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

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. You can't because the Supreme Court has NEVER written a law.

too stupid. Nobody said they wrote laws!! I said, "in effect", they write laws. Remember Jefferson's famous quote: he who interprets the law makes the law.

Do you understand now??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The legislative function? What function -- passing laws? Name a law the court has made. The courts have never legislated

Too stupid and liberal as always. Abortion is the prime example. Nobody said they legislated literally or that the court was organized as a legislature. That woud be 100% absurd you sub moron. They said they legislated figuratively or, in effect. Too subtle for a silly liberal??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Without judicial review, there would be no way of settling issues of supremacy.

of course that's stupid given that judicial review was not established until 100 years after the Constitution was adopted.

another nonsense post by Special Ed

Why We Have Judicial Review
09 Jan 2007
Mary Sarah Bilder
The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.

After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Why We Have Judicial Review​

100% stupid of course, Reinquist was famous for saying that Marbury was most important case in SCOTUS history because it was used to establish judicial review even though nobody cited it for 100 years. Thus we know before that each branch felt equally entitled to do what was Constitutional and took an oath to do so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Without judicial review, there would be no way of settling issues of supremacy.

of course that's stupid given that judicial review was not established until 100 years after the Constitution was adopted.

another nonsense post by Special Ed

Why We Have Judicial Review
09 Jan 2007
Mary Sarah Bilder
The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.

After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Why We Have Judicial Review​

100% stupid of course, Reinquist was famous for saying that Marbury was most important case in SCOTUS history because it was used to establish judicial review even though nobody cited it for 100 years. Thus we know before that each branch felt equally entitled to do what was Constitutional and took an oath to do so.

Ed, you have been shown that your statements are wrong. You are Special Ed for a reason. Too stupid.

 

[Dante]

The legislative function? What function -- passing laws? Name a law the court has made. The courts have never legislated

Too stupid and liberal as always. Abortion is the prime example. Nobody said they legislated literally or that the court was organized as a legislature. That woud be 100% absurd you sub moron. They said they legislated figuratively or, in effect. Too subtle for a silly liberal??

Ed look up the meaning of the word figuratively

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Um, whose authority do you think that refers to?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Fakey is to debating as he is to honesty.

And everyone knows that his US Message Board persona (he actually clings to the transparently dishonest claim that he is a "Republican," even though essentially no one buys that obvious lie) is the premise of most of his other lies. I have kicked his ass here so hard and so often, I end up with a callous on my foot.

That must be some strange stuff you are huffing.

Not as bad as the shit you toke when you imagine that anybody believes your bullshit claim about being a Republican, you obvious liar hack bitch.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fakey is to debating as he is to honesty.

And everyone knows that his US Message Board persona (he actually clings to the transparently dishonest claim that he is a "Republican," even though essentially no one buys that obvious lie) is the premise of most of his other lies. I have kicked his ass here so hard and so often, I end up with a callous on my foot.

That must be some strange stuff you are huffing.

Not as bad as the shit you toke when you imagine that anybody believes your bullshit claim about being a Republican, you obvious liar hack bitch.

You got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, chump. I would vote for Ryan if he were in my district. I would not vote Louis Gohmert if he were in my district. That tells you about where I fall in the party.

The far right is simply not acceptable to the mainstream of the GOP as they will find out in the primaries. You would vote for Bozo if he were on the GOP ticket.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Fakey is to debating as he is to honesty.

And everyone knows that his US Message Board persona (he actually clings to the transparently dishonest claim that he is a "Republican," even though essentially no one buys that obvious lie) is the premise of most of his other lies. I have kicked his ass here so hard and so often, I end up with a callous on my foot.

That must be some strange stuff you are huffing.

Not as bad as the shit you toke when you imagine that anybody believes your bullshit claim about being a Republican, you obvious liar hack bitch.

You got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, chump. I would vote for Ryan if he were in my district. I would not vote Louis Gohmert if he were in my district. That tells you about where I fall in the party.

The far right is simply not acceptable to the mainstream of the GOP as they will find out in the primaries. You would vote for Bozo if he were on the GOP ticket.

You'd vote for Obumbler for a third term as Presidunce before you'd EVER vote for any Republican, unless you were to cross party lines to vote in a GOP primary where such things are allowed.

You far left liberals (especially the dishonest hacks like you who unconvincingly pretend to be any part of the GOP) would never find ANY Republican acceptable.

You DID vote for Obozo and you'd longingly eat the corn out of his shit. You far left wing hack liberals are a depraved and disgusting lot.

 

[hazlnut]

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!

The don't repeal laws.

Go back to high school take U.S. Government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fakey is to debating as he is to honesty.

And everyone knows that his US Message Board persona (he actually clings to the transparently dishonest claim that he is a "Republican," even though essentially no one buys that obvious lie) is the premise of most of his other lies. I have kicked his ass here so hard and so often, I end up with a callous on my foot.

That must be some strange stuff you are huffing.

Not as bad as the shit you toke when you imagine that anybody believes your bullshit claim about being a Republican, you obvious liar hack bitch.

You got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, chump. I would vote for Ryan if he were in my district. I would not vote Louis Gohmert if he were in my district. That tells you about where I fall in the party.

The far right is simply not acceptable to the mainstream of the GOP as they will find out in the primaries. You would vote for Bozo if he were on the GOP ticket.

You'd vote for Obumbler for a third term as Presidunce before you'd EVER vote for any Republican, unless you were to cross party lines to vote in a GOP primary where such things are allowed.

You far left liberals (especially the dishonest hacks like you who unconvincingly pretend to be any part of the GOP) would never find ANY Republican acceptable.

You DID vote for Obozo and you'd longingly eat the corn out of his shit. You far left wing hack liberals are a depraved and disgusting lot.

And I voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush, and McCain. If we get a Christie, a Rubio, a Kasich, et al, I will vote for them. You in the far right are not acceptable to mainstream Republicanism, Ilar.

 

[emilynghiem]

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!

The don't repeal laws.

Go back to high school take U.S. Government.

Dear hazlnut
Yes, this is where politics makes a mess of things, doesn't it?

Just because the Supreme Court struck down the state laws against abortion, ruling those as unconstitutional.
this is NOT the same as legislatures passing laws on abortion.
So we still do not have agreement on abortion laws, over 30 years after courts struck down how the
previous laws were set up (that violated "substantive due process").

We have similar problems with whether to legalize or at least decriminalize drugs.
Striking down laws as unconstitutional is one thing, but passing laws is another.

The ban against gay marriage is another example.
Striking down state laws banning gay marriage as unconstitutional
is still a different step from "making it legal through the state."

It is still possible to have gay marriage included as equally legal as a religious activity through
private groups, and not have it endorsed through the state which ideally should remain neutral and
not impose on private matters by regulating, either way, whether the couple being married is of any particular relationship to each other, in order to have the civil contract binding under law.

What a mess. If we do not set up means to resolve conflicts in how policies are written BEFORE we pass laws, then this has been pushing the burden onto the judiciary. If we already know the two sides disagree religiously, then it makes sense to resolve those issues in advance instead of abusing govt to "take sides" for the people, KNOWING both sides are going to defend their creeds from imposition by the other side. Of course that is not going to solve the problem, but make it even worse and more hostile and pressured.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, we have agreement on the right to regulated abortion.

It is the law of the land.

That you don't like it is immaterial.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Fakey is to debating as he is to honesty.

And everyone knows that his US Message Board persona (he actually clings to the transparently dishonest claim that he is a "Republican," even though essentially no one buys that obvious lie) is the premise of most of his other lies. I have kicked his ass here so hard and so often, I end up with a callous on my foot.

That must be some strange stuff you are huffing.

Not as bad as the shit you toke when you imagine that anybody believes your bullshit claim about being a Republican, you obvious liar hack bitch.

You got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, chump. I would vote for Ryan if he were in my district. I would not vote Louis Gohmert if he were in my district. That tells you about where I fall in the party.

The far right is simply not acceptable to the mainstream of the GOP as they will find out in the primaries. You would vote for Bozo if he were on the GOP ticket.

You'd vote for Obumbler for a third term as Presidunce before you'd EVER vote for any Republican, unless you were to cross party lines to vote in a GOP primary where such things are allowed.

You far left liberals (especially the dishonest hacks like you who unconvincingly pretend to be any part of the GOP) would never find ANY Republican acceptable.

You DID vote for Obozo and you'd longingly eat the corn out of his shit. You far left wing hack liberals are a depraved and disgusting lot.

And I voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush, and McCain. If we get a Christie, a Rubio, a Kasich, et al, I will vote for them. You in the far right are not acceptable to mainstream Republicanism, Ilar.

You voted for HHH, Carter, Bubba Clinton and Lurch, you despicable lying rodent.

You filthy dishonest poseurs are not welcome to even continue pretending that you are not Republicans.

By the way, you imbecile, I happen not to BE a Republican. Just as I gravitated away from being a "liberal" and a Democratic, so too I gravitated away from being a Republican when I saw that it is effectively indistinguishable from the Democrat Parody.

What assholes like YOU "mean" when you dare to discuss the main stream Republican Party is the God forsaken RINO GOP establishment that makes it such a sewer that it might as well be re-labeled "the other Democrat Party."

Mainstream Republicanism is not acceptable to me or to ANY thinking American.

 

[jillian]

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!

well, you might actually want to read our caselaw and our constitution together since we live in a common law country where our laws are comprised of statutes, caselaw and treaties. also, they don't "repeal" laws. they strike them down for being unconstitutional.

i hope that helps.

not that it will.

 

[jillian]

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.

do you know anything about our legal system?

we the people, who? idiots like you who don't have a clue about our governmental system and what the judiciary does?

 

[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!

The don't repeal laws.

Go back to high school take U.S. Government.

Partial credit.

While it is TRUE that the SCOTUS does not and cannot "repeal" laws, they can and do strike laws down as having violated the Constitution. That does have the effect of repealing those laws. In fact, to have that effect is the exact point of striking them down as unconstitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"You voted for HHH, Carter, Bubba Clinton and Lurch, you despicable lying rodent" is lying from LiabilitaryIlar. Nothing new.

He is a dirty lying pretender who is not even a Republican, so he won't be attending the convention. I will be there.

No true blue American really pays much attention to his posts, other than kick at them on occasion like this.

 

[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.

do you know anything about our legal system?

we the people, who? idiots like you who don't have a clue about our governmental system and what the judiciary does?

Sweetie...you are a fucking idiot. Please reference the Judicial Powers section of the Constitution. There is no provision to allow nullification of law by the Courts. I repeat none.


Before you speak and embarrass yourself, get the facts. You shouldn't have to be an idiot your entire life.

 

[emilynghiem]

That must be some strange stuff you are huffing.

Not as bad as the shit you toke when you imagine that anybody believes your bullshit claim about being a Republican, you obvious liar hack bitch.

You got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, chump. I would vote for Ryan if he were in my district. I would not vote Louis Gohmert if he were in my district. That tells you about where I fall in the party.

The far right is simply not acceptable to the mainstream of the GOP as they will find out in the primaries. You would vote for Bozo if he were on the GOP ticket.

You'd vote for Obumbler for a third term as Presidunce before you'd EVER vote for any Republican, unless you were to cross party lines to vote in a GOP primary where such things are allowed.

You far left liberals (especially the dishonest hacks like you who unconvincingly pretend to be any part of the GOP) would never find ANY Republican acceptable.

You DID vote for Obozo and you'd longingly eat the corn out of his shit. You far left wing hack liberals are a depraved and disgusting lot.

And I voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush, and McCain. If we get a Christie, a Rubio, a Kasich, et al, I will vote for them. You in the far right are not acceptable to mainstream Republicanism, Ilar.

You voted for HHH, Carter, Bubba Clinton and Lurch, you despicable lying rodent.

You filthy dishonest poseurs are not welcome to even continue pretending that you are not Republicans.

By the way, you imbecile, I happen not to BE a Republican. Just as I gravitated away from being a "liberal" and a Democratic, so too I gravitated away from being a Republican when I saw that it is effectively indistinguishable from the Democrat Parody.

What assholes like YOU "mean" when you dare to discuss the main stream Republican Party is the God forsaken RINO GOP establishment that makes it such a sewer that it might as well be re-labeled "the other Democrat Party."

Mainstream Republicanism is not acceptable to me or to ANY thinking American.

Dear IlarMeilyr,
When you are done listing all the things that are not acceptable or supported by you,
can we list the issues policies and programs we DO all agree that govt should be in the business of ?

http://www.houstonprogressive.org/smallgov.html

Even if these are very few points of agreement, like national security and keeping the Internet free to the public,
that would be a Republican idea to limit federal govt to only what is Constitutionally necessary.

At least we'd agree on that much!
Take care, happy holidays and best wishes for 2016.