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

[KokomoJojo]

Is shootspeeders up to his old antics?

Yes, the courts can opine on the laws and tell which are constitutional and which are not.

shootspeeders' interp is just silliness.

and you know what they say about opinions, they are like assholes everyone has one. They just have bigger ones

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is shootspeeders up to his old antics?

Yes, the courts can opine on the laws and tell which are constitutional and which are not.

shootspeeders' interp is just silliness.

and you know what they say about opinions, they are like assholes everyone has one. They just have bigger ones

SCOTUS opinions count, yours don';t

 

[KokomoJojo]

SCOTUS opinions count, yours don';t

True, no ones opinion counts but theirs, the gvmnt gave themselves almost omnipotent immunity and stopped listening to the people long ago, as if they ever did listen without an axe above their heads. Today they wage battle using 'Words of Mass constitutional Destruction' by collusion, subterfuge, propaganda and deceit against the weak and lazy minded.

 

[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!

Dear ShootSpeeders you are right it is a separate function just to reject a law or argument as being unconstitutional rather than write a law and endorse something as legal through govt.

Striking down a ban for example just says there is something wrong with how that ban is written or enforced.
If we have a multiple choice question, just striking down the proposed answer because it's wrong doesn't mean the other options are right automatically.



Perhaps we should limit judges to just ruling no. And in order to get a yes ruling, the conflicting sides must go back to their legislative or legal process, rewrite their proposed orders or solutions until agreement is reached, and only after they agree on the solutions or settlement, the judges or courts can rubberstamp it as yes all parties have agreed or no there is still a conflict with law and this needs to be resolved.

If parties agree to a judge arbitration that's fine.
But for matters of beliefs in conflict, this isn't enough to protect consent and equal beliefs.
So I recommend mediation and conflict resolution until consensus is reached how to be fair to all parties, in matters of religious beliefs or political creeds.

 

[emilynghiem]

Is shootspeeders up to his old antics?

Yes, the courts can opine on the laws and tell which are constitutional and which are not.

shootspeeders' interp is just silliness.

and you know what they say about opinions, they are like assholes everyone has one. They just have bigger ones

SCOTUS opinions count, yours don';t

Dear JakeStarkey and here we go again with differences in political creed
1. Religious beliefs do count for the individual whom nobody in govt can speak for but those persons. Govt can defend the rights of individuals to express and exercise their beliefs or creeds within the bounds of law, but neither the citizen can abuse that to violate other laws, nor can the govt endorse or prohibit where this affects the lawful equal free exercise of other citizens of other beliefs or creeds
2. There is a difference between states implementing laws touching beliefs such as marriage and federal govt affecting such laws.
Even Constitutionalists agree the federal court can strike down a state law as unconstititional, but where we disagree in creed is to what degree the federal.court can create a right or not or legalize something or not. People have different creeds on this. I'm finding it is not just a matter of educating people because these are inherent beliefs that some people just cannot change if that's how they believe by creed.

This conflict has been treated secularly, as if it can be decided by law or courts and force it on people as other secular laws.

But in fact I'm finding that denominations of Constitutional philosophy are more like political creeds or in my case religious beliefs.

So to be fair to all of us, I say we are ready to ask public and govt help to set up an internal process through parties of repressing grievances and resolving issues of bias in public policy BEFORE presenting solutions or position points to our courts and legislators to shape public policy and reforms that represent the people of all creeds beliefs and biases.

I think we can do this now. We have diverse parties more connected to constituents across the nation to receive input and involve direct representation while respecting indirect and current election voting and majority rule process. We have the Internet and independent media radio and video online. We can make this happen.

So thanks for standing up speaking out and representing the unique positions that are otherwise not counted or considered in the whole.

We need to find the Einsteins and Mozarts among us with something important to share even though these are the minority voices.

Thank JakeStarkey so thankful and blessed to count you and others here as my most challenging and respected colleagues who demonstrate why we need to address political creeds equally as beliefs protected under free exercise of religion. I am honored to share this
period in history with you as fellow founding
philosophers of the next stage in political and
social development toward cooperative economy and govt. Thank you for all you do
and contribute to this!

Yours truly, Emily

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, we have nothing of a foundation to change the constitutional, legal, and cultural framework of the country.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, we have nothing of a foundation to change the constitutional, legal, and cultural framework of the country.

Dear JakeStarkey
The party systems and indy media networks are not governed by the Constitution nor require changes to that in order to change how we collaborate.

We start with that, contact and organize lead members of third parties and media groups from all biases. And set up an inclusive platform to interact and share ideas and insights how to troubleshoot and improve the given systems

If we are going to change how govt works, sure, we go through the given channels. We as individuals pair up in teams and approach the appropriate official with the problem or solution we ask to be addressed. Collectively our numbers and diversity mean there is visibility and accountability if they answer our petition or grievance or not.

We can still use the given system to enact change through state or federal govt offices or agencies.

But we operate by inclusion, mediation, transparency, and equal representation instead of lobbying for a biased interest or agenda that competes with someone else. We work by cooperation and consensus, not coercion and unfair competition to exclude or dominate over any opposing opinions or beliefs. We work those issues out in advance, and lay out all points of agreement or dissension so nobody is unfairly misrepresented or excluded from the process.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are not going to change "how" government works to a 'fascist' system where party or church or whatever directs government how to work in a certain area. That is the basis of how shari'a works.

 

[emilynghiem]

We are not going to change "how" government works to a 'fascist' system where party or church or whatever directs government how to work in a certain area. That is the basis of how shari'a works.

Dear JakeStarkey
1. This is separate from govt. As parties and media are separate. Isn't the problem you cite going on with corporate insurance meeting with Obama to write A CA mandates and handouts to them in the trillions?
Aren't parties electing officials based on pushing either prochoice, prolife, LGBT or anti-immigration biases in policy?

So are you saying all parties should be banned from influencing officials, legislative votes, and judicial rulings and appts?

2. This is a proposal to CHECK and BALANCE those biases that exist, which party and media take advantage of for lobbying govt lopsided ly.
This is to present the background analysis and proposed solutions to all the biases instead of lobbying one side over the other as parties and media already do!!!

3. This would be transparent and by freely formed consensus not coercion as with parties and media that attack opponents .

What are you saying is abusive about this or overreaching or interfering/imposing -- and isn't that problem already occurring with given corporate lobby groups, political parties, media campaigns and other such organized activities that are used to influence officials and process?

A. Isn't this already happening and actively used
B. Why can't this system correct the problems caused by what we're seeing and using now that you say is skewing or dictating the process unfairly?

Either way JakeStarkey the point IS to stop the unfair interference abuse or dictation going on by corporate interests that ALREADY USE
* political parties
* media
* PAC and lobby groups even unions
* organizations like NRA or Planned Parenthood
To influence public policy and officials.

I'm saying since we recognize these political interests and beliefs are using means outside govt to influence govt, let's have transparent meetings between these to seek common solutions first before going to govt with laundry lists of what we want and don't want.

Political parties already pass their own platforms and resolutions and use that to lobby.

Why not open that process where they interact with each other to solve problems and write resolutions together they collaborative support?

I don't quote understand JS.

How is this different or worse than what parties already do to lobby govt?

 

[JakeStarkey]

My dear Emily: no. End of story: no. Uh uh. Nuh uh. Not in my back yard.

 

[emilynghiem]

My dear Emily: no. End of story: no. Uh uh. Nuh uh. Not in my back yard.

How is what you are complaining about different or worse than what parties and PACS already do?

JakeStarkey if you are going to say no to parties collaborating together,
How is that different than parties lobbying officials now?

Are you saying NO to political parties?

 

[JakeStarkey]

My dear Emily: no. End of story: no. Uh uh. Nuh uh. Not in my back yard.

How is what you are complaining about different or worse than what parties and PACS already do?

JakeStarkey if you are going to say no to parties collaborating together,
How is that different than parties lobbying officials now?

Are you saying NO to political parties?

You don't get "just one more time."

 

[emilynghiem]

My dear Emily: no. End of story: no. Uh uh. Nuh uh. Not in my back yard.

How is what you are complaining about different or worse than what parties and PACS already do?

JakeStarkey if you are going to say no to parties collaborating together,
How is that different than parties lobbying officials now?

Are you saying NO to political parties?

You don't get "just one more time."

I don't understand your reply either.

I'm not asking you to approve something you say is problematic and asking that over and over.

I'm specifically asking you
What is different or more dangerous
If you will please explain in comparison with partisan lobbying already going on.

I get that you don't agree and why.
I don't get how it's different from parties activity now.

I'm not asking rhetorically JakeStarkey I'm asking
Literally
Can you explain the difference so I
Understand the limits on political
Parties that prevent them from the
Abuses you are saying are wrong
That I agree are wrong.

Can you explain why parties are different so I understand your objection I agree with and not trying to argue against.

I'm asking you to clarify it literally
Because I agree with you, not disagree,
and want to know how parties are
Limited or different where they don't do those abuses

 

[JakeStarkey]

What I am saying is that I won't discuss the matter with you.

No, you don't get "just one more time."

 

[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!

ShootSpeeders I think this was answered before. No, courts do NOT have the right to act as legislation and "rewrite or reinterpret laws" from the bench, including NOT having the right to establish rights such as right to marriage or right to health care by rulings.

But YES the courts can rule that laws passed are flawed, unconstitutional, and need to be struck down. Then this KICK BACK to either Congress or State legislatures to REVISE or AMEND or reform the policies so they are Constitutional by repairing the flaws.

For example:
With ACA, the Justices SHOULD have kicked this back to Congress and/or States to separate what is federal jurisdiction from what is reserved to people and states.

However, if the LAWYERS did not represent those arguments, then the judges may or may not have had the ability to do this with the arguments they were given.

Instead, the lawyers in defense argued that ACA "was a tax bill" but that's not how it was voted on by Congress. The fairest most accurate procedure would have been to strike it down based on the commerce clause, and if it was specified that it would be constitutional as a tax, then it should still be kicked back to Congress to write and pass as a tax bill and vote on that. Or in order to pass under "promoting general welfare" or "compelling interest", the states should have been recognized as needing to pass an Amendment to add and expand the duties of federal govt, in order to pass ACA under that jurisdiction.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Who acts as a check on our unelected Supreme Court?

The people. First with the power of nullification and if that doesn't work, the last check is the 2nd amendment. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

HAHAHA. That's it.?? We have the power to shoot them??? Be nice if we could vote judges out like we do congressmen.

There is in fact no oversight of the Supreme Court. Those 9 UNELECTED judges have given themselves final say on every issue.!!!

Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns

If judicial review were in the Constitution, SCROTUS would have been overruling Congress and the President since 1789 instead of all of a sudden discovering its own supremacy during the Administration of Thomas Jefferson (who had been purposely excluded from the Constitutional Convention).

Second, Marbury v Madison commits the logical fallacy of interpreting the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution. Third, the digression about it had nothing to do with Marbury's case against the Jefferson Administration, so it was "obiter dictum" and therefore a non-binding opinion.

 

[Skylar]

Who acts as a check on our unelected Supreme Court?

The people. First with the power of nullification and if that doesn't work, the last check is the 2nd amendment. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

HAHAHA. That's it.?? We have the power to shoot them??? Be nice if we could vote judges out like we do congressmen.

There is in fact no oversight of the Supreme Court. Those 9 UNELECTED judges have given themselves final say on every issue.!!!

Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns

If judicial review were in the Constitution, SCROTUS would have been overruling Congress and the President since 1789 instead of all of a sudden discovering its own supremacy during the Administration of Thomas Jefferson (who had been purposely excluded from the Constitutional Convention).

Second, Marbury v Madison commits the logical fallacy of interpreting the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution. Third, the digression about it had nothing to do with Marbury's case against the Jefferson Administration, so it was "obiter dictum" and therefore a non-binding opinion.

Its not a logical fallacy. Its the express intent for the judiciary as articulated in the Federalist Papers:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper #78

The courts interpret the laws. The Constitution is the supreme law. Thus, the courts interpret the constitution.

That's some pretty clear, sound logic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Article III of the Constitution, flea bags.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The courts interpret the laws. The Constitution is the supreme law. Thus, the courts interpret the constitution.

That's some pretty clear, sound logic.

not clear at all since it does not limit the courts from interpreting the Constitution in a communist way.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

About 15 million times.

He's been told he's stupid and unoriginal about 100 million times.