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

[Moonglow]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

yes, it does through precedent.

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

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

All unconstitutional laws are automatically null and void but a judical review is the only type of ruling they will recognize and comply with.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

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

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

no, constitution says that all office holders have to preserve protect and defend the Constitution, and that would include supreme court justices. If they see a law that is unconstitutional They in theory must obey the oath they took. Constitution is a great document but it has many flaws the first of which is that it was not clear enough to make liberalism illegal as they intended.

you might be right though. You could make the separation of powers argument which would hold that the Supreme Court has no right to assume legislative authority by determining many things to be unconstitutional To the point where they in effect control the government.. In that case The president and the legislature will have to remove or impeach justices for not respecting the separation of powers.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

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

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

no, constitution says that all office holders have to preserve protect and defend the Constitution, and that would include supreme court justices. If they see a law that is unconstitutional They in theory must obey the oath they took. Constitution is a great document but it has many flaws the first of which is that it was not clear enough to make liberalism illegal as they intended.

you might be right though. You could make the separation of powers argument which would hold that the Supreme Court has no right to assume legislative authority by determining many things to be unconstitutional To the point where they in effect control the government.. In that case The president and the legislature will have to remove or impeach justices for not respecting the separation of powers.

The Court has every right to declare a Law unconstitutional. So dies the Executive and Legislative Branches. However, only one Branch can amend, create, or nullify law and that is the Legislative.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

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

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

no, constitution says that all office holders have to preserve protect and defend the Constitution, and that would include supreme court justices. If they see a law that is unconstitutional They in theory must obey the oath they took. Constitution is a great document but it has many flaws the first of which is that it was not clear enough to make liberalism illegal as they intended.

you might be right though. You could make the separation of powers argument which would hold that the Supreme Court has no right to assume legislative authority by determining many things to be unconstitutional To the point where they in effect control the government.. In that case The president and the legislature will have to remove or impeach justices for not respecting the separation of powers.

The Court has every right to declare a Law unconstitutional. So dies the Executive and Legislative Branches. However, only one Branch can amend, create, or nullify law and that is the Legislative.

But the Supreme Court can create a law too by simply saying to the legislature this is what we will declare to be constitutional and this is what we will declare to be unconstitutional.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Court has every right to declare a Law unconstitutional.

Please find Judicial review for us in Article III. Or anywhere in the Constitution that states that the Supreme Court justices have the authority to rule on the Constitution.

We'll wait. Thanks!

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

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

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

no, constitution says that all office holders have to preserve protect and defend the Constitution, and that would include supreme court justices. If they see a law that is unconstitutional They in theory must obey the oath they took. Constitution is a great document but it has many flaws the first of which is that it was not clear enough to make liberalism illegal as they intended.

you might be right though. You could make the separation of powers argument which would hold that the Supreme Court has no right to assume legislative authority by determining many things to be unconstitutional To the point where they in effect control the government.. In that case The president and the legislature will have to remove or impeach justices for not respecting the separation of powers.

The Court has every right to declare a Law unconstitutional. So dies the Executive and Legislative Branches. However, only one Branch can amend, create, or nullify law and that is the Legislative.

But the Supreme Court can create a law too by simply saying to the legislature this is what we will declare to be constitutional and this is what we will declare to be unconstitutional.

All three branches of Government have a co-equal responsibility to consider constitutional questions. The Executive Branch considers constitutional questions every day through DOJ and Federal Law enforcement. The Congress should always consider constitutional questions when formulating Law. Unfortunately they don't which is why The Courts have gained so much Power.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

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

no, constitution says that all office holders have to preserve protect and defend the Constitution, and that would include supreme court justices. If they see a law that is unconstitutional They in theory must obey the oath they took. Constitution is a great document but it has many flaws the first of which is that it was not clear enough to make liberalism illegal as they intended.

you might be right though. You could make the separation of powers argument which would hold that the Supreme Court has no right to assume legislative authority by determining many things to be unconstitutional To the point where they in effect control the government.. In that case The president and the legislature will have to remove or impeach justices for not respecting the separation of powers.

The Court has every right to declare a Law unconstitutional. So dies the Executive and Legislative Branches. However, only one Branch can amend, create, or nullify law and that is the Legislative.

But the Supreme Court can create a law too by simply saying to the legislature this is what we will declare to be constitutional and this is what we will declare to be unconstitutional.

All three branches of Government have a co-equal responsibility to consider constitutional questions. The Executive Branch considers constitutional questions every day through DOJ and Federal Law enforcement. The Congress should always consider constitutional questions when formulating Law. Unfortunately they don't which is why The Courts have gained so much Power.

well the court, like the Congress could elect not to assume so much power and presumably will if it turns conservative .

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Court has every right to declare a Law unconstitutional.

Please find Judicial review for us in Article III. Or anywhere in the Constitution that states that the Supreme Court justices have the authority to rule on the Constitution.

We'll wait. Thanks!

the oath of office requires all to preserve protect and defend Constitution.

 

[Faun]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

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

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

So when the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional, which jurisdiction do you believe can still enforce it?

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

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

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

So when the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional, which jurisdiction do you believe can still enforce it?

The Founders intended that if a Court deems a Law to be unconstitutional it goes back to the Congress to fix the problem. After all....Congress created the problem in the first place.

The legal term is remediation, and it is the Legislative Branches' job to remediate, not the Courts.

 

[regent]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

SCOTUS obviously disagrees with you, and that is all that matters.

Jake, as usual you're wrong. Presidents have ignored the Supreme Court in the past...they will do so again. Google Andrew Jackson/Supreme Court.

The people, the Courts, the Congress seem to have accepted the Marbury ruling. The ruling is now part of America. Maybe someday computers will make the decisions?

 

[Faun]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

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

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

So when the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional, which jurisdiction do you believe can still enforce it?

The Founders intended that if a Court deems a Law to be unconstitutional it goes back to the Congress to fix the problem. After all....Congress created the problem in the first place.

The legal term is remediation, and it is the Legislative Branches' job to remediate, not the Courts.

If that’s what they wanted, they should have political it in the Constitution. Regardless of what you say they wanted, that’s not how it is or how it’s ever been. And in the absence of legislative review of such rulings, as it is, I ask again... when the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional, which jurisdiction do you believe can still enforce it?

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

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

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

So when the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional, which jurisdiction do you believe can still enforce it?

The Founders intended that if a Court deems a Law to be unconstitutional it goes back to the Congress to fix the problem. After all....Congress created the problem in the first place.

The legal term is remediation, and it is the Legislative Branches' job to remediate, not the Courts.

If that’s what they wanted, they should have political it in the Constitution. Regardless of what you say they wanted, that’s not how it is or how it’s ever been. And in the absence of legislative review of such rulings, as it is, I ask again... when the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional, which jurisdiction do you believe can still enforce it?

And if the Courts wanted the power to nullify law that should have been in the Constitution. But it is not.

The Executive Branch enforces all Federal Law. Answer: The Executive Branch. As I mentioned previously.....Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's ruling with impunity. It will happen again. The Courts are obviously necessary. If they want to legitimate power to nullify Law then amend the Constitution. Otherwise, the Courts themselves are making unconstitutional rulings

 

[Faun]

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

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

So when the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional, which jurisdiction do you believe can still enforce it?

The Founders intended that if a Court deems a Law to be unconstitutional it goes back to the Congress to fix the problem. After all....Congress created the problem in the first place.

The legal term is remediation, and it is the Legislative Branches' job to remediate, not the Courts.

If that’s what they wanted, they should have political it in the Constitution. Regardless of what you say they wanted, that’s not how it is or how it’s ever been. And in the absence of legislative review of such rulings, as it is, I ask again... when the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional, which jurisdiction do you believe can still enforce it?

And if the Courts wanted the power to nullify law that should have been in the Constitution. But it is not.

The Executive Branch enforces all Federal Law. Answer: The Executive Branch. As I mentioned previously.....Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's ruling with impunity. It will happen again. The Courts are obviously necessary. If they want to legitimate power to nullify Law then amend the Constitution. Otherwise, the Courts themselves are making unconstitutional rulings

The question was...

when the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional, which jurisdiction do you believe can still enforce it?​

Your answer is:

The Executive Branch​

... that doesn’t seem to answer the question I asked?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The people, the Courts, the Congress seem to have accepted the Marbury ruling.

hasn't been an issue till now. Wait till RGB and one other dies, and Trump appoints 2 conservatives. Then the liberals will riot upon realizing they never should have given so much power to the Court!!

 

[Skylar]

The people, the Courts, the Congress seem to have accepted the Marbury ruling.

hasn't been an issue till now. Wait till RGB and one other dies, and Trump appoints 2 conservatives. Then the liberals will riot upon realizing they never should have given so much power to the Court!!

Judicial Review has been around since at least the time of James Madison.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The people, the Courts, the Congress seem to have accepted the Marbury ruling.

hasn't been an issue till now. Wait till RGB and one other dies, and Trump appoints 2 conservatives. Then the liberals will riot upon realizing they never should have given so much power to the Court!!

Judicial Review has been around since at least the time of James Madison.

Marbury was around 100 years before anyone though to use it according to Willilam Rehnquist.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

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

So when the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional, which jurisdiction do you believe can still enforce it?

The Founders intended that if a Court deems a Law to be unconstitutional it goes back to the Congress to fix the problem. After all....Congress created the problem in the first place.

The legal term is remediation, and it is the Legislative Branches' job to remediate, not the Courts.

If that’s what they wanted, they should have political it in the Constitution. Regardless of what you say they wanted, that’s not how it is or how it’s ever been. And in the absence of legislative review of such rulings, as it is, I ask again... when the Supreme Court rules a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional, which jurisdiction do you believe can still enforce it?

And if the Courts wanted the power to nullify law that should have been in the Constitution. But it is not.

The Executive Branch enforces all Federal Law. Answer: The Executive Branch. As I mentioned previously.....Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's ruling with impunity. It will happen again. The Courts are obviously necessary. If they want to legitimate power to nullify Law then amend the Constitution. Otherwise, the Courts themselves are making unconstitutional rulings

its tricky issue since every branch is supposed to support Constitution. Congress could pass laws to restrict court and president can pack court but they don't since its easier to pass on the responsibility for law making to court which really does seem to reflect our increasingly left leaning country .

 

[Uncensored2008]

The people, the Courts, the Congress seem to have accepted the Marbury ruling.

hasn't been an issue till now. Wait till RGB and one other dies, and Trump appoints 2 conservatives. Then the liberals will riot upon realizing they never should have given so much power to the Court!!

Judicial Review has been around since at least the time of James Madison.

Skylar you sleazy commie coward, I'm still waiting for your apology after I exposed your outright lies regarding the Trump tower meetings.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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!

Any law can be found to be not inline with the Constitution and if so not enforceable Fla had a law ths if you did not have 45 cents on you it was called Vagrancy law was thrown out new one written. All records going back were purged do this law written in 1902. Picture a guy on the beach no wallet guess what can happen. Yep happened to me.