Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.Point to the precise, specific language.
Thank you.
Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
You and your 'buddy' are both equally wrong.Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.
A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).
Article III is clear the Supreme Court holds final authority in ANY case involving a dispute between a State or States and the Federal Government as well as in any case between a citizen of the several States and the Federal Government. That means they do in fact have the authority as granted by the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.
A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).
Why do you Liberals say something is clearly stated when it's not? Clear would be direct words not your lame interpretation of those words.
I'm a liberal and learned of Marbury years ago. The interesting thing is the different approaches members of the Court use to interpret the Constitution today. Some want it in black and white, and the irony is, the framers did not put the power of the Court to interpret in black and white. Maybe it's not a liberal or conservative issue but just history.
Article III is clear the Supreme Court holds final authority in ANY case involving a dispute between a State or States and the Federal Government as well as in any case between a citizen of the several States and the Federal Government. That means they do in fact have the authority as granted by the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.
A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).
Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.
A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).
irrelevant for the purposes of what we are debating, unless of course you have another point to make. If so, make it. If not, irrelevant
WelfareQueenWhere do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.
A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).
Well your friend is but one voice. an educated one, but one. Thank him. Ask your friend this: Is it more appropriate to say 'solidified' than 'gave itself'? I'd am seriously interested in his response.
Constitutionally derived? Hmm... cute use of phrase. Of course many powers that consensus says are there may be considered unconstitutional -- but who gets to decide that?
Not true. I could think of at least a hundred ways to say something in ways that the meaning is direct, but the words may seem not so. It is how the English language works. It confuses immigrants and others. Which are you -- immigrant or other?
Cannot? It has been since day one.Article III is clear the Supreme Court holds final authority in ANY case involving a dispute between a State or States and the Federal Government as well as in any case between a citizen of the several States and the Federal Government. That means they do in fact have the authority as granted by the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.
A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).
The Court can declare whatever it wants. The question is Judicial Nullification. The Court does not have the power to nullify existing law by declaring it unconstitutional.
Only the Congress can create, amendment, or nullify law per the Constitution. That point cannot be argued.
