Should Supreme Court Decisions Be Ignored???

[RetiredGySgt]

The 11th does not say what you claim it says. LOL good god you are insane.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Explain in plain English how this " [Article XI] (Amendment 11 - Suits Against States)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.." means the Federal Courts don't arbitrate Federal cases.

 

[Kilroy2]

Oh Annie

you head must be in a spin but I will keep it simple

explain executive orders and executive privileged and why the president can use it

because its an implied power

obvious everything that Congress, President, and Judicial do is not spelled out in the Constitution and yes some things are but not everything

Implied powers for Congress comes from the ability to pass any laws considered necessary and proper

sounds pretty vague so who is determine what is necessary and proper

Its just the basis where they can use implied powers to run the government

The banking industry, the constitution does not mention it but where is the US going to keep all that tax money. So Congress make banking laws

The constitution is vague in a lot of areas and thus this vagueness created disagreements as some say this and the others say that

yet all government branches use implied power because everything is not listed in the Constitution

Checks and balances should keep each branch in it's lane

everything is not listed in the constitution and things that are are an example of expressed power

h


".... implied power..."


What a bogus attempt to hide the fact that you've admitted that no such power is authorized by the Constitution.


I win again, huh?

Well you just implied that you won without an ounce of evidence

The supreme court does judicial reviews yet you say they can't

Is the court just ignoring you

they do it because under the concept of implied power they can just like Trump and the Congress whom also use implied power

But I guess it does make sense to deny implied power as it blows a big hole in your argument

implied power is not a free for all but some may try and use it that way but that why you have the concept of balance of power

The court can strike down a law but all the congress have to do is rewrite it and avoid what cause it to be a thumbs down from the court

boom goes the
dynamite

Of course I won.

You've admitted that there is no such authorization in the Constitution.

Oh annie

Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up

The constitution is just the basis

The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.

why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff

not the president

why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power

Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall

There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution

Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

tap dance to that tune

Look up what 'implied' means.

Try to stick to words you can define.

Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.

Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya

Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is

 

[PoliticalChic]

Explain in plain English how this " [Article XI] (Amendment 11 - Suits Against States)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.." means the Federal Courts don't arbitrate Federal cases.

In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.





Marshall represents a pivotal point in the pirating of power by the federal government.
Consider the Judiciary act of 1789, in which section 25 hands powers to the court: " One of the most controversial provisions of the act, Section 25, granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions from the high courts of the states when those decisions involved questions of the constitutionality of state or federal laws or authorities." History of the Federal Judiciary

a. Had Marshall read the amendment through the prism of it's intended purpose, how would he have viewed section 25?
Yup: unconstitutional.





John Marshall, as is true of most modern judges, expressed his hostility toward limitations of federal power.



And, living under a cloak of stupidity, far too many folks imagine that the clear language of a law is unintelligible until some anointed one in a black robe tells them what is says.

The time is long past to smack the judges back into the role they were assigned.

 

[PoliticalChic]

h


".... implied power..."


What a bogus attempt to hide the fact that you've admitted that no such power is authorized by the Constitution.


I win again, huh?

Well you just implied that you won without an ounce of evidence

The supreme court does judicial reviews yet you say they can't

Is the court just ignoring you

they do it because under the concept of implied power they can just like Trump and the Congress whom also use implied power

But I guess it does make sense to deny implied power as it blows a big hole in your argument

implied power is not a free for all but some may try and use it that way but that why you have the concept of balance of power

The court can strike down a law but all the congress have to do is rewrite it and avoid what cause it to be a thumbs down from the court

boom goes the
dynamite

Of course I won.

You've admitted that there is no such authorization in the Constitution.

Oh annie

Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up

The constitution is just the basis

The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.

why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff

not the president

why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power

Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall

There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution

Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

tap dance to that tune

Look up what 'implied' means.

Try to stick to words you can define.

Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.

Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya

Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is

"...that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. "


Exactly what I said.


So you admit that I was correct from the start:

. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



Now.....why are you back?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Well of course, this is settled law and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere.

But parenthetically one might recall that day a few years ago when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state's Constitution prevented discrimination in marriages between heterosexual couples and gay couples. There was absolutely no precedent for this decision; it was Judicial Activism writ large. That decision, coupled with the constraints on amending the Massachusetts Constitution (which took a minimum of two years to accomplish, once the tedious formalities were out of the way) GUARANTEED that "gay marriage" would be the law of Massachusetts for YEARS, and there was nothing that anybody could do about it. Furthermore, even if the Massachusetts legislature rebelled against the decision and amended the Constitution to ban gay "marriage," there would be a virtual army of people who had already been married in Massachusetts, whose status would probably be "carved in concrete" and never assailable again, either in Massachusetts courts or Federal. And taking it a step further, people married in Massachusetts, even if citizens of another state, would henceforth be married EVERYWHERE due to the Full Faith & Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

So if there were ever a case where the Executive had the right and the opportunity to challenge the infinite supremacy of the Judiciary over law, this was it. Governor Mitt Romney (now Senator of Utah) could have said to the state and county employees processing marriage applications, "Ignore this decision; we will wait until the legislature acts on the issue. But for now, the law remains as it has been for 200+ years." But HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

And the rest is history. Pity.

NOTHING is ever settled law. When the United States Supreme Court can reinterpret their own decisions and grant powers to Congress (neither are in the Constitution), it becomes time to demand the other two branches reevaluate what is going on and make the high Court accountable.

 

[Kilroy2]

Well you just implied that you won without an ounce of evidence

The supreme court does judicial reviews yet you say they can't

Is the court just ignoring you

they do it because under the concept of implied power they can just like Trump and the Congress whom also use implied power

But I guess it does make sense to deny implied power as it blows a big hole in your argument

implied power is not a free for all but some may try and use it that way but that why you have the concept of balance of power

The court can strike down a law but all the congress have to do is rewrite it and avoid what cause it to be a thumbs down from the court

boom goes the
dynamite

Of course I won.

You've admitted that there is no such authorization in the Constitution.

Oh annie

Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up

The constitution is just the basis

The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.

why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff

not the president

why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power

Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall

There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution

Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

tap dance to that tune

Look up what 'implied' means.

Try to stick to words you can define.

Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.

Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya

Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is

"...that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. "


Exactly what I said.


So you admit that I was correct from the start:

. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



Now.....why are you back?

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.

so you have attached a meaning to judicial review that it is wrong

Yet the court does judicial review. Your statement that it is not in the constitution means what ???

You have applied a meaning to judicial review. You say since is it is not in the constitution that it means that they cannot do judicial review

Yet they do judicial review based on enumerated or implied powers BASED on the constitution

So a statement that it is not in the constitution means nothing unless you apply it to something

Well lets wrap this up and here is why you are wrong

The constitution say

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

all "Men are created equal" now based on your observation that would mean Woman are NOT created equal because the constitution does not explicitly state that

Yet my opinion is that it is implied that Woman are also equal

Do you disagree now

Do you accept the meaning of implied

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Explain in plain English how this " [Article XI] (Amendment 11 - Suits Against States)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.." means the Federal Courts don't arbitrate Federal cases.

You STILL have not answered the question.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Of course I won.

You've admitted that there is no such authorization in the Constitution.

Oh annie

Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up

The constitution is just the basis

The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.

why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff

not the president

why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power

Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall

There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution

Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

tap dance to that tune

Look up what 'implied' means.

Try to stick to words you can define.

Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.

Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya

Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is

"...that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. "


Exactly what I said.


So you admit that I was correct from the start:

. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



Now.....why are you back?

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.

so you have attached a meaning to judicial review that it is wrong

Yet the court does judicial review. Your statement that it is not in the constitution means what ???

You have applied a meaning to judicial review. You say since is it is not in the constitution that it means that they cannot do judicial review

Yet they do judicial review based on enumerated or implied powers BASED on the constitution

So a statement that it is not in the constitution means nothing unless you apply it to something

Well lets wrap this up and here is why you are wrong

The constitution say

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

all "Men are created equal" now based on your observation that would mean Woman are NOT created equal because the constitution does not explicitly state that

Yet my opinion is that it is implied that Woman are also equal

Do you disagree now

Do you accept the meaning of implied

Those who are anal retentive (and I debate my share of them) will claim that equality (which secularists and humanists interpret to be associated with the Declaration of Independence) is not in the Constitution. Some will claim the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the law. Therefore, there is nothing to imply... if you want their counter-argument. I have my own take, but it's different than the two prevailing points of view.

As to how the other poster views this, you will know whether they are conservative or liberal, depending upon the answer.

 

[Invisibleflash]

SCOTUS is just opinions. Opinions change like the wind. Get enough liberals and old shriveled up hags and the opinion is turn in your guns.

It all boils down to might makes right. Whoever has the might makes the right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Explain in plain English how this " [Article XI] (Amendment 11 - Suits Against States)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.." means the Federal Courts don't arbitrate Federal cases.

You STILL have not answered the question.

The problem is your willingness to accept the theft of power by the Court.


Let's try again.


A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm


…the effect of the Supreme Court’s interventions is almost always—as on every one of the issues just mentioned—to challenge, reverse, and overthrow traditional American practices and values.” Ibid.

Now, you may believe that this Court is necessary for you to know how to behave and what to believe......but the Founders had no such view.


But....lucky for you.....I'll provide a series of threads on this topic, and the history of our founding to help you understand you error.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course I won.

You've admitted that there is no such authorization in the Constitution.

Oh annie

Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up

The constitution is just the basis

The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.

why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff

not the president

why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power

Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall

There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution

Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

tap dance to that tune

Look up what 'implied' means.

Try to stick to words you can define.

Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.

Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya

Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is

"...that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. "


Exactly what I said.


So you admit that I was correct from the start:

. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



Now.....why are you back?

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.

so you have attached a meaning to judicial review that it is wrong

Yet the court does judicial review. Your statement that it is not in the constitution means what ???

You have applied a meaning to judicial review. You say since is it is not in the constitution that it means that they cannot do judicial review

Yet they do judicial review based on enumerated or implied powers BASED on the constitution

So a statement that it is not in the constitution means nothing unless you apply it to something

Well lets wrap this up and here is why you are wrong

The constitution say

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

all "Men are created equal" now based on your observation that would mean Woman are NOT created equal because the constitution does not explicitly state that

Yet my opinion is that it is implied that Woman are also equal

Do you disagree now

Do you accept the meaning of implied

"... mistake on the part of the Founders,..."


OMG!!!


How bizarre.....a dunce like you, who has trouble with basic English, and no knowledge of history....is about to correct the Founders!

???? That's like Dr. Kevorkian teaching the Heimlich Maneuver !!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

SCOTUS is just opinions. Opinions change like the wind. Get enough liberals and old shriveled up hags and the opinion is turn in your guns.

It all boils down to might makes right. Whoever has the might makes the right.

The question in this thread is whether or not the Constitution has given the Supreme Court the authority to make pronouncements on every topic from those provided in Article 3, and in amendment 11.


I say, no.....the Founders wanted power in the hands of the people, and only elected official have been so authorized.

Hence.....the decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the way red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely suggestions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

SCOTUS is just opinions. Opinions change like the wind. Get enough liberals and old shriveled up hags and the opinion is turn in your guns.

It all boils down to might makes right. Whoever has the might makes the right.

The question in this thread is whether or not the Constitution has given the Supreme Court the authority to make pronouncements on every topic from those provided in Article 3, and in amendment 11.


I say, no.....the Founders wanted power in the hands of the people, and only elected official have been so authorized.

Hence.....the decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the way red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely suggestions.

And you would be wrong. Article 3 clearly gives to the Judiciary the power they have, it is in plain English and no matter how many times you post drivel it does not change they. You can not even explain how the 11th Amendment supposedly prevents the Courts from the listed powers in article 3.

 

[karpenter]

Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), was a case in which the United States ... believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

SCOTUS is just opinions. Opinions change like the wind. Get enough liberals and old shriveled up hags and the opinion is turn in your guns.

It all boils down to might makes right. Whoever has the might makes the right.

The question in this thread is whether or not the Constitution has given the Supreme Court the authority to make pronouncements on every topic from those provided in Article 3, and in amendment 11.


I say, no.....the Founders wanted power in the hands of the people, and only elected official have been so authorized.

Hence.....the decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the way red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely suggestions.

And you would be wrong. Article 3 clearly gives to the Judiciary the power they have, it is in plain English and no matter how many times you post drivel it does not change they. You can not even explain how the 11th Amendment supposedly prevents the Courts from the listed powers in article 3.

The Supreme Court's creation did not occur in a vacuum....it was given power to do very specific functions....and no more.

It simply assumed the power to adjudicate everything and anything....and you accept that due to a lack of understanding.

Perhaps you feel that you don't have the ability to make religious, social and personal decision without the auspices of the Court.....that's not what the Founders believed.


“It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.”https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



These posts will advance your education.

 

[Kilroy2]

Oh annie

Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up

The constitution is just the basis

The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.

why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff

not the president

why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power

Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall

There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution

Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

tap dance to that tune

Look up what 'implied' means.

Try to stick to words you can define.

Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.

Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya

Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is

"...that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. "


Exactly what I said.


So you admit that I was correct from the start:

. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



Now.....why are you back?

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.

so you have attached a meaning to judicial review that it is wrong

Yet the court does judicial review. Your statement that it is not in the constitution means what ???

You have applied a meaning to judicial review. You say since is it is not in the constitution that it means that they cannot do judicial review

Yet they do judicial review based on enumerated or implied powers BASED on the constitution

So a statement that it is not in the constitution means nothing unless you apply it to something

Well lets wrap this up and here is why you are wrong

The constitution say

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

all "Men are created equal" now based on your observation that would mean Woman are NOT created equal because the constitution does not explicitly state that

Yet my opinion is that it is implied that Woman are also equal

Do you disagree now

Do you accept the meaning of implied

"... mistake on the part of the Founders,..."


OMG!!!


How bizarre.....a dunce like you, who has trouble with basic English, and no knowledge of history....is about to correct the Founders!

???? That's like Dr. Kevorkian teaching the Heimlich Maneuver !!!!

Well at least your response is expected from someone who hates to admit when they are wrong

and does not want to answer the question put before her

As a woman are you equal in the eyes of the founding fathers based on words placed in the constitution that I have previously eluded to ?????

besides I did not mention any mistake but instead it is your intention
to make make stuff up to justify your ability to type

You failed to evolve and are just stuck on the words instead of understanding how to adapt the words to the 21 century and beyond

 

[PoliticalChic]

Look up what 'implied' means.

Try to stick to words you can define.

Implied powers are political powers granted to the United States government that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. They're implied to be granted because similar powers have set a precedent. These implied powers are necessary for the function of any given governing body.

Oh la la Annie an official definition for ya

Surprising the political chic would not know what implied power is

"...that aren't explicitly stated in the Constitution. "


Exactly what I said.


So you admit that I was correct from the start:

. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



Now.....why are you back?

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.

so you have attached a meaning to judicial review that it is wrong

Yet the court does judicial review. Your statement that it is not in the constitution means what ???

You have applied a meaning to judicial review. You say since is it is not in the constitution that it means that they cannot do judicial review

Yet they do judicial review based on enumerated or implied powers BASED on the constitution

So a statement that it is not in the constitution means nothing unless you apply it to something

Well lets wrap this up and here is why you are wrong

The constitution say

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

all "Men are created equal" now based on your observation that would mean Woman are NOT created equal because the constitution does not explicitly state that

Yet my opinion is that it is implied that Woman are also equal

Do you disagree now

Do you accept the meaning of implied

"... mistake on the part of the Founders,..."


OMG!!!


How bizarre.....a dunce like you, who has trouble with basic English, and no knowledge of history....is about to correct the Founders!

???? That's like Dr. Kevorkian teaching the Heimlich Maneuver !!!!

Well at least your response is expected from someone who hates to admit when they are wrong

and does not want to answer the question put before her

As a woman are you equal in the eyes of the founding fathers based on words placed in the constitution that I have previously eluded to ?????

besides I did not mention any mistake but instead it is your intention
to make make stuff up to justify your ability to type

You failed to evolve and are just stuck on the words instead of understanding how to adapt the words to the 21 century and beyond

How could I be wrong when you've admitted that my premise is correct???


This is what I said:

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

It's right there in the OP.....and you couldn't find a way to deny it.


Instead you claimed it is "implied" power.

Luckily, I forced you to check the meaning of 'implied'.....it means suggested, hinted at, guessed, unspoken, unexpressed.....
Your claim is that the Founders forgot to put in writing that the Supreme Court must be obeyed???????


Now.....which of us is the "someone who hates to admit when they are wrong"???

Must be you, huh?


I have no experience at being wrong, you appear to have a great deal of same.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

SCOTUS is just opinions. Opinions change like the wind. Get enough liberals and old shriveled up hags and the opinion is turn in your guns.

It all boils down to might makes right. Whoever has the might makes the right.

The question in this thread is whether or not the Constitution has given the Supreme Court the authority to make pronouncements on every topic from those provided in Article 3, and in amendment 11.


I say, no.....the Founders wanted power in the hands of the people, and only elected official have been so authorized.

Hence.....the decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the way red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely suggestions.

And you would be wrong. Article 3 clearly gives to the Judiciary the power they have, it is in plain English and no matter how many times you post drivel it does not change they. You can not even explain how the 11th Amendment supposedly prevents the Courts from the listed powers in article 3.

The Supreme Court's creation did not occur in a vacuum....it was given power to do very specific functions....and no more.

It simply assumed the power to adjudicate everything and anything....and you accept that due to a lack of understanding.

Perhaps you feel that you don't have the ability to make religious, social and personal decision without the auspices of the Court.....that's not what the Founders believed.


“It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.”https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



These posts will advance your education.

And you can not even articulate any thing that goes against the WORDS of the Constitution. Be specific now and explain slowly for the class how the 11th amendment PREVENTS the Supreme Court from hearing and ruling on Federal Cases.

 

[PoliticalChic]

SCOTUS is just opinions. Opinions change like the wind. Get enough liberals and old shriveled up hags and the opinion is turn in your guns.

It all boils down to might makes right. Whoever has the might makes the right.

The question in this thread is whether or not the Constitution has given the Supreme Court the authority to make pronouncements on every topic from those provided in Article 3, and in amendment 11.


I say, no.....the Founders wanted power in the hands of the people, and only elected official have been so authorized.

Hence.....the decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the way red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely suggestions.

And you would be wrong. Article 3 clearly gives to the Judiciary the power they have, it is in plain English and no matter how many times you post drivel it does not change they. You can not even explain how the 11th Amendment supposedly prevents the Courts from the listed powers in article 3.

The Supreme Court's creation did not occur in a vacuum....it was given power to do very specific functions....and no more.

It simply assumed the power to adjudicate everything and anything....and you accept that due to a lack of understanding.

Perhaps you feel that you don't have the ability to make religious, social and personal decision without the auspices of the Court.....that's not what the Founders believed.


“It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.”https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



These posts will advance your education.

And you can not even articulate any thing that goes against the WORDS of the Constitution. Be specific now and explain slowly for the class how the 11th amendment PREVENTS the Supreme Court from hearing and ruling on Federal Cases.

"And you can not even articulate any thing ..."

It appears you don't know the definition of 'articulate."


But...I don't mind teaching you.
And I can do so because I'm articulate.


In order to understand what the Court has stolen, one must be historically astute, must have studied the basis on which our nation was created: Federalism.
Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..."
Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on the concept of federalism, there was no need for a Supreme Court making certain that every locality had the very same view of culture, custom, tradition, and values.

These issues were never intended to be under the purview of the Federal Supreme Court.
Hence....and decision of said court should be......


......ignored.

Ronald Reagan used the phrase ‘voting with your feet,’ meaning move to where you are more comfortable with the rules. This nation was founded on individualism, not on collectivism.



But I am glad that you understand that you are a student in this discussion.