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

[KokomoJojo]

still no evidence what so ever that "We The People" voted for the gubmint eh.

lets see the documents that "We the People" authorized "We the gubmint Agents" to create a gubmint for and without us.

 

[Faun]

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 Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.

 

[Faun]

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 Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

But would still be locked up if all three branches of govt decide that those laws are valid

No, that's the point. The judicial branch of government determines guilt or innocence. That's where their power comes into play. They can't repeal, or rewrite, laws, but if they agree with a citizen who claims that a law didn't abide by the Constitution, they can refuse to punish them for defying it.

Holyfuckingshit!

.... what do you think the implication is upon others who defy a law deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

 

[dblack]

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 Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

But would still be locked up if all three branches of govt decide that those laws are valid

No, that's the point. The judicial branch of government determines guilt or innocence. That's where their power comes into play. They can't repeal, or rewrite, laws, but if they agree with a citizen who claims that a law didn't abide by the Constitution, they can refuse to punish them for defying it.

Holyfuckingshit!

.... what do you think the implication is upon others who defy a law deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

It renders the law unenforceable. That's the point.

 

[dblack]

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 Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.

That's an odd way to look at it (though typically authoritarian). If a law is an invalid application of state power under the Constitution it is unconstitutional, and always was. It's nature doesn't change between the time it was passed and the Court rules on it.

 

[Faun]

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 Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

But would still be locked up if all three branches of govt decide that those laws are valid

No, that's the point. The judicial branch of government determines guilt or innocence. That's where their power comes into play. They can't repeal, or rewrite, laws, but if they agree with a citizen who claims that a law didn't abide by the Constitution, they can refuse to punish them for defying it.

Holyfuckingshit!

.... what do you think the implication is upon others who defy a law deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

It renders the law unenforceable. That's the point.

Which nullifies the law. Which is tantamount to repealing it.

 

[Faun]

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 Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.

That's an odd way to look at it (though typically authoritarian). If a law is an invalid application of state power under the Constitution it is unconstitutional, and always was. It's nature doesn't change between the time it was passed and the Court rules on it.

All laws are Constitutional when passed and if you break one, you face the consequences of that law, regardless of how unconstitutional you may believe such a law is. You may avoid any consequences should a court rule that law is unconstitutional, at which point the law is no longer recognized as Constitutional. But until that time, it is very much Constitutional.

 

[dblack]

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 Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.

That's an odd way to look at it (though typically authoritarian). If a law is an invalid application of state power under the Constitution it is unconstitutional, and always was. It's nature doesn't change between the time it was passed and the Court rules on it.

All laws are Constitutional when passed and if you break one, you face the consequences of that law, regardless of how unconstitutional you may believe such a law is. You may avoid any consequences should a court rule that law is unconstitutional, at which point the law is no longer recognized as Constitutional. But until that time, it is very much Constitutional.

I guess we're just debating semantics. I don't disagree with your assessment of the practical implications. Just the conceptual assertion that everything passed by Congress is, by default, "Constitutional". It's perfectly valid for a citizen to believe that a law is unconstitutional and act on that belief. Obviously, that's a gamble. They're still going to be prosecuted, and if they Court doesn't agree with them, they're screwed.

I guess I'm just responding to your statement as a common retort from statists, when someone claims a law is unconstitutional. They're basically just saying "sit down and shut up", and I don't brook that. If you think government is out of line, it's your responsibility as a citizen to call bullshit on it and challenge it, in court, on message boards, or wherever. Maybe not on Facebook or family meals. But....

 

[dblack]

The Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

But would still be locked up if all three branches of govt decide that those laws are valid

No, that's the point. The judicial branch of government determines guilt or innocence. That's where their power comes into play. They can't repeal, or rewrite, laws, but if they agree with a citizen who claims that a law didn't abide by the Constitution, they can refuse to punish them for defying it.

Holyfuckingshit!

.... what do you think the implication is upon others who defy a law deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

It renders the law unenforceable. That's the point.

Which nullifies the law. Which is tantamount to repealing it.

It may be 'tantamount', but it's not the same thing. Congress can repeal a law for any reason. The Court can only nullify it for very specific reasons.

 

[Faun]

But would still be locked up if all three branches of govt decide that those laws are valid

No, that's the point. The judicial branch of government determines guilt or innocence. That's where their power comes into play. They can't repeal, or rewrite, laws, but if they agree with a citizen who claims that a law didn't abide by the Constitution, they can refuse to punish them for defying it.

Holyfuckingshit!

.... what do you think the implication is upon others who defy a law deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

It renders the law unenforceable. That's the point.

Which nullifies the law. Which is tantamount to repealing it.

It may be 'tantamount', but it's not the same thing. Congress can repeal a law for any reason. The Court can only nullify it for very specific reasons.

In either case, no one is bound by such a law.

 

[dblack]

No, that's the point. The judicial branch of government determines guilt or innocence. That's where their power comes into play. They can't repeal, or rewrite, laws, but if they agree with a citizen who claims that a law didn't abide by the Constitution, they can refuse to punish them for defying it.

Holyfuckingshit!

.... what do you think the implication is upon others who defy a law deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

It renders the law unenforceable. That's the point.

Which nullifies the law. Which is tantamount to repealing it.

It may be 'tantamount', but it's not the same thing. Congress can repeal a law for any reason. The Court can only nullify it for very specific reasons.

In either case, no one is bound by such a law.

But it's not valid to call that 'legislating from the bench'. The Court can change legislation wily nily. They can't make new laws this way, and they can't nullify laws unless they can at least claim they are unconstitutional. The Court functions as a limiting factor on Congress, as it should.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I guess we're just debating semantics. I don't disagree with your assessment of the practical implications. Just the conceptual assertion that everything passed by Congress is, by default, "Constitutional". It's perfectly valid for a citizen to believe that a law is unconstitutional and act on that belief. Obviously, that's a gamble. They're still going to be prosecuted, and if they Court doesn't agree with them, they're screwed.

I guess I'm just responding to your statement as a common retort from statists, when someone claims a law is unconstitutional. They're basically just saying "sit down and shut up", and I don't brook that. If you think government is out of line, it's your responsibility as a citizen to call bullshit on it and challenge it, in court, on message boards, or wherever. Maybe not on Facebook or family meals. But....

yeh but to challenge it, it must be done in court, anything less is hot air.

The problem as I pointed out before, is that the gubmint makes laws by the thousands every year at the stroke of a pen and get PAID for it out of your pocket.
You then have 2 choices, sue out of your own pocket to challenge it, or suck it up and go along.
The deck is stacked against you from the start.
They have excluded the citizens from government by excluding them from voting on these matters.
That said at a minimum citizens should be able to challenge their bullshit using the same tax dollars that were used to make the bullshit in the first place.
They operate as a RICO pyramid scam.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

But it's not valid to call that 'legislating from the bench'. The Court can change legislation wily nily. They can't make new laws this way, and they can't nullify laws unless they can at least claim they are unconstitutional.

That doesn't work. Letting courts nullify laws on constitutional grounds means they can nullify any law they wish.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.

Really? Where does the constitution say judges have authority to nullify laws? Fact is the constitution says judges do NOT have such authority. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". Only congress can write laws or repeal them. THINK

 

[dblack]

But it's not valid to call that 'legislating from the bench'. The Court can change legislation wily nily. They can't make new laws this way, and they can't nullify laws unless they can at least claim they are unconstitutional.

That doesn't work. Letting courts nullify laws on constitutional grounds means they can nullify any law they wish.

It works fine. They can only nullify laws if they can justify it on Constitutional grounds.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

It may be 'tantamount', but it's not the same thing. Congress can repeal a law for any reason. The Court can only nullify it for very specific reasons.

NO NO NO. The constitution says courts cannot nullify a law for any reason. Repealing a law is a legislative power and the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

 

[dblack]

You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.

Really? Where does the constitution say judges have authority to nullify laws? Fact is the constitution says judges do NOT have such authority. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". Only congress can write laws or repeal them. THINK

Nullification isn't repealing. It's just recognizing that a given law is outside the proper authority of government and cannot be enforced.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

That doesn't work. Letting courts nullify laws on constitutional grounds means they can nullify any law they wish.

It works fine. They can only nullify laws if they can justify it on Constitutional grounds.

Which means they can nullify any law they wish. This is what they did in roe v wade. There is nothing in the constitution about abortion but the judges proclaimed all state laws banning abortion are unconstitutional anyway!!!! THINK

 

[dblack]

That doesn't work. Letting courts nullify laws on constitutional grounds means they can nullify any law they wish.

It works fine. They can only nullify laws if they can justify it on Constitutional grounds.

Which means they can nullify any law they wish.

Only if they can find a Constitutional reason for doing so. As far as the idea that a right has to be mentioned in the Constitution to be protected, please read the ninth amendment - and THINK about it.

 

[Faun]

You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.

Really? Where does the constitution say judges have authority to nullify laws? Fact is the constitution says judges do NOT have such authority. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". Only congress can write laws or repeal them. THINK

That's inherent within judicial powers.

Who do you think determines the Constitutionality of laws if not the Judicial branch?