How to replace Judial Review

[Contumacious]

So seriously, you don't know the difference between "judicial power" and "judicial review?" I expect that from the liberals, but not from you.

There is no distinction.

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton agreed that the purpose of Article III is to authorize judicial review.

However Judicial Review was defined as APPLYING THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN or AS INTENDED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

.

Well, by that logic, the Legislature has Legislative Review because the word legislative is in it. And the Executive Branch has Executive Review because the name Executive is in it.

BTW, The term judicial Review isn't in that link. Instead of belching a document, can you point to the text you're referring to?

Done.

See Post 179.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Supremacy Clause requires laws to be constitutional can you explain why the court consistently said that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states until after a constitutional amendment was passed saying that it did?

Didn't think so.

While you are at it, give a list of all the laws that have been struck down because they violated the supremacy clause. It should be easy, unless you factor in that the Court actually ruled that the feds cannot force states to expand medicaid by cutting off all funding if they don't.

I have no idea what you're trying to argue,

except to guess that you believe that the Constitution is an unenforceable document, and should be that way.

Of course you don't, doing so would require you to actually understand the subject. Nonetheless, I will attempt to explain.

Your argument is that the Supremacy Clause allows the courts to strike down state laws that violate the constitution, I said that is bullshit. It has never happened, and never will, because the Supremacy Clause only kicks in if there is a conflict in court between state and federal law.

I can give hundreds of examples without even trying that prove I am right, your challenge is to prove that I am wrong, and that you are right. Find a single example anywhere of any court decision that cited the Supremacy Clause as justification for striking down a law that the court specifically said violates the constitution. All you have to do is provide one to prove that you are right.

Go for it, or go back to where I told you to learn how the government actually works and take my advice.

You're a moron. Violating the Supremacy Clause is what makes a state law unconstitutional.

Ware v Hylton.

Oh and btw, that's 1796. Proving also that judicial review by the Supreme Court predated Marbury for all you muppets claiming otherwise.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope. You can say that all you want. The Constitutional language does not exist.

How can the Bill of Rights meaningfully exist without a means of appeal in cases where one believes one's rights have been violated?

The right of legal redress of grievances exists and is explicit in the Constitution. The right of Courts to invalidate law is not.

WTF?

And if the grievance is that an unconstitutional state law has violated a right protected by the Bill of Rights,

then what?

Are you saying that the SCOTUS overturning the Chicago law banning handguns was an unconstitutional exercise of power by the Court?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I already posted that the Supreme Court had struck down, and upheld btw, laws after ratification but prior to Marbury.

Not true. Specific examples of Supreme Court rulings where this occurred prior to Marbury or I can major bullshit.

You should, because no such cases exist.

Ware v Hylton 1796. A Virginia law was struck down because it violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by violating the Treaty of Paris.

Ware v. Hylton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[WelfareQueen]

How can the Bill of Rights meaningfully exist without a means of appeal in cases where one believes one's rights have been violated?

The right of legal redress of grievances exists and is explicit in the Constitution. The right of Courts to invalidate law is not.

You must be opposing Judicial Activism not judicial review:


" It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

Alexander Hamilton
Saturday, June 14, 1788

.

That's nice. Alex was a cool dude. Too bad none of that language is in the actual Constitution. Maybe Alex should have pressed a little harder.

 

[WelfareQueen]

How can the Bill of Rights meaningfully exist without a means of appeal in cases where one believes one's rights have been violated?

The right of legal redress of grievances exists and is explicit in the Constitution. The right of Courts to invalidate law is not.

WTF?

And if the grievance is that an unconstitutional state law has violated a right protected by the Bill of Rights,

then what?

Are you saying that the SCOTUS overturning the Chicago law banning handguns was an unconstitutional exercise of power by the Court?

If a State makes a law where the Federal Government explicitly has standing (i.e. interstate commerce) then the State law is superseded by Federal Law. Why is this so hard to understand? Hence the Supremacy clause. Some issues of law reside solely with the States...some with the Federal Government...and some solely with the people. The Federal Courts exist to adjudicate matters of Federal Law. That is all.

 

[kaz]

You must be opposing Judicial Activism not judicial review:

OK, fair enough that it's the opinion of .. one .. founder. I don't mean that sarcastically, It's a legitimate point. I'm just saying that the opinion of one founder is an argument, but it's not a case closed argument.

A big problem with your argument though is the question of why in a document that they went to painstaking effort to "enumerate" Federal powers, they didn't mention that one.

As to your question, they are the same. The irony of Hamilton's writing is that he didn't want a legislature without check, yet he is arguing that they created a Supreme Court without check. And that is just so obviously clear how abusive of that power the Supreme Court has been.

Which is what I propose is that the check of Federal power not be a branch of the Federal government, but the States. There is no perfect solution, but that is far better than the one we have now, which is unbridled dictatorial power by a branch of the Federal government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no idea what you're trying to argue,

except to guess that you believe that the Constitution is an unenforceable document, and should be that way.

Of course you don't, doing so would require you to actually understand the subject. Nonetheless, I will attempt to explain.

Your argument is that the Supremacy Clause allows the courts to strike down state laws that violate the constitution, I said that is bullshit. It has never happened, and never will, because the Supremacy Clause only kicks in if there is a conflict in court between state and federal law.

I can give hundreds of examples without even trying that prove I am right, your challenge is to prove that I am wrong, and that you are right. Find a single example anywhere of any court decision that cited the Supremacy Clause as justification for striking down a law that the court specifically said violates the constitution. All you have to do is provide one to prove that you are right.

Go for it, or go back to where I told you to learn how the government actually works and take my advice.

You're a moron. Violating the Supremacy Clause is what makes a state law unconstitutional.

Ware v Hylton.

Oh and btw, that's 1796. Proving also that judicial review by the Supreme Court predated Marbury for all you muppets claiming otherwise.

Let me get this straight, a decision that held that a law made pursuant to a treaty ratified by Congress proved that state laws that violate the constitution are unconstitutional?
Gotta love that logic. Why don't you show me exactly where it says that in the opinion.

Ware v. Hylton - 3 U.S. 199 (1796) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

 

[Bluedog]

Originally the framers believed having the state legislatures choose the Senate created an internal check within Congress. Between special interests and frequent vacancies due to states not making appointments this check was rendered ineffective allowing for the seventeenth amendment to change the process. The idea was good, but it needed to be tweaked. States have little or no influence over national legislation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course you don't, doing so would require you to actually understand the subject. Nonetheless, I will attempt to explain.

Your argument is that the Supremacy Clause allows the courts to strike down state laws that violate the constitution, I said that is bullshit. It has never happened, and never will, because the Supremacy Clause only kicks in if there is a conflict in court between state and federal law.

I can give hundreds of examples without even trying that prove I am right, your challenge is to prove that I am wrong, and that you are right. Find a single example anywhere of any court decision that cited the Supremacy Clause as justification for striking down a law that the court specifically said violates the constitution. All you have to do is provide one to prove that you are right.

Go for it, or go back to where I told you to learn how the government actually works and take my advice.

You're a moron. Violating the Supremacy Clause is what makes a state law unconstitutional.

Ware v Hylton.

Oh and btw, that's 1796. Proving also that judicial review by the Supreme Court predated Marbury for all you muppets claiming otherwise.

Let me get this straight, a decision that held that a law made pursuant to a treaty ratified by Congress proved that state laws that violate the constitution are unconstitutional?
Gotta love that logic. Why don't you show me exactly where it says that in the opinion.

Ware v. Hylton - 3 U.S. 199 (1796) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

You obviously don't know what the point of the conversation was, because now you're talking in circles.

Let's start over:

Is the Supremacy Clause meant to be enforceable?

If your answer is 'no', then why not, and, why then is it there if it's not enforceable?

If your answer is 'yes', then what is supposed to be the mechanism for enforcement?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The right of legal redress of grievances exists and is explicit in the Constitution. The right of Courts to invalidate law is not.

WTF?

And if the grievance is that an unconstitutional state law has violated a right protected by the Bill of Rights,

then what?

Are you saying that the SCOTUS overturning the Chicago law banning handguns was an unconstitutional exercise of power by the Court?

If a State makes a law where the Federal Government explicitly has standing (i.e. interstate commerce) then the State law is superseded by Federal Law. Why is this so hard to understand? Hence the Supremacy clause. Some issues of law reside solely with the States...some with the Federal Government...and some solely with the people. The Federal Courts exist to adjudicate matters of Federal Law. That is all.

Read the 10th amendment and tell me what the word 'prohibited' therein means, in the context of the amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How to replace Judial Review

Clearly there’s no need to ‘replace’ judicial review; indeed, to do so would be disastrous.

The notion is either the product of ignorance or madness.

There is, however, a way to decrease the instances of judicial review, and that could be accomplished by lawmakers obeying the Constitution and its case law where they stop enacting measures they know full-well to be un-Constitutional.

In short: lawmakers need to stop playing politics with the Constitution and the courts.

 

[WelfareQueen]

WTF?

And if the grievance is that an unconstitutional state law has violated a right protected by the Bill of Rights,

then what?

Are you saying that the SCOTUS overturning the Chicago law banning handguns was an unconstitutional exercise of power by the Court?

If a State makes a law where the Federal Government explicitly has standing (i.e. interstate commerce) then the State law is superseded by Federal Law. Why is this so hard to understand? Hence the Supremacy clause. Some issues of law reside solely with the States...some with the Federal Government...and some solely with the people. The Federal Courts exist to adjudicate matters of Federal Law. That is all.

Read the 10th amendment and tell me what the word 'prohibited' therein means, in the context of the amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[2]


Prohibited in this context is crystal clear. Power resides with the States unless delegated to Federal Government or explicitly prohibited to the States under the Constitution. Why can't people read and comprehend basic English?

 

[JakeStarkey]

How to replace Judial Review

2/3 2/3 3/4

The left get 5/9, everyone else gets 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. Got it.

One thing this thread has laid bare though is the pathetic liberal lie that you all believe the court is somehow conservative. Now that you have the 5/9 system of changing the Constitution, you are all fighting like the devil to keep it. You obviously know it's working completely in your favor.

Nope, you and QWB and the other reactionaries who try to rewrite history simply are exposed as not knowing the Constitution or the Founders, or the history of both, and the development of constitutional law since then.

You are what you are: wrong.

 

[WelfareQueen]

How to replace Judial Review

Clearly there’s no need to ‘replace’ judicial review; indeed, to do so would be disastrous.

The notion is either the product of ignorance or madness.

There is, however, a way to decrease the instances of judicial review, and that could be accomplished by lawmakers obeying the Constitution and its case law where they stop enacting measures they know full-well to be un-Constitutional.

In short: lawmakers need to stop playing politics with the Constitution and the courts.

How about decreasing stupid, harassing, or frivolous lawsuits that are designed to usurp the will of the People?

 

[JakeStarkey]

When the majority interferes with a minority's civil rights, no law suit is frivolous.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The fact is, as I’ve documented, that judicial review was practiced in Colonial America prior to the advent of the Foundation Era, that judicial review was a part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition for centuries...

Can you cite an example where the top judicial venue in the Amercan colonies invalidated a law because it ran afoul of the English constitution, a colonial charter, a state constitution, the articles of Confederation or the US constitution, prior to Marbury?
Case and date, please.

Still waiting for a reponse.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is, as I’ve documented, that judicial review was practiced in Colonial America prior to the advent of the Foundation Era, that judicial review was a part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition for centuries...

Can you cite an example where the top judicial venue in the Amercan colonies invalidated a law because it ran afoul of the English constitution, a colonial charter, a state constitution, the articles of Confederation or the US constitution, prior to Marbury?
Case and date, please.

Still waiting for a reponse.

Keep on waiting because it is immaterial to the OP.

 

[kaz]

How to replace Judial Review

Clearly there’s no need to ‘replace’ judicial review; indeed, to do so would be disastrous.

The notion is either the product of ignorance or madness.

There is, however, a way to decrease the instances of judicial review, and that could be accomplished by lawmakers obeying the Constitution and its case law where they stop enacting measures they know full-well to be un-Constitutional.

In short: lawmakers need to stop playing politics with the Constitution and the courts.

In other words, Judicial Review is advancing the cause of socialism, and it does it faster than anything else you can think of because they can just decree it as the dictators they are and it is so.

Just be honest, that's all you care about. Liberalism is about winning, every time you have power or lose it, the rules change. Never do you support a rule that doesn't work for you on principle. Ever.

The best way to check the Federal government is with the States. That is what this thread is about. The dictators in robes are advancing government through fiat after fiat.

 

[kaz]

How to replace Judial Review

2/3 2/3 3/4

The left get 5/9, everyone else gets 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. Got it.

One thing this thread has laid bare though is the pathetic liberal lie that you all believe the court is somehow conservative. Now that you have the 5/9 system of changing the Constitution, you are all fighting like the devil to keep it. You obviously know it's working completely in your favor.

Nope, you and QWB and the other reactionaries who try to rewrite history simply are exposed as not knowing the Constitution or the Founders, or the history of both, and the development of constitutional law since then.

You are what you are: wrong.

Yes, we are reactionaries. And we're hiding under your bed, in your closet. We have bugs in your walls, and in your car, we are watching you, Jake Starkey, bwahahaha!