to judge BENEATH the Constitutional level.

For example, how would a judge decide a case in which one side claimed that free exercise of religion supported their views, and the other side claimed that the Establishment clause supported their views? (Case in point: a school district was sued by a student group that wanted to start a Bible study that would meet at school after hours, just like other clubs were doing. The school claimed that the Establishment Clause prohibited it; the students claimed the Free Exercise Clause allowed it.) Under your views, no judge would be able to rule on such a case, because the Constitution is involved.

No. In MY and the Constitution's view, no court can rule at all. :

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

BTW - are we waiting on the amendment issue until we sort this one out?

Yeah, I want to get past this first.

 

[William Joyce]

The Constitution is technically the supreme law of the United States.

However, the Constitution is a written document. What and how it applies to various situations is open to interpretation (not much, in my view, but even an original intent supporter would concede this).

The final word for interpretation of the Constitution is the Supreme Court. They said so themselves in a case called Marbury v. Madison.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by NewGuy
If that is the case, then as I have proven below, even the court cannot give a decision contrary to Constitutional framework.

This would mean they cannot be judges in the capacity of deciding one way or the other. They would merely be a rubber stamp.

That is impossible.

They can only decide one way or the other where the Constitution does not directly affect their "one way or the other" function.

In other words, it is only physically possible to judge BENEATH the Constitutional level.

OK, you are correct that a judge cannot rule against the Constitution (which is why I am up in arms about the CFR ruling). But you go further in saying that no judge can rule on the application of the Constitution itself. This directly violates Article III, which specifically gives federal judges jurisdiction in cases arising under - meaning regarding the meaning, execution, or application of - the Constitution.

No. In MY and the Constitution's view, no court can rule at all. :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So in my example, the two sides case cannot be judged on?!? That is ludicrous. I can't believe you are arguing that a judge cannot judge on an issue between two Constitutional rights. You are smarter than that, NewGuy. It is very plain that judges are given such power from Article III.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
OK, you are correct that a judge cannot rule against the Constitution (which is why I am up in arms about the CFR ruling). But you go further in saying that no judge can rule on the application of the Constitution itself. This directly violates Article III, which specifically gives federal judges jurisdiction in cases arising under - meaning regarding the meaning, execution, or application of - the Constitution.

Notice I just gave you proof how "under" CANNOT mean "within", yet you cannot yet prove it DOES.

If it truly means that, you can prove it by the Constitutions own statements, right?

Again, I proved it means "beneath" by the wording in the document.

You have not proved it means "within" using wording of the document.

It would seem you keep repeating your point out of context. The whole thing comes down to:

1. The Constitution makes "under" mean "in" and the court is a rubber stamp.

or

2. The Constitution is fallible and not in context and therefore falls apart when looked at as law by conflicting the two referenced Amendments.

or

3. The Constitution is PERFECTLY in context and the document clearly states it IS the ultimate authority and that no court can equal it becasue "under" means "beneath".

Those are the ONLY 3 options.

Jeff, if you are going to prove your point, you have to do so within the document proclaiming continuity of context by definition of "under" using the document its self for definition.

Otherwise, apparently, I am right.

All you have said is the court is a rubber stamp.

So in my example, the two sides case cannot be judged on?!? That is ludicrous. I can't believe you are arguing that a judge cannot judge on an issue between two Constitutional rights. You are smarter than that, NewGuy. It is very plain that judges are given such power from Article III.

Jeff. Tell me what this says:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The definition of respecting is "regarding". That means no law can be made for or against.

That means it cannot be ruled upon.

I am NOT smarter than that. I make the doc explain its self which is what context and wisdom of understanding ANYTHING written is all about.

Isn't that how we understand and prove the Bible?

Isn't that what the founders would have done?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by NewGuy

Tell me what this says:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The definition of respecting is "regarding". That means no law can be made for or against.

That means it cannot be ruled upon.

I am NOT smarter than that. I make the doc explain its self which is what context and wisdom of understanding ANYTHING written is all about.

Isn't that how we understand and prove the Bible?

Isn't that what the founders would have done?

Do you believe that the USA is a Christian country established by Christian CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMERS for Christians? Do you believe that the US Constitution said that as a fact in Amendment 1?

Do you feel that as a Christian, the US Constitution made a law which was designed to exclude any other religion on the North American continent. Or do you believe that this means your own personal opinion or word definitions limits the power of the Supreme Court of the United States to protect the rights of all religions to flourish in this land of the FREE and LIBERTY FOR ALL ?

Do you 'respect' or 'regard' the fact that the US Supreme Court was not given the power by the US Contitution to protect every citizen's right to pray to their G-d in their own way or were the framers of the Constitution intent on establishing a national Christian religion for these United States and respect and regard no others faiths?

At least that is what you implied in your statement: "Isn't that how we understand and prove the (CHRISTIAN) Bible?"

 

[NewGuy]

AJ.....As I have been reviewing more and more historical documents the last 5 days, all of your questions are clearly and easily andwered.

However, I am going to stick to Jeffs discussion as it has been ongoing in other topics for weeks.

Please adress this in another thread if you desire an answer simulteneously, or wait until we are done here.

For reference, I won't be back on until monday.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by NewGuy

AJ.....As I have been reviewing more and more historical documents the last 5 days, all of your questions are clearly and easily andwered.

However, I am going to stick to Jeffs discussion as it has been ongoing in other topics for weeks.

Please adress this in another thread if you desire an answer simulteneously, or wait until we are done here.

For reference, I won't be back on until monday.

Another thread you say? My retort to your post is right on the mark as this is exactly what you are trying to express to GopJeff.

The fact that you say you can refute my post with historical documents gives insight into your aberrant thought processes.

If there was one shred of evidence that the Framers of the Constitution were creating an only Christian country, then this fact would be so widely known as to be evident to all who can read.

Just the main framer of the US Constitution said the following:

Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

NewGuy if you intend to use manufactured or flawed quotes from the Framers of the US Constitution, you had better be able to site the exact reference and validated document on-line that purports or proposes a Christian country intended by the Framers. If you can....

Ignore the truth and you deny your own salvation.

 

[NewGuy]

Jeff:

Does this mean you give up, or are you formulating a response?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Jeff:

Does this mean you give up, or are you formulating a response?

Why don't you disprove evolution with biblical quotes while you wait! That's still a nut you haven't convincingly cracked. I mean, if you're bored.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Why don't you disprove evolution with biblical quotes while you wait! That's still a nut you haven't convincingly cracked. I mean, if you're bored.

:cof:

 

[5stringJeff]

Will respond later. I saw that you had been banned and had not had a chance to formulate a decent reply yet.

I'm not giving up that easily...

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Will respond later. I saw that you had been banned and had not had a chance to formulate a decent reply yet.

I'm not giving up that easily...

I would hope not!

I just wanted to be sure.

 

[5stringJeff]

NewGuy, I apologize for letting this wait for so long. It was my intention to reply on Monday, not to wait until today. But let's get to it.

To recap, I have argued that Article III, Section 1 grants the judicial branch jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Constitution, to include cases regarding the Constitution itself. You claim that the word "under" excludes the Constitution from any judicial review, interpretation, etc., to the point where you have claimed (in my Establishment Clause vs. Free worship Clause) that no court may rule on any issues that are mentioned in the Constitution.

Let's see what the Founders had to say about this:


FEDERALIST No. 78
HAMILTON
"By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing."

Here I think we agree - the courts have the duty to strike down any unconstitutional law.

"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."

I think this is very plain - Hamilton argues that cases regarding the meaning of the Constitution will come before the federal courts, and that it is the judiciary's duty to ascertain the Constitution's meaning in such cases.


FEDERALIST No. 80
HAMILTON

"To all cases in law and equity, arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. This corresponds with the two first classes of causes, which have been enumerated, as proper for the jurisdiction of the United States. It has been asked, what is meant by "cases arising under the Constitution," in contradiction from those "arising under the laws of the United States"? The difference has been already explained. All the restrictions upon the authority of the State legislatures furnish examples of it. They are not, for instance, to emit paper money; but the interdiction results from the Constitution, and will have no connection with any law of the United States. Should paper money, notwithstanding, be emited, the controversies concerning it would be cases arising under the Constitution and not the laws of the United States, in the ordinary signification of the terms. This may serve as a sample of the whole."

This gets at the crux of the issue. In my previous example, you stated that no court would have the authority to judge between two Constitutional issues. Hamilton argues quite succinctly that any matter regarding the Constitution is under the jurisdiction of federal courts, using the issuance of paper money as an example (since the Federalist Papers predate the Bill of Rights).

I think it is clear, from one of the Constitution's greatest defenders, that the meaning of the Constitution and cases regarding the Constitution fall under federal jurisdiction.