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

[Faun]

Who's gonna force the Congress to change the law if they don't want to?

We the People can vote the bastards out. That is the Constitutional check and balance. Court Judges do not represent We the People. They are unaccountable to We the People and if anything represent the Federal Government's power directed against us. Witness The Supreme Court legalizing Jim Crow in Plessy v Ferguson, declaring Dred Scott property versus being a human being, and countless other decisions that denied basic rights to us as citizens.

I do not trust the Courts. They fuck us as much as they help. Worse still they are unaccountable.

Voting them out doesn't ensure they would change laws deemed unconstitutional.

And if it takes years for the Congress to finally acquiesce after being voted out, which in itself may take years, what happens to all the people affected by a law deemed unconstitutional? Are people still faced with legal consequences against unconstitutional laws with no remedy at their disposal other than voting out non-compliant Congress members? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Clearly, once the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional ... it is unconstitutional from that moment.

And it takes years to wend its way through the Courts. I am not sure the point you are making here. Either remedy takes a lot of time. What is the difference be it the Courts or Congress?

Also, what happens to people when a Federal Court issues an injunction stopping a Law dead in its tracks? It is Law passed by the People's Branch of Government. Should this ever happen?

As for State Courts, where there is overlapping jurisdiction Federal Law or Court decisions hold sway per the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. This is not an issue. If is purely a State Law (i.e Marriage License) the Federal Courts have no say. If the Federal Government has standing Federal Law prevails. Period.

Time matters because peoples' lives hang in the balance.

Let's say, for argument's sake, you get arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for a crime which you contest as unconstitutional all the way to the Supreme Court; where you prevail. The highest court in the law agrees with you that you were tried based on a law they deem is unconstitutional.

You think it makes any sense at all to you that you're now wrongly sitting in prison for a crime that the Supreme Court determined is not even a crime? And you have to sit in prison until the Congress finally decides to overturn that law? If ever? They may never nullify that law the Judicial branch deemed unconstitutional, all the while, you're rotting in prison.

That makes sense to you?

Even worse, let's say years go by... you're still in jail... now a family member of yours gets arrested for that same crime. You think it makes sense to you they have to defend themselves against an unconstitutional law??

If you are arrested and ultimately convicted by a jury of your peers based on an existing law I do not have much sympathy. You can certainly say you think the Law is unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment maybe) but both the Law, a Jury, and the Courts say you are guilty. You can certainly have your lawyer attempt to re-litigate the case on Constitutional grounds. That happens all the time. The Court can vacate the ruling if you prove your case. No need for Congress in this instance.

So a court vacates the guilty verdict because they rule the law was unconstitutional and you go free. Now your relative is arrested for breaking the same law. What happens with your relative when Congress didn't repeal that law deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial branch?

a) The DA drops the charges because courts ruled that law is unconstitutional?

b) The DA indicts them but the court throws the case out because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

c) The court tries the case but the jury decides you rdd relative is not guilty because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

d) Your relative is convicted and has to appeal to a higher court based on another court ruling that law is unconstitutional?

e) Something else (please explain)

 

[WelfareQueen]

We the People can vote the bastards out. That is the Constitutional check and balance. Court Judges do not represent We the People. They are unaccountable to We the People and if anything represent the Federal Government's power directed against us. Witness The Supreme Court legalizing Jim Crow in Plessy v Ferguson, declaring Dred Scott property versus being a human being, and countless other decisions that denied basic rights to us as citizens.

I do not trust the Courts. They fuck us as much as they help. Worse still they are unaccountable.

Voting them out doesn't ensure they would change laws deemed unconstitutional.

And if it takes years for the Congress to finally acquiesce after being voted out, which in itself may take years, what happens to all the people affected by a law deemed unconstitutional? Are people still faced with legal consequences against unconstitutional laws with no remedy at their disposal other than voting out non-compliant Congress members? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Clearly, once the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional ... it is unconstitutional from that moment.

And it takes years to wend its way through the Courts. I am not sure the point you are making here. Either remedy takes a lot of time. What is the difference be it the Courts or Congress?

Also, what happens to people when a Federal Court issues an injunction stopping a Law dead in its tracks? It is Law passed by the People's Branch of Government. Should this ever happen?

As for State Courts, where there is overlapping jurisdiction Federal Law or Court decisions hold sway per the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. This is not an issue. If is purely a State Law (i.e Marriage License) the Federal Courts have no say. If the Federal Government has standing Federal Law prevails. Period.

Time matters because peoples' lives hang in the balance.

Let's say, for argument's sake, you get arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for a crime which you contest as unconstitutional all the way to the Supreme Court; where you prevail. The highest court in the law agrees with you that you were tried based on a law they deem is unconstitutional.

You think it makes any sense at all to you that you're now wrongly sitting in prison for a crime that the Supreme Court determined is not even a crime? And you have to sit in prison until the Congress finally decides to overturn that law? If ever? They may never nullify that law the Judicial branch deemed unconstitutional, all the while, you're rotting in prison.

That makes sense to you?

Even worse, let's say years go by... you're still in jail... now a family member of yours gets arrested for that same crime. You think it makes sense to you they have to defend themselves against an unconstitutional law??

If you are arrested and ultimately convicted by a jury of your peers based on an existing law I do not have much sympathy. You can certainly say you think the Law is unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment maybe) but both the Law, a Jury, and the Courts say you are guilty. You can certainly have your lawyer attempt to re-litigate the case on Constitutional grounds. That happens all the time. The Court can vacate the ruling if you prove your case. No need for Congress in this instance.

So a court vacates the guilty verdict because they rule the law was unconstitutional and you go free. Now your relative is arrested for breaking the same law. What happens with your relative when Congress didn't repeal that law deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial branch?

a) The DA drops the charges because courts ruled that law is unconstitutional?

b) The DA indicts them but the court throws the case out because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

c) The court tries the case but the jury decides you rdd relative is not guilty because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

d) Your relative is convicted and has to appeal to a higher court based on another court ruling that law is unconstitutional?

e) Something else (please explain)

No legal system is perfect. However, imho the Constitution must be obeyed. The power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law only exists in one Branch of Government.....The People's Branch....the Congress.

If folks want the Judicial Branch to have the power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law by all means.....fix the Constitution. Personally, I think that is a very bad idea. The Founders have most everything correct. If they felt it was a good idea to give the Courts the same powers as Congress they would have said so explicitly. They did not.

 

[Picaro]

that horse escaped the barn during Lincoln's dictatorship, and the 'Gilded Age' was one long party of judicial activism for right wingers, the modern 'Libertarian's' wet dream, 'corporate personhood' came into existence then, and has been a plague ever since,, with no brakes on banks, corporate abuses of labor, legalized trusts, etc., and railroads practically owning most Statehouses and therefore the Senate and via the Senate the Federal Courts. It's about 150 years too late to be sniveling about it now, unless you've got a few billion bucks laying around to run several nationwide Amendment campaigns.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Voting them out doesn't ensure they would change laws deemed unconstitutional.

And if it takes years for the Congress to finally acquiesce after being voted out, which in itself may take years, what happens to all the people affected by a law deemed unconstitutional? Are people still faced with legal consequences against unconstitutional laws with no remedy at their disposal other than voting out non-compliant Congress members? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Clearly, once the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional ... it is unconstitutional from that moment.

And it takes years to wend its way through the Courts. I am not sure the point you are making here. Either remedy takes a lot of time. What is the difference be it the Courts or Congress?

Also, what happens to people when a Federal Court issues an injunction stopping a Law dead in its tracks? It is Law passed by the People's Branch of Government. Should this ever happen?

As for State Courts, where there is overlapping jurisdiction Federal Law or Court decisions hold sway per the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. This is not an issue. If is purely a State Law (i.e Marriage License) the Federal Courts have no say. If the Federal Government has standing Federal Law prevails. Period.

Time matters because peoples' lives hang in the balance.

Let's say, for argument's sake, you get arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for a crime which you contest as unconstitutional all the way to the Supreme Court; where you prevail. The highest court in the law agrees with you that you were tried based on a law they deem is unconstitutional.

You think it makes any sense at all to you that you're now wrongly sitting in prison for a crime that the Supreme Court determined is not even a crime? And you have to sit in prison until the Congress finally decides to overturn that law? If ever? They may never nullify that law the Judicial branch deemed unconstitutional, all the while, you're rotting in prison.

That makes sense to you?

Even worse, let's say years go by... you're still in jail... now a family member of yours gets arrested for that same crime. You think it makes sense to you they have to defend themselves against an unconstitutional law??

If you are arrested and ultimately convicted by a jury of your peers based on an existing law I do not have much sympathy. You can certainly say you think the Law is unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment maybe) but both the Law, a Jury, and the Courts say you are guilty. You can certainly have your lawyer attempt to re-litigate the case on Constitutional grounds. That happens all the time. The Court can vacate the ruling if you prove your case. No need for Congress in this instance.

So a court vacates the guilty verdict because they rule the law was unconstitutional and you go free. Now your relative is arrested for breaking the same law. What happens with your relative when Congress didn't repeal that law deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial branch?

a) The DA drops the charges because courts ruled that law is unconstitutional?

b) The DA indicts them but the court throws the case out because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

c) The court tries the case but the jury decides you rdd relative is not guilty because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

d) Your relative is convicted and has to appeal to a higher court based on another court ruling that law is unconstitutional?

e) Something else (please explain)

No legal system is perfect. However, imho the Constitution must be obeyed. The power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law only exists in one Branch of Government.....The People's Branch....the Congress.

If folks want the Judicial Branch to have the power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law by all means.....fix the Constitution. Personally, I think that is a very bad idea. The Founders have most everything correct. If they felt it was a good idea to give the Courts the same powers as Congress they would have said so explicitly. They did not.

I guess you A) did not read the Power granted the Court by the Constitution and B) don't understand how Courts work. The Constitution invests in the Supreme Court and all federal Courts the power to try cases against for or involving the US Government. That means by that power the Court can and does decide what is and is NOT legal in regards the Constitution when a case is brought.

The Supreme Court IS granted the authority and POWER to declare acts by the US Government Illegal, Unconstitutional and void. If those acts are brought before the Court then YES the Court can rule they are null and void. The power Congress has is to review the Court case and change the law in question to not violate the Constitution or law.

 

[Faun]

Voting them out doesn't ensure they would change laws deemed unconstitutional.

And if it takes years for the Congress to finally acquiesce after being voted out, which in itself may take years, what happens to all the people affected by a law deemed unconstitutional? Are people still faced with legal consequences against unconstitutional laws with no remedy at their disposal other than voting out non-compliant Congress members? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Clearly, once the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional ... it is unconstitutional from that moment.

And it takes years to wend its way through the Courts. I am not sure the point you are making here. Either remedy takes a lot of time. What is the difference be it the Courts or Congress?

Also, what happens to people when a Federal Court issues an injunction stopping a Law dead in its tracks? It is Law passed by the People's Branch of Government. Should this ever happen?

As for State Courts, where there is overlapping jurisdiction Federal Law or Court decisions hold sway per the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. This is not an issue. If is purely a State Law (i.e Marriage License) the Federal Courts have no say. If the Federal Government has standing Federal Law prevails. Period.

Time matters because peoples' lives hang in the balance.

Let's say, for argument's sake, you get arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for a crime which you contest as unconstitutional all the way to the Supreme Court; where you prevail. The highest court in the law agrees with you that you were tried based on a law they deem is unconstitutional.

You think it makes any sense at all to you that you're now wrongly sitting in prison for a crime that the Supreme Court determined is not even a crime? And you have to sit in prison until the Congress finally decides to overturn that law? If ever? They may never nullify that law the Judicial branch deemed unconstitutional, all the while, you're rotting in prison.

That makes sense to you?

Even worse, let's say years go by... you're still in jail... now a family member of yours gets arrested for that same crime. You think it makes sense to you they have to defend themselves against an unconstitutional law??

If you are arrested and ultimately convicted by a jury of your peers based on an existing law I do not have much sympathy. You can certainly say you think the Law is unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment maybe) but both the Law, a Jury, and the Courts say you are guilty. You can certainly have your lawyer attempt to re-litigate the case on Constitutional grounds. That happens all the time. The Court can vacate the ruling if you prove your case. No need for Congress in this instance.

So a court vacates the guilty verdict because they rule the law was unconstitutional and you go free. Now your relative is arrested for breaking the same law. What happens with your relative when Congress didn't repeal that law deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial branch?

a) The DA drops the charges because courts ruled that law is unconstitutional?

b) The DA indicts them but the court throws the case out because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

c) The court tries the case but the jury decides you rdd relative is not guilty because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

d) Your relative is convicted and has to appeal to a higher court based on another court ruling that law is unconstitutional?

e) Something else (please explain)

No legal system is perfect. However, imho the Constitution must be obeyed. The power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law only exists in one Branch of Government.....The People's Branch....the Congress.

If folks want the Judicial Branch to have the power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law by all means.....fix the Constitution. Personally, I think that is a very bad idea. The Founders have most everything correct. If they felt it was a good idea to give the Courts the same powers as Congress they would have said so explicitly. They did not.

Why not answer my question? Which of those do you think applies?

And no, the Judicial branch has no power to create or amend laws. They can only affirm or nullify laws or parts of laws.

 

[Picaro]

Congress has ceded a lot of its power to the Courts; that's so they can spend more time soliciting bribes and money for their next re-election campaign. there is also the problem of people expecting them to do such stuff as actually reading bills they vote on .... I mean, the obscene gall of you peasants is almost too much to bear at times.

Not that the majority of the voters could pass a civics test anyway, especially a written one in English, so no reason to expect and demand 'good govt.' when one has no idea what it is.

 

[WelfareQueen]

And it takes years to wend its way through the Courts. I am not sure the point you are making here. Either remedy takes a lot of time. What is the difference be it the Courts or Congress?

Also, what happens to people when a Federal Court issues an injunction stopping a Law dead in its tracks? It is Law passed by the People's Branch of Government. Should this ever happen?

As for State Courts, where there is overlapping jurisdiction Federal Law or Court decisions hold sway per the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. This is not an issue. If is purely a State Law (i.e Marriage License) the Federal Courts have no say. If the Federal Government has standing Federal Law prevails. Period.

Time matters because peoples' lives hang in the balance.

Let's say, for argument's sake, you get arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for a crime which you contest as unconstitutional all the way to the Supreme Court; where you prevail. The highest court in the law agrees with you that you were tried based on a law they deem is unconstitutional.

You think it makes any sense at all to you that you're now wrongly sitting in prison for a crime that the Supreme Court determined is not even a crime? And you have to sit in prison until the Congress finally decides to overturn that law? If ever? They may never nullify that law the Judicial branch deemed unconstitutional, all the while, you're rotting in prison.

That makes sense to you?

Even worse, let's say years go by... you're still in jail... now a family member of yours gets arrested for that same crime. You think it makes sense to you they have to defend themselves against an unconstitutional law??

If you are arrested and ultimately convicted by a jury of your peers based on an existing law I do not have much sympathy. You can certainly say you think the Law is unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment maybe) but both the Law, a Jury, and the Courts say you are guilty. You can certainly have your lawyer attempt to re-litigate the case on Constitutional grounds. That happens all the time. The Court can vacate the ruling if you prove your case. No need for Congress in this instance.

So a court vacates the guilty verdict because they rule the law was unconstitutional and you go free. Now your relative is arrested for breaking the same law. What happens with your relative when Congress didn't repeal that law deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial branch?

a) The DA drops the charges because courts ruled that law is unconstitutional?

b) The DA indicts them but the court throws the case out because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

c) The court tries the case but the jury decides you rdd relative is not guilty because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

d) Your relative is convicted and has to appeal to a higher court based on another court ruling that law is unconstitutional?

e) Something else (please explain)

No legal system is perfect. However, imho the Constitution must be obeyed. The power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law only exists in one Branch of Government.....The People's Branch....the Congress.

If folks want the Judicial Branch to have the power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law by all means.....fix the Constitution. Personally, I think that is a very bad idea. The Founders have most everything correct. If they felt it was a good idea to give the Courts the same powers as Congress they would have said so explicitly. They did not.

I guess you A) did not read the Power granted the Court by the Constitution and B) don't understand how Courts work. The Constitution invests in the Supreme Court and all federal Courts the power to try cases against for or involving the US Government. That means by that power the Court can and does decide what is and is NOT legal in regards the Constitution when a case is brought.

The Supreme Court IS granted the authority and POWER to declare acts by the US Government Illegal, Unconstitutional and void. If those acts are brought before the Court then YES the Court can rule they are null and void. The power Congress has is to review the Court case and change the law in question to not violate the Constitution or law.

Nope. Read the actual Constitution. This is Article III which covers all Judicial Powers. Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law and I will happily concede the point. I have a close friend who is a lawyer with the Justice Dept and taught Constitutional Law at the Univ of Florida. Even he concedes the explicit power does not exist under the Constitution. But hey...maybe you know more?


Here is Article III


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;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;— to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[Dick Foster]

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!

It doesnt, it's simply judicial overreach. Hang em high!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Section 2 covers it by granting to the Court the Power to try all cases involving the Government.

 

[Faun]

Time matters because peoples' lives hang in the balance.

Let's say, for argument's sake, you get arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for a crime which you contest as unconstitutional all the way to the Supreme Court; where you prevail. The highest court in the law agrees with you that you were tried based on a law they deem is unconstitutional.

You think it makes any sense at all to you that you're now wrongly sitting in prison for a crime that the Supreme Court determined is not even a crime? And you have to sit in prison until the Congress finally decides to overturn that law? If ever? They may never nullify that law the Judicial branch deemed unconstitutional, all the while, you're rotting in prison.

That makes sense to you?

Even worse, let's say years go by... you're still in jail... now a family member of yours gets arrested for that same crime. You think it makes sense to you they have to defend themselves against an unconstitutional law??

If you are arrested and ultimately convicted by a jury of your peers based on an existing law I do not have much sympathy. You can certainly say you think the Law is unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment maybe) but both the Law, a Jury, and the Courts say you are guilty. You can certainly have your lawyer attempt to re-litigate the case on Constitutional grounds. That happens all the time. The Court can vacate the ruling if you prove your case. No need for Congress in this instance.

So a court vacates the guilty verdict because they rule the law was unconstitutional and you go free. Now your relative is arrested for breaking the same law. What happens with your relative when Congress didn't repeal that law deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial branch?

a) The DA drops the charges because courts ruled that law is unconstitutional?

b) The DA indicts them but the court throws the case out because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

c) The court tries the case but the jury decides you rdd relative is not guilty because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

d) Your relative is convicted and has to appeal to a higher court based on another court ruling that law is unconstitutional?

e) Something else (please explain)

No legal system is perfect. However, imho the Constitution must be obeyed. The power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law only exists in one Branch of Government.....The People's Branch....the Congress.

If folks want the Judicial Branch to have the power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law by all means.....fix the Constitution. Personally, I think that is a very bad idea. The Founders have most everything correct. If they felt it was a good idea to give the Courts the same powers as Congress they would have said so explicitly. They did not.

I guess you A) did not read the Power granted the Court by the Constitution and B) don't understand how Courts work. The Constitution invests in the Supreme Court and all federal Courts the power to try cases against for or involving the US Government. That means by that power the Court can and does decide what is and is NOT legal in regards the Constitution when a case is brought.

The Supreme Court IS granted the authority and POWER to declare acts by the US Government Illegal, Unconstitutional and void. If those acts are brought before the Court then YES the Court can rule they are null and void. The power Congress has is to review the Court case and change the law in question to not violate the Constitution or law.

Nope. Read the actual Constitution. This is Article III which covers all Judicial Powers. Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law and I will happily concede the point. I have a close friend who is a lawyer with the Justice Dept and taught Constitutional Law at the Univ of Florida. Even he concedes the explicit power does not exist under the Constitution. But hey...maybe you know more?


Here is Article III


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;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;— to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

"Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law"

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The Judicial branch decides on the constitutionality on cases and can rule that aspects of a law are unconstitutional. Certainly, you can agree to that?

In such cases, it's not that they rewrite or amend the law, they don't; they render it unconstitutional, which leaves no room for additional cases based on such a ruling, to be heard in a court of law. Had you answered my question, the accurate answer is A and B. A, in that a D.A. will likely not charge someone who's violated a law that was deemed unconstitutional; and B, in the event a D.A. presses charges anyway, the court will throw the case out because the law was already deemed untriable.

 

[WelfareQueen]

If you are arrested and ultimately convicted by a jury of your peers based on an existing law I do not have much sympathy. You can certainly say you think the Law is unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment maybe) but both the Law, a Jury, and the Courts say you are guilty. You can certainly have your lawyer attempt to re-litigate the case on Constitutional grounds. That happens all the time. The Court can vacate the ruling if you prove your case. No need for Congress in this instance.

So a court vacates the guilty verdict because they rule the law was unconstitutional and you go free. Now your relative is arrested for breaking the same law. What happens with your relative when Congress didn't repeal that law deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial branch?

a) The DA drops the charges because courts ruled that law is unconstitutional?

b) The DA indicts them but the court throws the case out because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

c) The court tries the case but the jury decides you rdd relative is not guilty because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

d) Your relative is convicted and has to appeal to a higher court based on another court ruling that law is unconstitutional?

e) Something else (please explain)

No legal system is perfect. However, imho the Constitution must be obeyed. The power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law only exists in one Branch of Government.....The People's Branch....the Congress.

If folks want the Judicial Branch to have the power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law by all means.....fix the Constitution. Personally, I think that is a very bad idea. The Founders have most everything correct. If they felt it was a good idea to give the Courts the same powers as Congress they would have said so explicitly. They did not.

I guess you A) did not read the Power granted the Court by the Constitution and B) don't understand how Courts work. The Constitution invests in the Supreme Court and all federal Courts the power to try cases against for or involving the US Government. That means by that power the Court can and does decide what is and is NOT legal in regards the Constitution when a case is brought.

The Supreme Court IS granted the authority and POWER to declare acts by the US Government Illegal, Unconstitutional and void. If those acts are brought before the Court then YES the Court can rule they are null and void. The power Congress has is to review the Court case and change the law in question to not violate the Constitution or law.

Nope. Read the actual Constitution. This is Article III which covers all Judicial Powers. Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law and I will happily concede the point. I have a close friend who is a lawyer with the Justice Dept and taught Constitutional Law at the Univ of Florida. Even he concedes the explicit power does not exist under the Constitution. But hey...maybe you know more?


Here is Article III


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;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;— to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

"Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law"

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The Judicial branch decides on the constitutionality on cases and can rule that aspects of a law are unconstitutional. Certainly, you can agree to that?

In such cases, it's not that they rewrite or amend the law, they don't; they render it unconstitutional, which leaves no room for additional cases based on such a ruling, to be heard in a court of law. Had you answered my question, the accurate answer is A and B. A, in that a D.A. will likely not charge someone who's violated a law that was deemed unconstitutional; and B, in the event a D.A. presses charges anyway, the court will throw the case out because the law was already deemed untriable.

I absolutely agree with you that the Courts have every right, and in fact a duty, to point cases brought before them that may have Constitutional conflicts.

My problem is solely with that ruling in effect nullifying Law. That power does not exist under the Constitution.

Again only the Congress can create, amend, or nullify Law. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The section of the Constitution you highlighted (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution) is not in question. The question is simply nullification of Law. The Court gave itself this power under Marbury v Madison. The Court cannot grant itself this power without the consent of the Governed. That is how our system of Government works.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Section 2 covers it by granting to the Court the Power to try all cases involving the Government.

Try cases...yes. Nullifying Law...no. Huge difference.

 

[Flopper]

If you are arrested and ultimately convicted by a jury of your peers based on an existing law I do not have much sympathy. You can certainly say you think the Law is unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment maybe) but both the Law, a Jury, and the Courts say you are guilty. You can certainly have your lawyer attempt to re-litigate the case on Constitutional grounds. That happens all the time. The Court can vacate the ruling if you prove your case. No need for Congress in this instance.

So a court vacates the guilty verdict because they rule the law was unconstitutional and you go free. Now your relative is arrested for breaking the same law. What happens with your relative when Congress didn't repeal that law deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial branch?

a) The DA drops the charges because courts ruled that law is unconstitutional?

b) The DA indicts them but the court throws the case out because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

c) The court tries the case but the jury decides you rdd relative is not guilty because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

d) Your relative is convicted and has to appeal to a higher court based on another court ruling that law is unconstitutional?

e) Something else (please explain)

No legal system is perfect. However, imho the Constitution must be obeyed. The power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law only exists in one Branch of Government.....The People's Branch....the Congress.

If folks want the Judicial Branch to have the power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law by all means.....fix the Constitution. Personally, I think that is a very bad idea. The Founders have most everything correct. If they felt it was a good idea to give the Courts the same powers as Congress they would have said so explicitly. They did not.

I guess you A) did not read the Power granted the Court by the Constitution and B) don't understand how Courts work. The Constitution invests in the Supreme Court and all federal Courts the power to try cases against for or involving the US Government. That means by that power the Court can and does decide what is and is NOT legal in regards the Constitution when a case is brought.

The Supreme Court IS granted the authority and POWER to declare acts by the US Government Illegal, Unconstitutional and void. If those acts are brought before the Court then YES the Court can rule they are null and void. The power Congress has is to review the Court case and change the law in question to not violate the Constitution or law.

Nope. Read the actual Constitution. This is Article III which covers all Judicial Powers. Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law and I will happily concede the point. I have a close friend who is a lawyer with the Justice Dept and taught Constitutional Law at the Univ of Florida. Even he concedes the explicit power does not exist under the Constitution. But hey...maybe you know more?


Here is Article III


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;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;— to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

"Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law"

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The Judicial branch decides on the constitutionality on cases and can rule that aspects of a law are unconstitutional. Certainly, you can agree to that?

In such cases, it's not that they rewrite or amend the law, they don't; they render it unconstitutional, which leaves no room for additional cases based on such a ruling, to be heard in a court of law. Had you answered my question, the accurate answer is A and B. A, in that a D.A. will likely not charge someone who's violated a law that was deemed unconstitutional; and B, in the event a D.A. presses charges anyway, the court will throw the case out because the law was already deemed untriable.

Congress is driven by politics which means doing what their supporters want regardless of the constitution. We simply have to rely on the courts to keep us legal, within the constitution, and to protect individual rights because there is no one else.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So a court vacates the guilty verdict because they rule the law was unconstitutional and you go free. Now your relative is arrested for breaking the same law. What happens with your relative when Congress didn't repeal that law deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial branch?

a) The DA drops the charges because courts ruled that law is unconstitutional?

b) The DA indicts them but the court throws the case out because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

c) The court tries the case but the jury decides you rdd relative is not guilty because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

d) Your relative is convicted and has to appeal to a higher court based on another court ruling that law is unconstitutional?

e) Something else (please explain)

No legal system is perfect. However, imho the Constitution must be obeyed. The power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law only exists in one Branch of Government.....The People's Branch....the Congress.

If folks want the Judicial Branch to have the power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law by all means.....fix the Constitution. Personally, I think that is a very bad idea. The Founders have most everything correct. If they felt it was a good idea to give the Courts the same powers as Congress they would have said so explicitly. They did not.

I guess you A) did not read the Power granted the Court by the Constitution and B) don't understand how Courts work. The Constitution invests in the Supreme Court and all federal Courts the power to try cases against for or involving the US Government. That means by that power the Court can and does decide what is and is NOT legal in regards the Constitution when a case is brought.

The Supreme Court IS granted the authority and POWER to declare acts by the US Government Illegal, Unconstitutional and void. If those acts are brought before the Court then YES the Court can rule they are null and void. The power Congress has is to review the Court case and change the law in question to not violate the Constitution or law.

Nope. Read the actual Constitution. This is Article III which covers all Judicial Powers. Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law and I will happily concede the point. I have a close friend who is a lawyer with the Justice Dept and taught Constitutional Law at the Univ of Florida. Even he concedes the explicit power does not exist under the Constitution. But hey...maybe you know more?


Here is Article III


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;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;— to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

"Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law"

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The Judicial branch decides on the constitutionality on cases and can rule that aspects of a law are unconstitutional. Certainly, you can agree to that?

In such cases, it's not that they rewrite or amend the law, they don't; they render it unconstitutional, which leaves no room for additional cases based on such a ruling, to be heard in a court of law. Had you answered my question, the accurate answer is A and B. A, in that a D.A. will likely not charge someone who's violated a law that was deemed unconstitutional; and B, in the event a D.A. presses charges anyway, the court will throw the case out because the law was already deemed untriable.

I absolutely agree with you that the Courts have every right, and in fact a duty, to point cases brought before them that may have Constitutional conflicts.

My problem is solely with that ruling in effect nullifying Law. That power does not exist under the Constitution.

Again only the Congress can create, amend, or nullify Law. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The section of the Constitution you highlighted (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution) is not in question. The question is simply nullification of Law. The Court gave itself this power under Marbury v Madison. The Court cannot grant itself this power without the consent of the Governed. That is how our system of Government works.

NO the function of a Court gives them that power. They are granted full power and authority in cases against or for the Government. That means LEGALLY any ruling they make has the force of law via the Constitution.

 

[WelfareQueen]

No legal system is perfect. However, imho the Constitution must be obeyed. The power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law only exists in one Branch of Government.....The People's Branch....the Congress.

If folks want the Judicial Branch to have the power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law by all means.....fix the Constitution. Personally, I think that is a very bad idea. The Founders have most everything correct. If they felt it was a good idea to give the Courts the same powers as Congress they would have said so explicitly. They did not.

I guess you A) did not read the Power granted the Court by the Constitution and B) don't understand how Courts work. The Constitution invests in the Supreme Court and all federal Courts the power to try cases against for or involving the US Government. That means by that power the Court can and does decide what is and is NOT legal in regards the Constitution when a case is brought.

The Supreme Court IS granted the authority and POWER to declare acts by the US Government Illegal, Unconstitutional and void. If those acts are brought before the Court then YES the Court can rule they are null and void. The power Congress has is to review the Court case and change the law in question to not violate the Constitution or law.

Nope. Read the actual Constitution. This is Article III which covers all Judicial Powers. Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law and I will happily concede the point. I have a close friend who is a lawyer with the Justice Dept and taught Constitutional Law at the Univ of Florida. Even he concedes the explicit power does not exist under the Constitution. But hey...maybe you know more?


Here is Article III


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;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;— to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

"Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law"

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The Judicial branch decides on the constitutionality on cases and can rule that aspects of a law are unconstitutional. Certainly, you can agree to that?

In such cases, it's not that they rewrite or amend the law, they don't; they render it unconstitutional, which leaves no room for additional cases based on such a ruling, to be heard in a court of law. Had you answered my question, the accurate answer is A and B. A, in that a D.A. will likely not charge someone who's violated a law that was deemed unconstitutional; and B, in the event a D.A. presses charges anyway, the court will throw the case out because the law was already deemed untriable.

I absolutely agree with you that the Courts have every right, and in fact a duty, to point cases brought before them that may have Constitutional conflicts.

My problem is solely with that ruling in effect nullifying Law. That power does not exist under the Constitution.

Again only the Congress can create, amend, or nullify Law. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The section of the Constitution you highlighted (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution) is not in question. The question is simply nullification of Law. The Court gave itself this power under Marbury v Madison. The Court cannot grant itself this power without the consent of the Governed. That is how our system of Government works.

NO the function of a Court gives them that power. They are granted full power and authority in cases against or for the Government. That means LEGALLY any ruling they make has the force of law via the Constitution.

Judicial power is not defined as creating, amending, or nullifying Law. Presidents have defied the Courts without impunity and zero legal consequence. (see Andrew Jackson). Their rulings on Constitutional matters most definitely do not carry the weight of Law. Courts interpret Law. They do do not make Law.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong the Constitution SPECIFICALLY gives the Court the POWER and authority. Courts rule on the legality of matters before them and pass judgement on those cases. This was true even in the 1700's when the Constitution was written

 

[Faun]

So a court vacates the guilty verdict because they rule the law was unconstitutional and you go free. Now your relative is arrested for breaking the same law. What happens with your relative when Congress didn't repeal that law deemed unconstitutional by the Judicial branch?

a) The DA drops the charges because courts ruled that law is unconstitutional?

b) The DA indicts them but the court throws the case out because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

c) The court tries the case but the jury decides you rdd relative is not guilty because another court ruled that law is unconstitutional?

d) Your relative is convicted and has to appeal to a higher court based on another court ruling that law is unconstitutional?

e) Something else (please explain)

No legal system is perfect. However, imho the Constitution must be obeyed. The power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law only exists in one Branch of Government.....The People's Branch....the Congress.

If folks want the Judicial Branch to have the power to Create, Amend, or Nullify Law by all means.....fix the Constitution. Personally, I think that is a very bad idea. The Founders have most everything correct. If they felt it was a good idea to give the Courts the same powers as Congress they would have said so explicitly. They did not.

I guess you A) did not read the Power granted the Court by the Constitution and B) don't understand how Courts work. The Constitution invests in the Supreme Court and all federal Courts the power to try cases against for or involving the US Government. That means by that power the Court can and does decide what is and is NOT legal in regards the Constitution when a case is brought.

The Supreme Court IS granted the authority and POWER to declare acts by the US Government Illegal, Unconstitutional and void. If those acts are brought before the Court then YES the Court can rule they are null and void. The power Congress has is to review the Court case and change the law in question to not violate the Constitution or law.

Nope. Read the actual Constitution. This is Article III which covers all Judicial Powers. Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law and I will happily concede the point. I have a close friend who is a lawyer with the Justice Dept and taught Constitutional Law at the Univ of Florida. Even he concedes the explicit power does not exist under the Constitution. But hey...maybe you know more?


Here is Article III


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;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;— to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

"Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law"

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The Judicial branch decides on the constitutionality on cases and can rule that aspects of a law are unconstitutional. Certainly, you can agree to that?

In such cases, it's not that they rewrite or amend the law, they don't; they render it unconstitutional, which leaves no room for additional cases based on such a ruling, to be heard in a court of law. Had you answered my question, the accurate answer is A and B. A, in that a D.A. will likely not charge someone who's violated a law that was deemed unconstitutional; and B, in the event a D.A. presses charges anyway, the court will throw the case out because the law was already deemed untriable.

I absolutely agree with you that the Courts have every right, and in fact a duty, to point cases brought before them that may have Constitutional conflicts.

My problem is solely with that ruling in effect nullifying Law. That power does not exist under the Constitution.

Again only the Congress can create, amend, or nullify Law. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The section of the Constitution you highlighted (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution) is not in question. The question is simply nullification of Law. The Court gave itself this power under Marbury v Madison. The Court cannot grant itself this power without the consent of the Governed. That is how our system of Government works.

If only I could get an answer from you -- how can a law hold up in court once the Supreme Court rules it's unconstitutional?

 

[Flopper]

I guess you A) did not read the Power granted the Court by the Constitution and B) don't understand how Courts work. The Constitution invests in the Supreme Court and all federal Courts the power to try cases against for or involving the US Government. That means by that power the Court can and does decide what is and is NOT legal in regards the Constitution when a case is brought.

The Supreme Court IS granted the authority and POWER to declare acts by the US Government Illegal, Unconstitutional and void. If those acts are brought before the Court then YES the Court can rule they are null and void. The power Congress has is to review the Court case and change the law in question to not violate the Constitution or law.

Nope. Read the actual Constitution. This is Article III which covers all Judicial Powers. Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law and I will happily concede the point. I have a close friend who is a lawyer with the Justice Dept and taught Constitutional Law at the Univ of Florida. Even he concedes the explicit power does not exist under the Constitution. But hey...maybe you know more?


Here is Article III


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;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;— to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

"Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law"

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The Judicial branch decides on the constitutionality on cases and can rule that aspects of a law are unconstitutional. Certainly, you can agree to that?

In such cases, it's not that they rewrite or amend the law, they don't; they render it unconstitutional, which leaves no room for additional cases based on such a ruling, to be heard in a court of law. Had you answered my question, the accurate answer is A and B. A, in that a D.A. will likely not charge someone who's violated a law that was deemed unconstitutional; and B, in the event a D.A. presses charges anyway, the court will throw the case out because the law was already deemed untriable.

I absolutely agree with you that the Courts have every right, and in fact a duty, to point cases brought before them that may have Constitutional conflicts.

My problem is solely with that ruling in effect nullifying Law. That power does not exist under the Constitution.

Again only the Congress can create, amend, or nullify Law. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The section of the Constitution you highlighted (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution) is not in question. The question is simply nullification of Law. The Court gave itself this power under Marbury v Madison. The Court cannot grant itself this power without the consent of the Governed. That is how our system of Government works.

NO the function of a Court gives them that power. They are granted full power and authority in cases against or for the Government. That means LEGALLY any ruling they make has the force of law via the Constitution.

Judicial power is not defined as creating, amending, or nullifying Law. Presidents have defied the Courts without impunity and zero legal consequence. (see Andrew Jackson). Their rulings on Constitutional matters most definitely do not carry the weight of Law. Courts interpret Law. They do do not make Law.

As the saying goes, it's a crappy job but someone has to do it. When a legislature passes a law that proves to be unconstitutional, someone has to make that decision and someone has to nullify that law.

In Brown vs Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools in the state was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment thus nullifying the state law.

To expect a legislature controlled by white segregationist to change the law would be about as likely as hell freezing over. If the court was to rely on the legislature to change the law, there would no justice for the plaintiff. The court has to nullify a law that is unconstitutional.

Judicial Review is an important function of the court because it is vital part of the checks and balances, a fundamental principle of American government, guaranteed by the Constitution. So yes, courts do and should have ability to nullify laws it they are found to be unconstitutional.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Nope. Read the actual Constitution. This is Article III which covers all Judicial Powers. Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law and I will happily concede the point. I have a close friend who is a lawyer with the Justice Dept and taught Constitutional Law at the Univ of Florida. Even he concedes the explicit power does not exist under the Constitution. But hey...maybe you know more?


Here is Article III


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;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;— to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

"Show me exactly where the Courts are granted the power to nullify law"

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution​

The Judicial branch decides on the constitutionality on cases and can rule that aspects of a law are unconstitutional. Certainly, you can agree to that?

In such cases, it's not that they rewrite or amend the law, they don't; they render it unconstitutional, which leaves no room for additional cases based on such a ruling, to be heard in a court of law. Had you answered my question, the accurate answer is A and B. A, in that a D.A. will likely not charge someone who's violated a law that was deemed unconstitutional; and B, in the event a D.A. presses charges anyway, the court will throw the case out because the law was already deemed untriable.

I absolutely agree with you that the Courts have every right, and in fact a duty, to point cases brought before them that may have Constitutional conflicts.

My problem is solely with that ruling in effect nullifying Law. That power does not exist under the Constitution.

Again only the Congress can create, amend, or nullify Law. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The section of the Constitution you highlighted (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution) is not in question. The question is simply nullification of Law. The Court gave itself this power under Marbury v Madison. The Court cannot grant itself this power without the consent of the Governed. That is how our system of Government works.

NO the function of a Court gives them that power. They are granted full power and authority in cases against or for the Government. That means LEGALLY any ruling they make has the force of law via the Constitution.

Judicial power is not defined as creating, amending, or nullifying Law. Presidents have defied the Courts without impunity and zero legal consequence. (see Andrew Jackson). Their rulings on Constitutional matters most definitely do not carry the weight of Law. Courts interpret Law. They do do not make Law.

As the saying goes, it's a crappy job but someone has to do it. When a legislature passes a law that proves to be unconstitutional, someone has to make that decision and someone has to nullify that law.

In Brown vs Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools in the state was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment thus nullifying the state law.

To expect a legislature controlled by white segregationist to change the law would be about as likely as hell freezing over. If the court was to rely on the legislature to change the law, there would no justice for the plaintiff. The court has to nullify a law that is unconstitutional.

Judicial Review is an important function of the court because it is vital part of the checks and balances, a fundamental principle of American government, guaranteed by the Constitution. So yes, courts do and should have ability to nullify laws it they are found to be unconstitutional.

You are aware that the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Plessy v Ferguson that made Jim Crow and the separate but equal doctrine legal? Brown vs Board of Education was not a remedy for bad Law. It was a remedy imposed by the Court for its own prior racist decision.

And btw.....the Majority opinion legalizing Jim Crow was written by a Northerner. Specifically a Justice from Massachusettes. The ruling was passed by a 7-1 majority.


Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia Key quotes:


Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896),[2] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court issued in 1896. It upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation laws for public facilities as long as the segregated facilities were equal in quality – a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal".[3][4] The decision legitimized the many state laws re-establishing racial segregation that had been passed in the American South after the end of the Reconstruction Era (1865–1877).


Plessy is widely regarded as one of the worst decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history.[5] Despite its infamy, the decision itself has never been explicitly overruled.[6] However, a series of subsequent decisions beginning with the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education—which held that the "separate but equal" doctrine is unconstitutional in the context of public schools and educational facilities—have severely weakened Plessy to the point that it is considered to have been de facto overruled.[1]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Whats your point? You claim the court has no authority to pass judgement even though the Constitution clearly syas they do and when confronted with that you cite some bad law decision by the Court, so what?