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

[JakeStarkey]

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.

That is a term you don't understand, Edward.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Given that communism didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written, its highly unlikely that the Founders put much thought into it.

The authority of the courts to interpret the law and constitution? Oh, that they did think about. And made it clear, though the federalist papers, that that was what the courts were to do.

 

[abrere]

the courts cannot repeal laws. All that they can do is say that the law has no legal effect, and thus, most of the time, the executive branch wont try to enforce such laws, and Congress wont provide the funding needed to do so. This renders the law moot, so it's normally just forgotten about, or repealed by congress.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Given that communism didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written, its highly unlikely that the Founders put much thought into it.
.

100% wrong of course. the entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit govt so that big liberal govt whether communist Nazi and monarchist could not take over. Do you understand now?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The authority of the courts to interpret the law and constitution? Oh, that they did think about. And made it clear, though the federalist papers, that that was what the courts were to do.

any evidence or just liberal goofing?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the courts cannot repeal laws. All that they can do is say that the law has no legal effect, and thus, most of the time, the executive branch wont try to enforce such laws, and Congress wont provide the funding needed to do so. This renders the law moot, so it's normally just forgotten about, or repealed by congress.

so that gives 9 unelected men with lifetime tenure, the court, absolute control of govt, something not intended. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Thomas Jefferson (who had been purposely excluded from the Constitutional Convention).

any evidence of this??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Second, Marbury v Madison commits the logical fallacy of interpreting the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution. .

no idea what that means. care to explain?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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).
.

well it is in the Constitution. All office holders take the oath of office pledging to preserve and protect the Constitution.

 

[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.

except it leaves 9 unelected clown costumes with life time tenure in control of our democracy

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

Well it opened the door certainly and thats all that was necessary. Probably the Constitution should have said, matters dealing directly with constitutionality require 90% in favor.

 

[Moonglow]

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

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

Congress.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

yes, it does through precedent.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

I wish you were right but sadly the court has the authority and has been exercising it for 120 years or so.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Congress.

In what way?

 

[Moonglow]

[
Congress.

In what way?

Impeachment proceedings are one way..

 

[joaquinmiller]

Given that communism didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written, its highly unlikely that the Founders put much thought into it.
.

100% wrong of course. the entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit govt so that big liberal govt whether communist Nazi and monarchist could not take over. Do you understand now?

The Constitution strengthened the Federal government, because the FF learned the Articles of Confederation did not make it strong enough.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Constitution strengthened the Federal government, because the FF learned the Articles of Confederation did not make it strong enough.

yes it strengthened it from a very very very weak central govt to a very very weak central govt, the opposite of what liberals want ie an very powerful and always growing central govt.

 

[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.

yes, it does through precedent.

No. The Court cannot give itself the power to nullify Law. In our Republic only We the People have the power to create, amend, or nullify Law as expressed by our duly elected Legislators.

Did the Court attempt to give itself this power through precedent. Yes. But that decision has never been challenged constitutionally. It should.

 

[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.

I wish you were right but sadly the court has the authority and has been exercising it for 120 years or so.

The Court gave itself this Power. The Power does not derive from the Constitution or from We the People. Therefore it is Unconstitutional. It has never been legally challenged, It should.