How to replace Judial Review

[kaz]

[To my op, it's still a red herring. It only goes to the side discussion of whether the Supreme Court ever did Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison or not.

.

So now it's side issue that you don't know what you're talking about?

Funny, it wasn't a side issue in the first sentence of your first post:

"The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison."

Since you're quoting me, I'll address this one. True as written. In Marbury v. Madison they explicitly gave themselves that power in an ongoing basis. While they may have gotten away with it before, it was not codified as an ongoing power. So yes, they gave themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison.

Your posts are pedestrian word parsing where you pounce on some nit and miss the point and in the end you don't want to debate me, you want to debate the "Republicans" that you hate. Which is why I am letting your idiotic rantings stand on their own. Though I suppose you now have a loophole since if you quote me and I feel it's warranted, I will correct your idiotic rantings.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Love how RW ''Patriots'' want to dismantle any part of the Constitution and gov't that they don't agree with....it's an echo of the Nazi takeover, and a disgrace, Beckbots - or whoever...

 

[ShootSpeeders]

OP- Love how RW ''Patriots'' want to dismantle any part of the Constitution and gov't that they don't agree with....it's an echo of the Nazi takeover, and a disgrace, Beckbots - or whoever...

HAHAHA. You stupid jackass. The 17th amendment dismantled the constitution.!!!! As originally written, the C said senators were to be chosen by state legislators. Those who want to repeal the 17A want to return to that.

You seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.

 

[bendog]

I can halfway understand the thinking behind the OP, though the election of senators by state legislators did not give effect to state's rights because it is so easy to bribe local legislators, and the intent of the 17th was to GIVE EFFECT TO STATES RIGHTS BY ALLOWING CITIZENS OF INDIVIDUAL STATES TO SELECT THEIR SENATORS, and the bull shit line the OP falls for is that somehow "too much" democratic input by individual state citizens detracts from state issues, when the reality is that the move to repeal the 17th (which aint' gonna happen btw) is that the top 1% want more corruption and less representation of the bottom 99%. Or, stated another way, the repealers wannabees believe people cannot be trusted on taxing and spending.

However, the notion of an AMENDMENT "destroying" the constitution is an oxymoron. You may disagree with an amendment, but a change is not a destruction. Perahaps, judicial review, when it is unchecked and allowed to "create" rights (be it Roe or Citizens United) is a destruction. But amendment is a constitutionally created vehicle for the majoirty to exercise it's rights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, the constitution gave that power to the court, and all of the judiciary.

[/thread]

False, and quite ignorant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That absurdity would essentially eliminate all powers of the Executive and Judicial branches on matters of constitutionality.

The executive has no powers in regard to Constitutionality. The Judicial has no Constitutionally derived powers, as Kaz pointed out, they granted themselves that authority.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

So, you couldn't find anything about judicial review, then?

 

[Contumacious]

How to replace Judial Review

Article III, to the extent that it was available, ended in 1935 when FDR threatened to abolish the SCOTUS.

He didn't actually threaten to abolish SCOTUS, he threatened to stack it with his sycophants. And with his control of the Senate, it would have worked. But yeah, he's the one who did in State rights, I refer to that frequently as well. After that, SCOTUS killed the 10th amendment.

HUH?

If every president is allowed to pack the Court with brown nosers, will you still consider it a court? Or is it a Cabinet?

.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So the point is to abandon separation of powers?

How can there be a "separation of powers" if the Judiciary is invested with legislative powers?

The president appoints judges, and the Senate has the power to confirm or reject those appointments.

That's enough power for the Senate.

The judiciary applies law, that is enough power for the courts.

{Section 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. }

Notice that there is nothing about the SCOTUS making law when convenient?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Still doesn't work that way

States would appoint their Senators but those Senators would still function as part of a Senate. Obamacare would still pass when the majority of Senators vote for it. They do not have to go back to their state for "permission" to vote for Obamacare

I realize that you are nothing but a drone, drooling the daily bullshit from KOS and the other hate sites. I'm not attempting to sway you, as you have no intellect to sway.

For the lurkers, the reason that Senators established by state legislatures makes for representation of the states is that to retain their positions, they would actually have to do the bidding of the state, rather than buying the popular vote with largess from the public treasury. Kaz is right, there is no difference between the House and Senate, both are corrupt organizations that sell to the highest bidder, handing out welfare and public contracts, grants and resource rights, to those who keep them in power.

There is no check and balance. Kaz proposed to restore checks and balances. Again, you cannot grasp this, you are but an artificial stupidity program, a virus, launched from ThinkProgress - but for the lurkers...

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is just one reason why Republicans want to repeal the 17 th amendment. They can no longer win the Senate through the popular vote......but they do control the state legislatures

Better to have those Republican legislatures select senators

The GOP will have the Senate after the next election, moron.

 

[bendog]

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

So, you couldn't find anything about judicial review, then?

the judicial review power comes from the clause giving the scrotus "appellate review." So long as a citizen has standing to sue over the constitutionality of any law, the constitution grants the sup ct appeallate review on whether a statute is constitutional.

 

[Uncensored2008]

the judicial review power comes from the clause giving the scrotus "appellate review." So long as a citizen has standing to sue over the constitutionality of any law, the constitution grants the sup ct appeallate review on whether a statute is constitutional.

Could you cite the portion of the Constitution that states this?


Article. III.
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

-------------------------------------

Remember, Conservatives actually know the Constitution...

 

[NYcarbineer]

That absurdity would essentially eliminate all powers of the Executive and Judicial branches on matters of constitutionality.

The executive has no powers in regard to Constitutionality. The Judicial has no Constitutionally derived powers, as Kaz pointed out, they granted themselves that authority.

The President has the power to appoint judges.

Your second statement has already been proven wrong.

 

[Contumacious]

Your proposal does nothing to offset the distribution of state and federal power.

All it does is shift political influence away from the people and to local politicians

You just answered your point in the first sentence with your second sentence.

As for away from the people, US Senators are representatives of the people they elected, local politicians are not. You really do not think these through, big guy...

If states want more power, they should start a war over it

Oh.....yea
They already tried that one

Maybe if they took power away from We the People they could get more power

The states should regain THE SAME POWER they had before the so-called seventeen amendment was enacted.

Why the fuck do you want to concentrate power in DC is beyond me.

.

 

[paperview]

the judicial review power comes from the clause giving the scrotus "appellate review." So long as a citizen has standing to sue over the constitutionality of any law, the constitution grants the sup ct appeallate review on whether a statute is constitutional.

Could you cite the portion of the Constitution that states this?


Article. III.
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

-------------------------------------

Remember, Conservatives actually know the Constitution...

Watching you discuss Constitutional law is like watching a clumsy sixth grader juggling jackknives.

Always amusing, and we can be certain the display will result in injury.

 

[bendog]

Art II Sec 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority . . . .

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

 

[NYcarbineer]

the judicial review power comes from the clause giving the scrotus "appellate review." So long as a citizen has standing to sue over the constitutionality of any law, the constitution grants the sup ct appeallate review on whether a statute is constitutional.

Could you cite the portion of the Constitution that states this?


Article. III.
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

-------------------------------------

Remember, Conservatives actually know the Constitution...

Just for the record,

do you believe the Supreme Court should not have the power to protect, say, the 2nd amendment,

by using judicial review to declare laws to be unconstitutional violations of said amendment?

 

[Contumacious]

Just for the record,

do you believe the Supreme Court should not have the power to protect, say, the 2nd amendment,

by using judicial review to declare laws to be unconstitutional violations of said amendment?

The problem is that fascist/socialist scumbags like Obama also gets to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court.

Do you want one of those "justices" to abolish the 2A under the guise of judicial review?

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You just answered your point in the first sentence with your second sentence.

As for away from the people, US Senators are representatives of the people they elected, local politicians are not. You really do not think these through, big guy...

If states want more power, they should start a war over it

Oh.....yea
They already tried that one

Maybe if they took power away from We the People they could get more power

The states should regain THE SAME POWER they had before the so-called seventeen amendment was enacted.

Why the fuck do you want to concentrate power in DC is beyond me.

.

You know, if the voters in the states knew that voting for their state representatives was also going to determine who their Senators were,

it would change voting habits.

For one thing it would probably increase turnout, and increasing turnout almost invariably benefits Democrats.

Careful what you wish for.