How to replace Judial Review

[Uncensored2008]

The President has the power to appoint judges.

And pigeons shit on statues.

Your second statement has already been proven wrong.

Quite the opposite.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

I'll take that to mean that you cannot find anything in the Constitution that empowers the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of laws, nor to dictate new law through fiat, then?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

.

Is that a yes or a no?

Without the SCOTUS having the power of judicial review, gun rights would be a state by state matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz, your opinion does not count.

SCOTUS's opinion, however, does.

Actually my opinion is the only one that counts since that is what I'm posting on a message board. I consider other's opinions and often change my views based on that, but my opinion is still up to me.

What made you think that I was posting SCOTUS's opinion? That's just tripping.

And now you are lying. You twist opinions and facts to fit your philosophy instead of your philosophy to fit opinions and facts. That's how folks learn.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The President has the power to appoint judges.

And pigeons shit on statues.

Your second statement has already been proven wrong.

Quite the opposite.

Your denial is irrelevant, albeit entertaining.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I'll take that to mean that you cannot find anything in the Constitution that empowers the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of laws, nor to dictate new law through fiat, then?

Over 200 years of binding case law proves it, for another thing.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Case law or precedent does not usurp the Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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 . . . .

Yes?

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.

Directly contradicts your claim, doesn't it?

Judicial review is derived from whole cloth from Marbury v. Madison. C.J. Marshall usurped the power, as the men who actually wrote the Constitution pointed out.

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."

—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

And of course it was James Madison who wrote Article III of the Constitution, I suspect he well understood the meaning of his own words.

 

[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?

.

Is that a yes or a no?

Without the SCOTUS having the power of judicial review, gun rights would be a state by state matter.

In the late 1800's the SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms is NOT dependent on the Constitution and that Congress has not right to regulate it,

In the last case the SCOTUS ruled that Congress could regulate it.

So what is going to happen when the "liberals" are the majority?

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

Without logical fallacy, the left would never even approach logic....

The job of the judiciary is to apply law to cases.

If a man steals a horse, it is the job of the courts to apply laws against horse theft and determine penalty for the crime, or tort.

It is NOT the job of the judiciary to "interpret" laws against horse theft to mean that all people have a right to free ice cream on Tuesdays.

Starting with the Warren court, the abuse of the usurped power of "interpretation" followed precisely the pattern that Jefferson and Madison warned that it would. The court is the law unto itself, with Congress in the role of a debate society carrying water for the rulers on the court.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

.

I don't agree.

The problem is the courts have usurped legislative powers expressly forbidden in the Constitution, thus destroying the system of checks and balances needed for honest government.

Elena Kagan is an abhorrent specter, more appropriate to the Khmer Rouge than the USA, but if the intended checks against judicial power were in place, the damage even she could cause would be contained. It is the corruption of the system that is the true problem.

 

[regent]

As any textbook on government will tell us, the power to interpret the Constitution is simply not expressed in the Constitution, and that is why Marbury is such an important Court decision, maybe one of the most important.

 

[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 . . . .

Yes?

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.

Directly contradicts your claim, doesn't it?

Judicial review is derived from whole cloth from Marbury v. Madison. C.J. Marshall usurped the power, as the men who actually wrote the Constitution pointed out.

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."

—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

And of course it was James Madison who wrote Article III of the Constitution, I suspect he well understood the meaning of his own words.

no, the clause does not detract for appellate review because any regulation or exception congress makes AFTER CONSTITUTION IS RATIFIED is a law subject to appellate review .... so long as some citizen has standing to sue the govt over it. That is the relation or exception must pass judicial review.

Moreover, there's more than a little irony in your invoking james madison to support your notion that marbury v. madison is some constitutional heresay SINCE HE WAS THE PREVAILING PARTY IN THAT CASE.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Without logical fallacy, the left would never even approach logic....

The job of the judiciary is to apply law to cases.

If a man steals a horse, it is the job of the courts to apply laws against horse theft and determine penalty for the crime, or tort.

It is NOT the job of the judiciary to "interpret" laws against horse theft to mean that all people have a right to free ice cream on Tuesdays.

Starting with the Warren court, the abuse of the usurped power of "interpretation" followed precisely the pattern that Jefferson and Madison warned that it would. The court is the law unto itself, with Congress in the role of a debate society carrying water for the rulers on the court.

What's the fallacy? You don't want the Court to have the power of judicial review. You don't want the Court to have the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.

Therefore you don't want the protections offered in the 2nd amendment to be enforceable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As any textbook on government will tell us, the power to interpret the Constitution is simply not expressed in the Constitution, and that is why Marbury is such an important Court decision, maybe one of the most important.

It is implied, and Marbury is simply an early example of how implied powers manifest themselves.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your denial is irrelevant, albeit entertaining.

The only way to "prove me wrong" is to show the power listed in the United States Constitution. Not only have you failed to do so, I've actually listed the entire section on Judicial powers to highlight the fact that Judicial Review is absent.

The Constitution on a democrat is like salt on a slug...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Over 200 years of binding case law proves it, for another thing.

So, this is an authority usurped via Marbury v. Madison and not contained in the United States Constitution, then?

BTW, Alexander Hamilton WANTED to grant the court this authority, and failed to prevail at the Constitutional Convention. Marshall did what the courts do so often today, ignored the Constitution and declared law by fiat. Not only is Judicial Review NOT in the Constitution, it was expressly denied.

 

[kaz]

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?

.

.

This was different in that every President gets to replace justices who retire. The number 9 is not in the Constitution, it is just the way it is. In fact, the number has changed through history.

FDR threatened to nominate endless justices with no one retiring, so there might be for example 19 justices with 10 being his sycophants and the 9 being the judges who were on the bench already. With the Senate in his pocket, it was a credible threat.

The court had been striking down his policies as a violation of the 10th amendment. They acquiesced to his threat and stopped doing that. It saved their power, it ended State power.

You're right that he cowed them, I was just saying it wasn't technically eliminating them.

 

[bendog]

As any textbook on government will tell us, the power to interpret the Constitution is simply not expressed in the Constitution, and that is why Marbury is such an important Court decision, maybe one of the most important.

It is implied, and Marbury is simply an early example of how implied powers manifest themselves.

I think its more than "implied." Morever the Fed Paper 80 states

The judiciary authority of the Union is to extend:

Second. To treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, and to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. These belong to the fourth class of the enumerated cases, as they have an evident connection with the preservation of the national peace.

Third. To cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. These form, altogether, the fifth of the enumerated classes of causes proper for the cognizance of the national courts.

Fourth. To controversies to which the United States shall be a party. These constitute the third of those classes.

........

and the current court is creating corporate rights just as the Warren Court created individual rights.

 

[kaz]

Kaz, your opinion does not count.

SCOTUS's opinion, however, does.

Actually my opinion is the only one that counts since that is what I'm posting on a message board. I consider other's opinions and often change my views based on that, but my opinion is still up to me.

What made you think that I was posting SCOTUS's opinion? That's just tripping.

And now you are lying. You twist opinions and facts to fit your philosophy instead of your philosophy to fit opinions and facts. That's how folks learn.

Actually I was just mocking you for your stupid post that my opinion doesn't matter. If that's true, why are you here since your opinions don't matter?