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

[Dante]

WelfareQueen

really? Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 James Madison to Spencer Roane

They all are co-equal. As a matter of fact all three get to say what is and isn't constitutional, but the court gets the final say in cases where ...

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.

Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1472&context=wmlr​

Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law. Point to the precise, specific language.

Thank you.

Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?

Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?

Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.

A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).

Well your friend is but one voice. an educated one, but one. Thank him. Ask your friend this: Is it more appropriate to say 'solidified' than 'gave itself'? I'd am seriously interested in his response.

Constitutionally derived? Hmm... cute use of phrase. Of course many powers that consensus says are there may be considered unconstitutional -- but who gets to decide that?

1] Dante....my frustration is all three branches of Government were co-equal in considering Constitutional questions. That was the intent of the Founders.

2] The Legislative Branch has completely punted it's responsibility to the Judiciary. That is wrong and it is not how our Government was set up.

3] The Executive Branch under the Dept of Justice considers Constitutional questions every day....and generally does a good job of it. So why does the Congress get a pass?

1] true and over time (15 years) it became a given that an implied power was that the Court had Judicial Review

2] Not true. Your opinion, but there is no denying that the executive and the judicial branches have become stronger

3] Congress does consider things constitutional every time they draw up and pass a bill. But they are not the final arbiter within the three branches structure. The legislative branch can be the final along with citizens with the amendment process.

The big problem is Congressional players cannot convince enough people to support their ideas

 

[WelfareQueen]

Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law. Point to the precise, specific language.

Thank you.

Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?

Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?

Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.

A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).

Article III is clear the Supreme Court holds final authority in ANY case involving a dispute between a State or States and the Federal Government as well as in any case between a citizen of the several States and the Federal Government. That means they do in fact have the authority as granted by the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.

The Court can declare whatever it wants. The question is Judicial Nullification. The Court does not have the power to nullify existing law by declaring it unconstitutional.

Only the Congress can create, amendment, or nullify law per the Constitution. That point cannot be argued.

Cannot? It has been since day one.

Please specify under the Constitution any Branch of Government other than the Legislative that can create, amend or nullify Law. And remember...a Presidential veto does none of the above.

 

[Dante]

Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?

Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?

Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.

A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).

Article III is clear the Supreme Court holds final authority in ANY case involving a dispute between a State or States and the Federal Government as well as in any case between a citizen of the several States and the Federal Government. That means they do in fact have the authority as granted by the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.

The Court can declare whatever it wants. The question is Judicial Nullification. The Court does not have the power to nullify existing law by declaring it unconstitutional.

Only the Congress can create, amendment, or nullify law per the Constitution. That point cannot be argued.

Cannot? It has been since day one.

Please specify under the Constitution any Branch of Government other than the Legislative that can create, amend or nullify Law. And remember...a Presidential veto does none of the above.

If the judicial branch can rule a law unconstitutional as the Constitution says it can, what does that mean to you?

Do you understand and believe in the concept of implied powers? Do you understand Precedent - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.

A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).

Article III is clear the Supreme Court holds final authority in ANY case involving a dispute between a State or States and the Federal Government as well as in any case between a citizen of the several States and the Federal Government. That means they do in fact have the authority as granted by the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.

The Court can declare whatever it wants. The question is Judicial Nullification. The Court does not have the power to nullify existing law by declaring it unconstitutional.

Only the Congress can create, amendment, or nullify law per the Constitution. That point cannot be argued.

Cannot? It has been since day one.

Please specify under the Constitution any Branch of Government other than the Legislative that can create, amend or nullify Law. And remember...a Presidential veto does none of the above.

If the judicial branch can rule a law unconstitutional as the Constitution says it can, what does that mean to you?

Do you understand and believe in the concept of implied powers? Do you understand Precedent - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ?

Judicial review.....yes. Nullifying or vacating exist law. Nope. Doesn't exist in the Constitution and the Courts have no power to do so.

 

[Dante]

Article III is clear the Supreme Court holds final authority in ANY case involving a dispute between a State or States and the Federal Government as well as in any case between a citizen of the several States and the Federal Government. That means they do in fact have the authority as granted by the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.

The Court can declare whatever it wants. The question is Judicial Nullification. The Court does not have the power to nullify existing law by declaring it unconstitutional.

Only the Congress can create, amendment, or nullify law per the Constitution. That point cannot be argued.

Cannot? It has been since day one.

Please specify under the Constitution any Branch of Government other than the Legislative that can create, amend or nullify Law. And remember...a Presidential veto does none of the above.

If the judicial branch can rule a law unconstitutional as the Constitution says it can, what does that mean to you?

Do you understand and believe in the concept of implied powers? Do you understand Precedent - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ?

Judicial review.....yes. Nullifying or vacating exist law. Nope. Doesn't exist in the Constitution and the Courts have no power to do so.

vacate legal definition of vacate

nullify legal definition of nullify

review legal definition of review

The courts often seek to send back laws to be rewritten or conform and the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts and others treads lightly there. They do not ask cases to be brought to the court. People demand they rule. Even people who claim the court should not be doing what they are doing are asking the court to do this.

funny huh?

 

[regent]

Add to the framers omission of stating in the Constitution the power of the Court to declare a law unconstitutional they also didn't require a member of the Supreme Court or most courts to have a law degree, or any education in law or even to have read a law book. I wonder in our history if....

The Framers didn't omit from the Constitution the authority of judicial review, it's clearly stated in Article VI.

Why do you Liberals say something is clearly stated when it's not? Clear would be direct words not your lame interpretation of those words.

I'm a liberal and learned of Marbury years ago. The interesting thing is the different approaches members of the Court use to interpret the Constitution today. Some want it in black and white, and the irony is, the framers did not put the power of the Court to interpret in black and white. Maybe it's not a liberal or conservative issue but just history.

The framers didn't put the power of what the Supreme Court does in the Constitution at all. If you claim to know history, you should actually know it. It's history that you seem to want to rewrite.

The history is all written.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Art. 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 . . . .

A "law" which is passed NOT in pursuance of the Constitution is not a supreme law of the land. It is, as court cases have properly maintained, no law at all. It is not just voidable, but void "ab initio" which puts it on par with a law that was never written or passed or signed in the first place.

A law, for example, which demands that certain racial minorities be imprisoned on the basis of their race(s) would clearly be an affront to several Constitutional commands. They would not be in pursuance of the Constitution and would thus be null and void. We might quibble about whether or not they were "law(s)" prior to being judicially found to violate the Constitution, but I am perfectly content in suggesting that they would be facially invalid and thus nullities even before the Courts say so.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

1] true and over time (15 years) it became a given that an implied power was that the Court had Judicial Review

Hey einstein. An "implied power" is no power at all. The constitution says courts do not have judicial review ( meaning the power to repeal laws) and that settles it. THINK

 

[Judicial review]

The constitution gives the Congress the power to unseat federal judges from not following the constitution. Happened under Bush.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If the judicial branch can rule a law unconstitutional as the Constitution says it can,

You're lying. The constitution never says who has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional, which means, by the tenth amendment, the states have it. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Please specify under the Constitution any Branch of Government other than the Legislative that can create, amend or nullify Law. And remember...a Presidential veto does none of the above.

There is none of course. The first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted are vested in a congress of the united states". So the president, bureaucrats, and judges cannot repeal or write laws - though they do it all the time.

States need to stand up and say we will not honor federal laws unless written by congress.

 

[Dante]

If the judicial branch can rule a law unconstitutional as the Constitution says it can,

You're lying. The constitution never says who has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional, which means, by the tenth amendment, the states have it. THINK

If a person brings a case against a state law before the court how would the court decide who was in the right?


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.

 

[WelfareQueen]

If the judicial branch can rule a law unconstitutional as the Constitution says it can,

You're lying. The constitution never says who has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional, which means, by the tenth amendment, the states have it. THINK

If a person brings a case against a state law before the court how would the court decide who was in the right?


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.

Repeating the same language is not addressing the fundamental question that is being asked. I'll try one more time.

What Branch of the Government other than the Legislative has the power to create, amend, or nullify Law?

Again....no one is saying it is not within the Court's discretion to say a law is not consistent with the Constitution. But it is a huge leap to then say the Court ruling thus nullifies Law. That power does not exist under the Constitution. Period. You have not provided any Constitutional language that grants the Court that power.

And remember...the core value of our Republic is rule by Consent of the Governed. That means only the People's Branch (The Congress) may create, amend, or nullify Law.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If a person brings a case against a state law before the court how would the court decide who was in the right?


.

What are you talking about.? Write a coherent sentence.

Bear in mind that courts turn down cases all the time. They have certainly done that in the birther cases.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Repeating the same language is not addressing the fundamental question that is being asked. I'll try one more time.

What Branch of the Government other than the Legislative has the power to create, amend, or nullify Law?

Again....no one is saying it is not within the Court's discretion to say a law is not consistent with the Constitution. But it is a huge leap to then say the Court ruling thus nullifies Law. That power does not exist under the Constitution. Period. You have not provided any Constitutional language that grants the Court that power.

Yes indeed. Courts are free to say they think a law unconstitutional. But the courts then say that opinion repeals the law!!! They also say no one can undo their ruling except themselves!!

 

[Dante]

If a person brings a case against a state law before the court how would the court decide who was in the right?


.

What are you talking about.? Write a coherent sentence.

Bear in mind that courts turn down cases all the time. They have certainly done that in the birther cases.

they would decide who was right by interpreting the constitution

say g'night dick

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the judicial branch can rule a law unconstitutional as the Constitution says it can,

You're lying. The constitution never says who has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional, which means, by the tenth amendment, the states have it. THINK

If a person brings a case against a state law before the court how would the court decide who was in the right?


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.

Repeating the same language is not addressing the fundamental question that is being asked. I'll try one more time.

What Branch of the Government other than the Legislative has the power to create, amend, or nullify Law?

Again....no one is saying it is not within the Court's discretion to say a law is not consistent with the Constitution. But it is a huge leap to then say the Court ruling thus nullifies Law. That power does not exist under the Constitution. Period. You have not provided any Constitutional language that grants the Court that power.

And remember...the core value of our Republic is rule by Consent of the Governed. That means only the People's Branch (The Congress) may create, amend, or nullify Law.

“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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The Supremacy Clause clearly establishes that the Constitution, its case law, Federal laws, and the rulings of Federal courts invalidating state and local measures repugnant to the Constitution are the supreme law of the land, immune from attack by state and local jurisdictions (see Cooper v. Aaron 1958)).

The core value of our Republic is the supremacy of the rule of law, and the people are subject solely to the rule of law – not men or simple majorities, as they are incapable of ruling justly; measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law are proof of that.

The people remain at liberty to enact measures via the legislative process provided those measures comport with the Constitution and its case law; and when the people err and enact measures that violate the Constitution and its case law, those adversely effected retain the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court to seek relief.

In our Constitutional Republic the rights of citizens are not subject to majority rule, citizens do not forfeit their civil rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence, where states do not have the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil rights – one is an America citizen first and foremost, his rights as a citizen are paramount, with the states and legislative majorities subordinate to that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[DriftingSand]

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

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

And more importantly, who's "checking" the activist, Federal Judges? Nobody. They're acting with absolute impunity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Go check the Constitution re the legislature withholding jurisdiction.