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

[ShootSpeeders]

[It is in writing. Judicial power was defined at the framing to include judicial review. Both proponents and opponents of judicial review acknowledged that it existed in the Constitution.

HAHAHA. What a liar you are. 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" and repealing laws is a legislative power. case closed

 

[ShackledNation]

[No, that is false. When the Constitution was ratified the existence of judicial review in the Constitution was accepted by both those who opposed it and those who supported it.

uraliar. The idea of judgings repealing laws and writing new ones was invented in marbury v madison. Before that, the idea had never even occurred to anyong. If anyone did think it, they dismissed it immediately. Repealing laws and writing laws is what legislators do.

think, you hatefilled miserable wretch.

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.

Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.

 

[ShackledNation]

[It is in writing. Judicial power was defined at the framing to include judicial review. Both proponents and opponents of judicial review acknowledged that it existed in the Constitution.

HAHAHA. What a liar you are. 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" and repealing laws is a legislative power. case closed

Calling me a liar doesn't make your lack of understanding any truer. Striking down unconstitutional statutes is a judicial power, and the Constitution explicitly grants the courts judicial power. Your insults are pathetic.

 

[WelfareQueen]

[No, that is false. When the Constitution was ratified the existence of judicial review in the Constitution was accepted by both those who opposed it and those who supported it.

uraliar. The idea of judgings repealing laws and writing new ones was invented in marbury v madison. Before that, the idea had never even occurred to anyong. If anyone did think it, they dismissed it immediately. Repealing laws and writing laws is what legislators do.

think, you hatefilled miserable wretch.

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.

Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.

Judicial Review is not in the Constitution nor is it legal. The only way it can be acknowledged is by We the People in our laws or our Constitution. That has never happened. There is no getting around those facts.

Was it discussed prior to ratifying the Constitution? Yes, but there was no consensus. That is why the power of Judicial Review is not in the Constitution and why it was never brought before the people to ratify.

Spin it however you like. Talk about fucking England or the Magna Carta or some other bullshit all you want. You cannot get around the facts. Judicial Review is not a power outlined in the Constitution. That power can only be granted by We the People. We have never given our consent.

 

[ShackledNation]

uraliar. The idea of judgings repealing laws and writing new ones was invented in marbury v madison. Before that, the idea had never even occurred to anyong. If anyone did think it, they dismissed it immediately. Repealing laws and writing laws is what legislators do.

think, you hatefilled miserable wretch.

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.

Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.

Judicial Review is not in the Constitution nor is it legal. The only way it can be acknowledged is by We the People in our laws or our Constitution. That has never happened. There is no getting around those facts.

Was it discussed prior to ratifying the Constitution? Yes, but there was no consensus. That is why the power of Judicial Review is not in the Constitution and why it was never brought before the people to ratify.

Spin it however you like. Talk about fucking England or the Magna Carta or some other bullshit all you want. You cannot get around the facts. Judicial Review is not a power outlined in the Constitution. That power can only be granted by We the People. We have never given our consent.

I brought up England to refute your completely false idea that Marbury invented the idea of judicial review. It did not, so admit you were wrong on its origins and stop trying to pathetically save face.

The Constitution explicitly grants the courts with "judicial power." At the time of ratification, this was understood to include judicial review. Not a single person at the Constitutional convention believed otherwise and there was no debate on whether judicial review was a part of the judicial power granted under the Constitution. Period. The debate simply surrounded whether or not such an inclusion was wise--not whether or not it existed.

You have provided absolutely nothing other than your demonstrably ignorant view of the history of judicial review to justify your assertion. You have provided no historical evidence that judicial power does not include judicial review, nor have you offered any explanation as to what this term means. You argument is nonexistent.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.

Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.

Judicial Review is not in the Constitution nor is it legal. The only way it can be acknowledged is by We the People in our laws or our Constitution. That has never happened. There is no getting around those facts.

Was it discussed prior to ratifying the Constitution? Yes, but there was no consensus. That is why the power of Judicial Review is not in the Constitution and why it was never brought before the people to ratify.

Spin it however you like. Talk about fucking England or the Magna Carta or some other bullshit all you want. You cannot get around the facts. Judicial Review is not a power outlined in the Constitution. That power can only be granted by We the People. We have never given our consent.

I brought up England to refute your completely false idea that Marbury invented the idea of judicial review. It did not, so admit you were wrong on its origins and stop trying to pathetically save face.

The Constitution explicitly grants the courts with "judicial power." At the time of ratification, this was understood to include judicial review. Not a single person at the Constitutional convention believed otherwise and there was no debate on whether judicial review was a part of the judicial power granted under the Constitution. Period. The debate simply surrounded whether or not such an inclusion was wise--not whether or not it existed.

You have provided absolutely nothing other than your demonstrably ignorant view of the history of judicial review to justify your assertion. You have provided no historical evidence that judicial power does not include judicial review, nor have you offered any explanation as to what this term means. You argument is nonexistent.

Nope. Wrong. Not in the Constitution. The power of judicial review does not exist under law. End of story.

 

[ShackledNation]

Judicial Review is not in the Constitution nor is it legal. The only way it can be acknowledged is by We the People in our laws or our Constitution. That has never happened. There is no getting around those facts.

Was it discussed prior to ratifying the Constitution? Yes, but there was no consensus. That is why the power of Judicial Review is not in the Constitution and why it was never brought before the people to ratify.

Spin it however you like. Talk about fucking England or the Magna Carta or some other bullshit all you want. You cannot get around the facts. Judicial Review is not a power outlined in the Constitution. That power can only be granted by We the People. We have never given our consent.

I brought up England to refute your completely false idea that Marbury invented the idea of judicial review. It did not, so admit you were wrong on its origins and stop trying to pathetically save face.

The Constitution explicitly grants the courts with "judicial power." At the time of ratification, this was understood to include judicial review. Not a single person at the Constitutional convention believed otherwise and there was no debate on whether judicial review was a part of the judicial power granted under the Constitution. Period. The debate simply surrounded whether or not such an inclusion was wise--not whether or not it existed.

You have provided absolutely nothing other than your demonstrably ignorant view of the history of judicial review to justify your assertion. You have provided no historical evidence that judicial power does not include judicial review, nor have you offered any explanation as to what this term means. You argument is nonexistent.

Nope. Wrong. Not in the Constitution. The power of judicial review does not exist under law. End of story.

Already refuted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If it is not in writing it is not an enumerated power.

It is in writing. Judicial power was defined at the framing to include judicial review. Both proponents and opponents of judicial review acknowledged that it existed in the Constitution.

Then why isn't it in writing in the Constitution? The issue was debated...there was no consensus.

If it is not in the Constitution it does not exist. The fact the idea was debated is irrelevant.

Article III. Marbury 1803. Are you time shifting your answers from before then to now?

Wow!

The OP is hypothetical (because the judgment has already been made) and irrelevant.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I brought up England to refute your completely false idea that Marbury invented the idea of judicial review. It did not, so admit you were wrong on its origins and stop trying to pathetically save face.

The Constitution explicitly grants the courts with "judicial power." At the time of ratification, this was understood to include judicial review. Not a single person at the Constitutional convention believed otherwise and there was no debate on whether judicial review was a part of the judicial power granted under the Constitution. Period. The debate simply surrounded whether or not such an inclusion was wise--not whether or not it existed.

You have provided absolutely nothing other than your demonstrably ignorant view of the history of judicial review to justify your assertion. You have provided no historical evidence that judicial power does not include judicial review, nor have you offered any explanation as to what this term means. You argument is nonexistent.

Nope. Wrong. Not in the Constitution. The power of judicial review does not exist under law. End of story.

Already refuted.

By who? You haven't refuted shit. Sad.

 

[WelfareQueen]

It is in writing. Judicial power was defined at the framing to include judicial review. Both proponents and opponents of judicial review acknowledged that it existed in the Constitution.

Then why isn't it in writing in the Constitution? The issue was debated...there was no consensus.

If it is not in the Constitution it does not exist. The fact the idea was debated is irrelevant.

Article III. Marbury 1803. Are you time shifting your answers from before then to now?

Wow!

The OP is hypothetical (because the judgment has already been made) and irrelevant.

Sorry Fakey.....Judicial Review does not have the power of law and has been ignored by Presidents in the past and will likely be ignored in the future. Try to get the Constitution amended. Otherwise...you're shit out of luck.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then why isn't it in writing in the Constitution? The issue was debated...there was no consensus.

If it is not in the Constitution it does not exist. The fact the idea was debated is irrelevant.

Article III. Marbury 1803. Are you time shifting your answers from before then to now?

Wow!

The OP is hypothetical (because the judgment has already been made) and irrelevant.

Sorry Fakey.....Judicial Review does not have the power of law and has been ignored by Presidents in the past and will likely be ignored in the future. Try to get the Constitution amended. Otherwise...you're shit out of luck.

The ad hom reveals you are failing the OP. What you believe is not evidence. What you believe does not matter. What SCOTUS and Congress decide are the only matters that count. Yup, Obama tossed out Heller and Citizens. Oh, that's right he didn't.

SCOTUS will be followed. Fact.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Hasn't always been which I educated you on and you acknowledged. No doubt the Court will be ignored again because under the Constitution only the Legislative Branch can pass law, amend law, or repeal law. The Court can do none of these things.

 

[JakeStarkey]

WQ, your basic OP has been refuted time and again.

Go tell SCOTUS that you are unhappy. Say it forcefully enough so that the Justices know you are really concerned, they may send someone around to talk to you.

 

[WelfareQueen]

WQ, your basic OP has been refuted time and again.

Go tell SCOTUS that you are unhappy. Say it forcefully enough so that the Justices know you are really concerned, they may send someone around to talk to you.

Nothing has been refuted. In fact, just the opposite. You have provided zero factual data or documentation while I have presented a mountain of documentation and evidence. Sorry Jake....your opinion really means nothing. Provide something factual and we can discuss.

Bu-bye.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.

Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.

There's a big difference between saying a law is bad, and repealing it. Courts have always had the right to disagree with a law, but the idea of actually nullifying a law began with marbury.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Calling me a liar doesn't make your lack of understanding any truer. Striking down unconstitutional statutes is a judicial power, and the Constitution explicitly grants the courts judicial power. Your insults are pathetic.

BS - repealing laws is obviously NOT a judicial power. It is a legislative power.

The board awaits your apology.

 

[ShackledNation]

Nope. Wrong. Not in the Constitution. The power of judicial review does not exist under law. End of story.

Already refuted.

By who? You haven't refuted shit. Sad.

By me, in the posts you quoted. Please don't reply unless you have an actual argument.

 

[ShackledNation]

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.

Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.

There's a big difference between saying a law is bad, and repealing it. Courts have always had the right to disagree with a law, but the idea of actually nullifying a law began with marbury.

No it didn't. Judicial review was occurring in the US even before Marbury, and the idea was established centuries ago. Marbury was simply the first major case where judicial review was applied after ratification of the US Constitution. I already cited this information.

 

[ShackledNation]

Calling me a liar doesn't make your lack of understanding any truer. Striking down unconstitutional statutes is a judicial power, and the Constitution explicitly grants the courts judicial power. Your insults are pathetic.

BS - repealing laws is obviously NOT a judicial power. It is a legislative power.

The board awaits your apology.

Already refuted. Please define judicial power and link to the definition from a reliable source. Also do the same for judicial power as it was understood at the time of ratification. Your assertion proves nothing.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The Executive (i.e., the President) can sign a bill or veto a bill as well as propose legislation.

The Legislative Branch can ignore an Executive's proposal for legislation or act on it. It can pass a bill. It can override a veto. It can repeal prior laws.

The Judicial Branch can interpret laws when a proper case or controversy arises. It can nullify a law (so it proclaimed for itself); but (to the extent it exists) this latter power is an implied power from the Constitutional grants of power given to the Judicial Branch.

If the Judicial Branch invokes judicial review to nullify a law, it has NOT "repealed" that law. It has nullified the law exactly as though it had never been passed in the first place.

The effect of such nullification IS, however, pretty fairly akin to the effect of a repeal.