How to replace Judial Review

[JakeStarkey]

We the People of the various state represent their states' interest far better than the state senates, far far better.

 

[rightwinger]

No where in the Constitution do the courts determine the Constitutionality of our laws. That power was given to the courts by themselves.

Well there is our dilemma then

Most Americans would prefer it reside with the courts where it has been for 200 years

So that's the standard for Federal power and what our Constitution says, an opinion poll?

Most Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion. So therefore (by your logic) unrestricted abortion is Unconstitutional.

No...we have something called a Constitution

If, We the People were outraged by Marbury v Madison we could have repealed it by passing laws putting judicial review elsewhere

We the people have not done that

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can take that discussion up with a Republican.

As a libertarian, I believe in State rights, which is why I propose we shift more power to ... the States ...

What you are proposing does not do that

It shifts power away from the PEOPLE of a state to the POLITICIANS of a state

Should Senators be accountable to the people of a state or the back room politicians?

The states maintain their same power.......Two Senators per state

We are not gong to be a people's democracy and vote on every issue. Power divided is power checked. Now it's all Federal power and unchecked.

When you have a proposal for a perfect system, let us know. So far, you have not offered such a thing so we'll just have to try for the best system available.

Your system's first failure is that Americans don't want it.

You want to get rid of judicial review because it's been protecting the RIGHTS of people you don't want to have those RIGHTS.

That's really all this is about. The eternal quest of the rightwing nuts to change the rules in such a way that their abysmally unpopular agenda can be imposed on the American people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nowhere in the Constitution does the Senate determine the Constitutionality of our laws. That power rightfully rests with our courts

No where in the Constitution do the courts determine the Constitutionality of our laws. That power was given to the courts by themselves.

Wrong. It was an implied power from the start.

 

[kaz]

Well there is our dilemma then

Most Americans would prefer it reside with the courts where it has been for 200 years

So that's the standard for Federal power and what our Constitution says, an opinion poll?

Most Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion. So therefore (by your logic) unrestricted abortion is Unconstitutional.

No...we have something called a Constitution

If, We the People were outraged by Marbury v Madison we could have repealed it by passing laws putting judicial review elsewhere

We the people have not done that

Got it, an opinion poll only means what you support is in the Constitution. I already knew that's what you thought, it was the point of my question. You walked right into that one.

 

[kaz]

We the People of the various state represent their states' interest far better than the state senates, far far better.

This completely misses the point. Politicians act in their own interest. The people don't vote in Congress. The point is to pit State politicians against Federal Politicians knowing they will act in their own interest, which is what division of power is all about.

Now we have Federal Legislatures and Federal Judges, both of whom derive power from the Federal government. There is no division of power. They both benefit when the Federal government is stronger. And all their actions show they see it that way.

 

[kaz]

So the point is to abandon separation of powers?

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

That's enough power for the Senate.

You have to comprehend my whole post at once. The "US Senate" is now referring to a chamber which represents the States. It is not referring to the US Senate as we have it today.

Now) There is no division of power, the Federal government simply grants itself more power. For example, Obamacare. The Federal government passed it, the Federal government said sure, it has the right.

My system) The States would have to agree to have their authority usurped.

That you would go to "separation of powers" as an argument against my proposal shows how fundamentally you don't grasp my proposal. Separation of powers is the whole point of my proposal.

So, you're confused about "separation of powers", too.

You have some work to do. Judicial review hasn't ever been in doubt.

The idea of giving the legislature the power to interpret the constitution is just about as crazy as one could get - even if you ignore our current congress.

Read the op, it addresses that point. If you disagree with me, put it in the context of the argument I made, don't ignore the argument I made.

 

[kaz]

Revoking the 17th won't work.

Article III bedrocks the foundation of judicial review.

The Constitution would have to be amended.

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

Horrible idea, only in conservativeland can concentrating power into fewer hands result in something other than greater tyranny. These are politicians we are talking about after all, why anyone would want take away power we the people have and put it in their greedy hands?

Now all Federal power rests in the Federal government. The people's power does too as the Federal Courts rule what is Constitutional.

I am proposing to balance Federal Power with State power, which you see as putting power in fewer hands. That's ridiculous.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Herein lays the problem.

The SCOTUS stole that power in Marbury v. Madison.....and it was tolerable in so far that it allowed the Court to act as a buffer against a corrupt Congress. After all, it is likely that the founders knew that the power accumulated in Congress could one day act as a means to ensure that elected officials became part of a 'ruling class'. And that these elites could then pass any laws they wished, limiting and removing liberty from the citizen.

Now, however; since Chief Justice Roberts has opined that the Courts do not act as a buffer against a corrupt Congress to protect the people, the Marbury v. Madison ruling has essentially become worthless.

We have become the very thing that was most feared. I am not sure I agree with Kaz and his solution, but one thing is certain. The powers that the SCOTUS was never intended to have, are now basically nothing more than a Ducal court, held at the behest of the President, to enforce the rules of the elite, all across the realm.

I am open to other ideas, but you summed up how pathetic the current situation is. Obamacare just being the latest but it goes far beyond that. The Court has ignored Federal Constitutional Authority limits of the 10th amendment since FDR. New London was as bad as the Obamacare ruling. We have a corrupt, arrogant, criminal SCOTUS.

My solution is to balance Federal power by State power. Even politicians of the same party in States don't like the Feds usurping their power. And look at what the people pass even in liberal's liberal California when they have a choice.

Any other suggestions?

I would suggest you reread the 10th amendment, with keen attention to what it prohibits.

 

[kaz]

Doing what you said would result in the union breaking up and another civil war(s) within just a few years. Perhaps many wars as rights and laws become drastically different from state to state and no equal protection.

If States have more check on Federal power, that will make them want to leave the union. How can you possibly support that ridiculous assertion?

And the equal protection thing is just pulled from your ass.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Horrible idea, only in conservativeland can concentrating power into fewer hands result in something other than greater tyranny. These are politicians we are talking about after all, why anyone would want take away power we the people have and put it in their greedy hands?

Now all Federal power rests in the Federal government. The people's power does too as the Federal Courts rule what is Constitutional.

I am proposing to balance Federal Power with State power, which you see as putting power in fewer hands. That's ridiculous.

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

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Herein lays the problem.

The SCOTUS stole that power in Marbury v. Madison.....and it was tolerable in so far that it allowed the Court to act as a buffer against a corrupt Congress. After all, it is likely that the founders knew that the power accumulated in Congress could one day act as a means to ensure that elected officials became part of a 'ruling class'. And that these elites could then pass any laws they wished, limiting and removing liberty from the citizen.

Now, however; since Chief Justice Roberts has opined that the Courts do not act as a buffer against a corrupt Congress to protect the people, the Marbury v. Madison ruling has essentially become worthless.

We have become the very thing that was most feared. I am not sure I agree with Kaz and his solution, but one thing is certain. The powers that the SCOTUS was never intended to have, are now basically nothing more than a Ducal court, held at the behest of the President, to enforce the rules of the elite, all across the realm.

I am open to other ideas, but you summed up how pathetic the current situation is. Obamacare just being the latest but it goes far beyond that. The Court has ignored Federal Constitutional Authority limits of the 10th amendment since FDR. New London was as bad as the Obamacare ruling. We have a corrupt, arrogant, criminal SCOTUS.

My solution is to balance Federal power by State power. Even politicians of the same party in States don't like the Feds usurping their power. And look at what the people pass even in liberal's liberal California when they have a choice.

Any other suggestions?

At the moment, no. But I agree that we need a return to the States the power that is invested in them by the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

So that's the standard for Federal power and what our Constitution says, an opinion poll?

Most Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion. So therefore (by your logic) unrestricted abortion is Unconstitutional.

No...we have something called a Constitution

If, We the People were outraged by Marbury v Madison we could have repealed it by passing laws putting judicial review elsewhere

We the people have not done that

Got it, an opinion poll only means what you support is in the Constitution. I already knew that's what you thought, it was the point of my question. You walked right into that one.

So let me get his straight

You think your bizarre proposal should be executed even if it is not supported by the people

 

[kaz]

Horrible idea, only in conservativeland can concentrating power into fewer hands result in something other than greater tyranny. These are politicians we are talking about after all, why anyone would want take away power we the people have and put it in their greedy hands?

Now all Federal power rests in the Federal government. The people's power does too as the Federal Courts rule what is Constitutional.

I am proposing to balance Federal Power with State power, which you see as putting power in fewer hands. That's ridiculous.

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...

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Herein lays the problem.

The SCOTUS stole that power in Marbury v. Madison.....and it was tolerable in so far that it allowed the Court to act as a buffer against a corrupt Congress. After all, it is likely that the founders knew that the power accumulated in Congress could one day act as a means to ensure that elected officials became part of a 'ruling class'. And that these elites could then pass any laws they wished, limiting and removing liberty from the citizen.

Now, however; since Chief Justice Roberts has opined that the Courts do not act as a buffer against a corrupt Congress to protect the people, the Marbury v. Madison ruling has essentially become worthless.

We have become the very thing that was most feared. I am not sure I agree with Kaz and his solution, but one thing is certain. The powers that the SCOTUS was never intended to have, are now basically nothing more than a Ducal court, held at the behest of the President, to enforce the rules of the elite all across the realm.

Quit sending them a bunch of unconstitutional prohibitions on civil rights and it will not seem so bad for conservatives. The conservatives win some too, now billionaires can meddle in politics all they want to, isn't that lovely?

It isn't a matter of winning. We all lose when bad law is enacted.

 

[kaz]

No...we have something called a Constitution

If, We the People were outraged by Marbury v Madison we could have repealed it by passing laws putting judicial review elsewhere

We the people have not done that

Got it, an opinion poll only means what you support is in the Constitution. I already knew that's what you thought, it was the point of my question. You walked right into that one.

So let me get his straight

You think your bizarre proposal should be executed even if it is not supported by the people

So let me get this straight, you think cabbages are interstellar gateways to planets ruled by Leprechauns?

 

[JakeStarkey]

We the People of the various state represent their states' interest far better than the state senates, far far better.

This completely misses the point. Politicians act in their own interest. The people don't vote in Congress. The point is to pit State politicians against Federal Politicians knowing they will act in their own interest, which is what division of power is all about.

Now we have Federal Legislatures and Federal Judges, both of whom derive power from the Federal government. There is no division of power. They both benefit when the Federal government is stronger. And all their actions show they see it that way.

Nope, that would not pit state versus federal government, but merely having both parties trying to control the State senates so as to get a leg up in D. C. This would not help state power whatsoever, because the states would want the federal $$$ funneled back down to them.

 

[kaz]

We the People of the various state represent their states' interest far better than the state senates, far far better.

This completely misses the point. Politicians act in their own interest. The people don't vote in Congress. The point is to pit State politicians against Federal Politicians knowing they will act in their own interest, which is what division of power is all about.

Now we have Federal Legislatures and Federal Judges, both of whom derive power from the Federal government. There is no division of power. They both benefit when the Federal government is stronger. And all their actions show they see it that way.

Nope, that would not pit state versus federal government, but merely having both parties trying to control the State senates so as to get a leg up in D. C. This would not help state power whatsoever, because the states would want the federal $$$ funneled back down to them.

The House and President would still be elected and not appointed by the States. The Senate can only stop Unconstitutional behavior, it cannot vote the States money. Balance ... of power. Balance. That is the proposal. Not to mention that one State cannot vote itself money, if you vote yourself money, you are voting all States money, and consequencely your people to be taxed to pay for it, which reduces your ability to tax for State government. If you people had actual arguments, you would be glad to grasp what I said. That you can't grasp it doesn't speak to your believing you have actually affective arguments against it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This completely misses the point. Politicians act in their own interest. The people don't vote in Congress. The point is to pit State politicians against Federal Politicians knowing they will act in their own interest, which is what division of power is all about.

Now we have Federal Legislatures and Federal Judges, both of whom derive power from the Federal government. There is no division of power. They both benefit when the Federal government is stronger. And all their actions show they see it that way.

Nope, that would not pit state versus federal government, but merely having both parties trying to control the State senates so as to get a leg up in D. C. This would not help state power whatsoever, because the states would want the federal $$$ funneled back down to them.

The House and President would still be elected and not appointed by the States. The Senate can only stop Unconstitutional behavior, it cannot vote the States money. Balance ... of power. Balance. That is the proposal. Not to mention that one State cannot vote itself money, if you vote yourself money, you are voting all States money, and consequencely your people to be taxed to pay for it, which reduces your ability to tax for State government. If you people had actual arguments, you would be glad to grasp what I said. That you can't grasp it doesn't speak to your believing you have actually affective arguments against it.

No, no, no, and you know it, so stop it.

It's about $$$, not about states' power.

Please give us a real argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That doesn't say that Judicial Review resides with the Supreme court, which is what the thread it about. Seriously, dude, Google Marbury v. Madison and read just the blurb and you'll realize you are just flat out wrong on this.

You seem to be under the false impression I don't know the case. Judicial review is a judicial power. See, it's even in the name.

Judicial is in the name Judicial Review, Grasshopper. However, Judicial Review is not in the Constitution.

There were 31 cases of judicial review between ratification and Marbury in which state and federal courts struck down statutes.

Reference: William Michael Treanor, Judicial Review Before Marbury, 58 STAN. L. REV. 455 (2005).