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

[KokomoJojo]

So, the Congress makes the laws. When a case goes to the courts they then have to decide what the Congress meant when they said what they said, and then decide whether the person is guilty or not.

If there are two laws that are contradictory then one must win and the other must be dismissed. If it's a Congress made law against a Constitutional power, the we know which wins out every time, don't we?

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

 

[Skylar]

So, the Congress makes the laws. When a case goes to the courts they then have to decide what the Congress meant when they said what they said, and then decide whether the person is guilty or not.

If there are two laws that are contradictory then one must win and the other must be dismissed. If it's a Congress made law against a Constitutional power, the we know which wins out every time, don't we?

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

As Frigid said, if two laws are in conflict, the judiciary has to put one above the other. And congressional statute falls before the constitution when they are in conflict.

As it should.

 

[KokomoJojo]

So, the Congress makes the laws. When a case goes to the courts they then have to decide what the Congress meant when they said what they said, and then decide whether the person is guilty or not.

If there are two laws that are contradictory then one must win and the other must be dismissed. If it's a Congress made law against a Constitutional power, the we know which wins out every time, don't we?

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

As Frigid said, if two laws are in conflict, the judiciary has to put one above the other. And congressional statute falls before the constitution when they are in conflict.

As it should.

are you talking about statutory law?

have you ever read the plethora of conflicting law we have today?

I hate the term massive but if there was ever a good application for it conflicting law is it. There are over 63 million laws in this country on the books, the greater majority of which either conflict or are unconstitutional.

The only way to clear up the conflicts is to go to the source and cases today never address the few hundred years of precedence the result of previous corrupt courts citizen ignorance or denial.

Worse have you forgotten that most states have created a huge bureaucracy of nonelected administrative tards that make law outside the state legislatures, that the state then upholds as 'the law of the land' most of which goes unchallenged simply because of the huge costs involved?

Gubacracy makes laws at our tax paying expense and we have to fight for our rights out of our own pockets and most wind up financially ruined in the process.

We are part of the gubmint when it comes to paying them to make laws but not when it comes to unmaking them, then we are on our own.

I find most of these so called discussions shallow, as if to teach someone at a high school level rather than attract people with actual legal experience. Thats the reality when dealing with the 'Just-Us' club.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, the Congress makes the laws. When a case goes to the courts they then have to decide what the Congress meant when they said what they said, and then decide whether the person is guilty or not.

If there are two laws that are contradictory then one must win and the other must be dismissed. If it's a Congress made law against a Constitutional power, the we know which wins out every time, don't we?

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

No, it's the way the US system works. You don't like it, move elsewhere.

It's not that they keep it a secret, it's that they write it down, and then when people have a dispute, it goes to court and the court DECIDES WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG. They INTERPRET the law.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, the Congress makes the laws. When a case goes to the courts they then have to decide what the Congress meant when they said what they said, and then decide whether the person is guilty or not.

If there are two laws that are contradictory then one must win and the other must be dismissed. If it's a Congress made law against a Constitutional power, the we know which wins out every time, don't we?

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

As Frigid said, if two laws are in conflict, the judiciary has to put one above the other. And congressional statute falls before the constitution when they are in conflict.

As it should.

are you talking about statutory law?

have you ever read the plethora of conflicting law we have today?

I hate the term massive but if there was ever a good application for it conflicting law is it. There are over 63 million laws in this country on the books, the greater majority of which either conflict or are unconstitutional.

The only way to clear up the conflicts is to go to the source and cases today never address the few hundred years of precedence the result of previous corrupt courts citizen ignorance or denial.

Worse have you forgotten that most states have created a huge bureaucracy of nonelected administrative tards that make law outside the state legislatures, that the state then upholds as 'the law of the land' most of which goes unchallenged simply because of the huge costs involved?

Gubacracy makes laws at our tax paying expense and we have to fight for our rights out of our own pockets and most wind up financially ruined in the process.

We are part of the gubmint when it comes to paying them to make laws but not when it comes to unmaking them, then we are on our own.

I find most of these so called discussions shallow, as if to teach someone at a high school level rather than attract people with actual legal experience. Thats the reality when dealing with the 'Just-Us' club.

There are no laws made outside of the law. The govt makes the laws. The Supreme Court can interpret them, and the executive executes them, or has the power to make certain things the law, but Congress can get rid of them if they choose and so can the Supreme Court.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

No, it's the way the US system works. You don't like it, move elsewhere.

It's not that they keep it a secret, it's that they write it down, and then when people have a dispute, it goes to court and the court DECIDES WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG. They INTERPRET the law.

So then you agree with me that the government makes the law without the people and then the government, interprets its law, (the "Just-Us club") then government judges the law that the government made and interpreted.

"We the Government" of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[KokomoJojo]

There are no laws made outside of the law. The govt makes the laws. The Supreme Court can interpret them, and the executive executes them, or has the power to make certain things the law, but Congress can get rid of them if they choose and so can the Supreme Court.

thanks for the flashback to introductory high school civics class, but that is the most absurd statement I have read so far.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kokomojojo does not like a republican (representative) form of government.

Tough titties.

 

[KokomoJojo]

kokomojojo does not like a republican (representative) form of government.

Tough titties.

Jake doesnt like admitting its all a house of cards

 

[JakeStarkey]

kokomojojo does not like a republican (representative) form of government. Tough titties.

Jake doesnt like admitting its all a house of cards

That's you playing the weepy fiddle for yourself. You don't like the American form of representative government, and who cares really what you think about it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

This is as ignorant and as moronic today as it was back in December of 2013.

And what's sad is that most on the right continue to exhibit this very same ignorance today.

 

[KokomoJojo]

kokomojojo does not like a republican (representative) form of government. Tough titties.

Jake doesnt like admitting its all a house of cards

That's you playing the weepy fiddle for yourself. You don't like the American form of representative government, and who cares really what you think about it.

what form is that jake? can you describe the form you think kkj doesnt like? I'll lay odds you have no clue.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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

This is as ignorant and as moronic today as it was back in December of 2013.

And what's sad is that most on the right continue to exhibit this very same ignorance today.

enlighten us

 

[JakeStarkey]

kokomojojo does not like a republican (representative) form of government. Tough titties.

Jake doesnt like admitting its all a house of cards

That's you playing the weepy fiddle for yourself. You don't like the American form of representative government, and who cares really what you think about it.

what form is that jake? can you describe the form you think kkj doesnt like? I'll lay odds you have no clue.

You are unable to articulate what form you would prefer and cannot define a republican form of government.

Until you can overcome those barriers, you don't have anything of import to impart.

 

[KokomoJojo]

kokomojojo does not like a republican (representative) form of government. Tough titties.

Jake doesnt like admitting its all a house of cards

That's you playing the weepy fiddle for yourself. You don't like the American form of representative government, and who cares really what you think about it.

what form is that jake? can you describe the form you think kkj doesnt like? I'll lay odds you have no clue.

You are unable to articulate what form you would prefer and cannot define a republican form of government.

Until you can overcome those barriers, you don't have anything of import to impart.

The question was put to you, so you want me to answer it for you eh..... here look at some titties instead

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, the Congress makes the laws. When a case goes to the courts they then have to decide what the Congress meant when they said what they said, and then decide whether the person is guilty or not.

If there are two laws that are contradictory then one must win and the other must be dismissed. If it's a Congress made law against a Constitutional power, the we know which wins out every time, don't we?

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

As Frigid said, if two laws are in conflict, the judiciary has to put one above the other. And congressional statute falls before the constitution when they are in conflict.

As it should.

are you talking about statutory law?

have you ever read the plethora of conflicting law we have today?

I hate the term massive but if there was ever a good application for it conflicting law is it. There are over 63 million laws in this country on the books, the greater majority of which either conflict or are unconstitutional.

The only way to clear up the conflicts is to go to the source and cases today never address the few hundred years of precedence the result of previous corrupt courts citizen ignorance or denial.

Worse have you forgotten that most states have created a huge bureaucracy of nonelected administrative tards that make law outside the state legislatures, that the state then upholds as 'the law of the land' most of which goes unchallenged simply because of the huge costs involved?

Gubacracy makes laws at our tax paying expense and we have to fight for our rights out of our own pockets and most wind up financially ruined in the process.

We are part of the gubmint when it comes to paying them to make laws but not when it comes to unmaking them, then we are on our own.

I find most of these so called discussions shallow, as if to teach someone at a high school level rather than attract people with actual legal experience. Thats the reality when dealing with the 'Just-Us' club.

There are no laws made outside of the law. The govt makes the laws. The Supreme Court can interpret them, and the executive executes them, or has the power to make certain things the law, but Congress can get rid of them if they choose and so can the Supreme Court.

Correct.

And acts of Congress are presumed to be in compliance with the Constitution until ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court (US v. Morrison).

 

[KokomoJojo]

[

So, the Congress makes the laws. When a case goes to the courts they then have to decide what the Congress meant when they said what they said, and then decide whether the person is guilty or not.

If there are two laws that are contradictory then one must win and the other must be dismissed. If it's a Congress made law against a Constitutional power, the we know which wins out every time, don't we?

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

As Frigid said, if two laws are in conflict, the judiciary has to put one above the other. And congressional statute falls before the constitution when they are in conflict.

As it should.

are you talking about statutory law?

have you ever read the plethora of conflicting law we have today?

I hate the term massive but if there was ever a good application for it conflicting law is it. There are over 63 million laws in this country on the books, the greater majority of which either conflict or are unconstitutional.

The only way to clear up the conflicts is to go to the source and cases today never address the few hundred years of precedence the result of previous corrupt courts citizen ignorance or denial.

Worse have you forgotten that most states have created a huge bureaucracy of nonelected administrative tards that make law outside the state legislatures, that the state then upholds as 'the law of the land' most of which goes unchallenged simply because of the huge costs involved?

Gubacracy makes laws at our tax paying expense and we have to fight for our rights out of our own pockets and most wind up financially ruined in the process.

We are part of the gubmint when it comes to paying them to make laws but not when it comes to unmaking them, then we are on our own.

I find most of these so called discussions shallow, as if to teach someone at a high school level rather than attract people with actual legal experience. Thats the reality when dealing with the 'Just-Us' club.

There are no laws made outside of the law. The govt makes the laws. The Supreme Court can interpret them, and the executive executes them, or has the power to make certain things the law, but Congress can get rid of them if they choose and so can the Supreme Court.

Correct.

And acts of Congress are presumed to be in compliance with the Constitution until ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court (US v. Morrison).

so you agree despite your back door approach that the gubmint enforces unconstitutional law.

and likewise you agree that the law is the law of the gubmint judges not the law of the people since the people have nothing to do with the supreme court which is 100% gubmint.

Now shall we talk about conflict in interest and RICO?

 

[JakeStarkey]

And kokomojojo does not like constitutional, republican (representative) government.

 

[Skylar]

[

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

As Frigid said, if two laws are in conflict, the judiciary has to put one above the other. And congressional statute falls before the constitution when they are in conflict.

As it should.

are you talking about statutory law?

have you ever read the plethora of conflicting law we have today?

I hate the term massive but if there was ever a good application for it conflicting law is it. There are over 63 million laws in this country on the books, the greater majority of which either conflict or are unconstitutional.

The only way to clear up the conflicts is to go to the source and cases today never address the few hundred years of precedence the result of previous corrupt courts citizen ignorance or denial.

Worse have you forgotten that most states have created a huge bureaucracy of nonelected administrative tards that make law outside the state legislatures, that the state then upholds as 'the law of the land' most of which goes unchallenged simply because of the huge costs involved?

Gubacracy makes laws at our tax paying expense and we have to fight for our rights out of our own pockets and most wind up financially ruined in the process.

We are part of the gubmint when it comes to paying them to make laws but not when it comes to unmaking them, then we are on our own.

I find most of these so called discussions shallow, as if to teach someone at a high school level rather than attract people with actual legal experience. Thats the reality when dealing with the 'Just-Us' club.

There are no laws made outside of the law. The govt makes the laws. The Supreme Court can interpret them, and the executive executes them, or has the power to make certain things the law, but Congress can get rid of them if they choose and so can the Supreme Court.

Correct.

And acts of Congress are presumed to be in compliance with the Constitution until ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court (US v. Morrison).

so you agree despite your back door approach that the gubmint enforces unconstitutional law.

Its certainly possible for congress (or a State) to pass a law that is in conflict with the constitution. ANd when this occurs it is the Judiciary's obligation to put the constitution above the unconstitutional law.

and likewise you agree that the law is the law of the gubmint judges not the law of the people since the people have nothing to do with the supreme court which is 100% gubmint.

The Constitution is the law of the people. And it is the judiciary's responsibility to follow the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by placing the constitution above any congressional or state statute that is in conflict with it.

Now shall we talk about conflict in interest and RICO?

In a thread you create on the topic, feel free.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

How entirely stupid must you be? I was right. You remain wrong.

The PREAMBLE does not list enumerated powers.

The one section that DOES list an enumerated power where the phrase "general Welfare" is also used does NOT list the general Welfare as one ofthe enumerated powers?

Your brain really is either missing of fried beyond hope of repair.

Nobody said the phrase wasn't used, you ******* moron. The POINT remains that it is NOT an enumerated power.

The power to lay taxes IS an enumerated power. Providing for the general Welfare is NOT.

You are stupid and or dishonest and a piece of worthless shit.

You're ******* deranged.

The very first item in that list begins the list of enumerated powers...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

... starting with the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

And again, it bears repeating because you are so brain-dead .... if you claim that is not an enumerated power and that Congress has no powers beyond the enumerated powers following that first one, then it's unconstitutional for Congress to fund the Air Force since the Air Force is not specifically enumerated.

Do you see now how ******* retarded you have to be to assert such a ridiculous position?

No Fauny. YOU are the one who cant wrap you diminutive little "mind" around a not exactly subtle difference between an enumerated power and one of the list of objective for which the enumerated power is given.

Congress DOES have an enumerated power to lay taxes. That power granted to Congress is to enable the Government to address some pretty lofty goals. For example, the power to lay taxes has AS ONE of its purposes, "to pay the Debts . . ."

I realize that this sails over your petty little mind but --

the subject itself it isn't hard at all. YOU are merely uncommonly dull witted.

The enumerate power here is "to lay and collect taxes TO PROVIDE FOR ... [a litany of purposes is then spelled out]." That should be more than enough clue even for a simpleton like you. The POWER EXISTS for a number of purposes. Those purposes are then set forth. The purposes are not themselves enumerated powers, you dolt.

... that enumerated power is to provide for the general welfare of the nation. You don't have to understand it... But it is what it is.

Wrong, Fauny.

You STILL flail futilely.

The enumerated power is: to lay taxes.

One of the purposes for granting that power is so that Congress may provide for the general welfare.

The enumerated power is for a purpose or purposes. The purpose(s) don't get magically converted into enumerated powers on that basis, you bombastic simpleton.

Obviously simple basic comprehension skills are far beyond your tragically limited abilities. But as you incorrectly tried to say about me, you did say something on point (albeit about you, instead): It is NOT required that you understand it. Your ignorance and vapidity are what they are. Boundless.

At least you understand they can provide for the general welfare of the nation. That alone puts you leaps and bounds above most of your fellow yahoos.

Poor Fauny. I don't see anybody claiming that the government is prohibited from providing for the general welfare.

What you small-minded trolls seem incapable of ever grasping is that "purpose" and "power" are not synonyms.

Let's see if we can dumb it so far down that even a dope like you has some small chance of catching a glimmer of it:

No matter how much you value a particular purpose, if you don't have the authority and the power to accomplish it in the way you propose, then either you cannot do it at all OR you have to find some other way to do it.