Where does the constitution give federal judges the power to repeal laws?

[ShootSpeeders]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

 

[TheOldSchool]

Fuck dem judges brah. Checks n balances are for pussies.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Oh I almost forgot to ask! What particular law that violated the constitution do you not like?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Fuck dem judges brah. Checks n balances are for pussies.

Hey stinky-butt. Who acts as a check on our unelected Supreme Court?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Oh I almost forgot to ask! What particular law that violated the constitution do you not like?

Millions of examples but worst of all is when in 1982 the Supreme court repealed laws that banned illegals from using our public schools. They then wrote a new law saying taxpayers have to give the illegals free k-12. Plyler v Doe.

Of course, there is nothing in the constitution about education or rights of illegals. The court took their usual bribes and wrote a new law.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

Article 3 Section 1&2:

"Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

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;

Article III | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right reactionaries with their radical anti-American agenda have never read Article III.

They forget we are a Republic not a Democracy.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

SCOTUS obviously disagrees with you, and that is all that matters.

 

[longknife]

The far right reactionaries with their radical anti-American agenda have never read Article III.

They forget we are a Republic not a Democracy.

Has anyone else told you what a jerk you are?

 

[longknife]

For the authority of the Supreme and federal courts, read this:

The authority of the U.S. Supreme Court derives from Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Its jurisdiction is set out by statute in Title 28 of the U.S. Code. The Court itself promulgates the rules governing the presentation of cases to it. See Supreme Court Rules (effective Oct. 2, 1995). (Source: Cornell School of Law)

From U.S. Supreme Court Jurisdiction

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

Article 3 Section 1&2:

"Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

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;

Article III | LII / Legal Information Institute

^that looks like an answer, but it isn't.

We all know already that the Constitution explicitly grants the power it provides to the judicial branch.

But the question was essentially what provision in the Constitution explicitly grants the judicial branch the power to vacate any laws.

The honest answer to that question is that there is NO explicit grant of ANY such authority.

To the extent it exists at all, it exists as an inherent or implied power.

The Constitution DOES provide that laws passed in compliance with the Constitution are the supreme laws of the land. That is, Constitutionally valid Federal laws trump any State laws.

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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

-- United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

The implication lingers that a law passed in violation of the Constitution is not only not superior to any State law on the topic, it is in fact no "law" at all.

Who would say so? Naturally, it would be the judicial branch.

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

SCOTUS obviously disagrees with you, and that is all that matters.

Its convenient that the only un-elected branch of our federal government gives itself the power to override the elected ones.

Judicial review was a sound idea, but requires courts that don't contain people who feel the need to legislate from the bench. Combine that with people who are opponents of the federal system in general and you get courts that decide on what they FEEL is the law, rather than what they can PROVE is the law based on the constitution.

We are approaching Plessey V. Ferguson levels of judicial maleficence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you are talking about Citizens, yes, you are right.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Article 3 Section 1&2:

"Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

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;

Article III | LII / Legal Information Institute

Hey stupid. We've explained this to you before. Writing laws and repealing laws are NOT judicial powers. They belong to congress, as the constitution says.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

SCOTUS obviously disagrees with you, and that is all that matters.

HAHAHA. So now if a judge simply says "i have this power ", that settles it. HAHAHA. No wonder you're the board laughingstock.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Perhaps if you read stuff people posted you wouldn't be so ignorant? What do you do, just skim it, ignore it, and persist in your lunatic opinion?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The Constitution DOES provide that laws passed in compliance with the Constitution are the supreme laws of the land. That is, Constitutionally valid Federal laws trump any State laws.

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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

-- United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

The implication lingers that a law passed in violation of the Constitution is not only not superior to any State law on the topic, it is in fact no "law" at all.

Who would say so? Naturally, it would be the judicial branch.

Nothing natural about that at all. In fact a strong argument can be made that the tenth amendment gives the states or the people the authority to decide the constitutionality of laws. THINK

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The Constitution DOES provide that laws passed in compliance with the Constitution are the supreme laws of the land. That is, Constitutionally valid Federal laws trump any State laws.

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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

-- United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

The implication lingers that a law passed in violation of the Constitution is not only not superior to any State law on the topic, it is in fact no "law" at all.

Who would say so? Naturally, it would be the judicial branch.

Nothing natural about that at all. In fact a strong argument can be made that the tenth amendment gives the states or the people the authority to decide the constitutionality of laws. THINK

Lemme guess, you're one of the people who thinks you don't have to pay taxes or get a license plate for your vehicle claiming you're a soverign citizen? Try asserting those rights sometime, see if your understanding of the Constitution bears out. I'll visit you on weekends.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

SCOTUS obviously disagrees with you, and that is all that matters.

Jake, as usual you're wrong. Presidents have ignored the Supreme Court in the past...they will do so again. Google Andrew Jackson/Supreme Court.