Challenging Constitutionalists

[OKTexas]

I guess we probably need a constitutional scholar to determine the reality of this thread but since there isn't one here I guess!!!. The fact is the supreme court cannot make laws, it can only determine their constitutionality, their ACTUAL scope and determine the actual applications of the law. When they overstep those assigned duties, they are taking the power of the congress unto themselves and if congress allows it, it is the congress that fails in their legislative duty.

SCOTUS rewrote the ACA twice, they have no legislative authority to do that. But they did, and congress let them get away with it. The justices that agreed with that should have been impeached.

 

[12icer]

ABSOLUTELY!! Congress failed in it's duty to control and retain their own designated powers. The Supreme court actually has no enforcement jurisdiction, BUT it has the ability to uphold a lower courts designated enforcement action, or to redefine the parameters of their jurisdiction in a case they decide.

 

[Onyx]

They can decide if a law complies with the Constitution, show me in the Constitution where they have the power to say the Constitution itself means something other than what was written.

That's the thing.

The supreme court decides what the constitution means. They are interpreting it, IE, they are determining what was meant by the words written.

 

[OKTexas]

They can decide if a law complies with the Constitution, show me in the Constitution where they have the power to say the Constitution itself means something other than what was written.

That's the thing.

The supreme court decides what the constitution means. They are interpreting it, IE, they are determining what was meant by the words written.

I would suggest a book to you, but I seriously doubt your have the intellect to understand it. But what the hell, try reading Men In Black, by Mark Levin and get back to me.

 

[Onyx]

I would suggest a book to you, but I seriously doubt your have the intellect to understand it. But what the hell, try reading Men In Black, by Mark Levin and get back to me.

Don't patronize me. You are the one being intellectually dishonest.

The constitution authorized the powers of the supreme court. This is a fact. If you want to deflect from the facts, then consider yourself just another tool.

 

[320 Years of History]

How can you defend the constitution when it essentially authorizes unlimited powers to the Judicial branch in defining how the US is governed?

Has it escaped you that the Judicial branch has 100% interpretive power and 0% enforcement power?

False.

The Supreme Court has the ability of court order. Failure to follow the orders of the court can make you in contempt of court, which is grounds for impeachment.

The Justices can say whatever they want. They can interpret the law however they want. Unless the executive branches at federal, state and local levels act to enforce their rulings, it really doesn't matter what the Justices say.

If this is true, then my point is the same.

The constitution is just a piece of paper filled with meaningless words.

Red:
You're just flat out wrong on that, and I'm not going to give you links to show you that you are because that is fifth grade civics. A court order is nothing but an order. If it's not enforced by some sort of police department -- elected as with sheriffs or appointed as with other law enforcement officers -- there is nobody who will enforce the order.

Blue:

1. What you posted in the OP includes a question. One can tell that by the question mark at the end of the sentence.
   • The OP question is not rhetorical. One can tell that because of the context in which it was presented.
     • Because the question posed is not rhetorical, it doesn't make a point. Rather it asks for a reply albeit leadingly.
2. The question asked in the OP includes an inaccurate premise: "the constitution...essentially authorizes unlimited powers to the Judicial branch in defining how the US is governed."
   • The Judicial branch has no say in how the U.S. is governed. It has the definitive say in how the Constitution and other laws are to be interpreted. Governance is executed by the executive branch. (Notice the similarity there..."execute," "executive"....Google it if you don't believe me.) If the executive branch simply ignores the ruling, it has no value whatsoever. President Abraham Lincoln famously ignored Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s order finding unconstitutional Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus rights in 1861, early in the Civil War.

 

[OKTexas]

I would suggest a book to you, but I seriously doubt your have the intellect to understand it. But what the hell, try reading Men In Black, by Mark Levin and get back to me.

Don't patronize me. You are the one being intellectually dishonest.

The constitution authorized the powers of the supreme court. This is a fact. If you want to deflect from the facts, then consider yourself just another tool.

You don't want to be patronized, maybe you shouldn't have a slogan from the Soviet communist party as a sig. Now run along fool.

 

[whitehall]

It's not hard to convince low information basically uneducated racist lefties that the eleven words spoken by a Black Supreme Court Justice seems un-Constitutional when most lefties probably slept through or cut class smoking dope through civics 101

 

[Timmy]

Unlimited powers ? How do you figure ?

At this point, can you tell us what product the government cannot penalize you for not buying?

You are penalized for not buying a house.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of refrigerator.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of electricity.

You are penalized for not buying the right kind of car.

Hell, you are penalized for not having kids!!!

It was not a big leap to penalize you for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

You are penalized for not having children .

You are penalized for not owning a home .

It's the tax code . What's that got to do with the sup court ?