How to replace Judial Review

[RetiredGySgt]

Coongress can get rif of a significant portion of the current power of review by simply limiting its appelate jurisdiction - doing this will limit its power only to cases in which it has original jurisdiction.

Reminding people that Congress checks the Court does no good, they don't care, it doesn't play as well as claiming the Court has no check.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Power in the hands of State governments is taking power FROM the people and giving it to the Federal government is giving the people MORE power.

You're just in love with being a sheep even as you are lead to slaughter by that which you created. But hey, as long as the government checks keep coming in, eh big guy?

No

Taking the vote away from the people and giving it to State Government is taking power FROM the people


Federal Government is just another level of Government. Some functions are best performed at the local level, some best at the state level and some best at the Federal level.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison. Ever since, they used that power to re-write the Constitution. They make up law, such as the right to an abortion in Roe. v. Wade, strike down laws they don't like such as DOMA, twist words such as what equal protection in the 14th amendment. Then they let Constitutional abominations like the New London ruling and Obamacare stand. Just removing the power from them would be an advancement in liberty from what we have now.

However, there is a better way, and it's simple. Repeal the 17th amendment, which directly elects senators by popular vote and restore the State governments the power to appoint their Senators. Then the Senate rather than representing Federal power would return to representing State rights. Power divided is power checked.

Then

- Go to zero based budgeting, so every Federal expenditure must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Go to zero based taxing, so every Federal tax must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Give the State controlled Senate the power to eliminate any Federal regulation based on Constitutionality. So if you are appealing a case on a point of law, ultimately it goes to SCOTUS. If you are appealing a law on constitutionality, it goes to the US Senate. If you want to change the Constitution, SCOTUS loses that power and you have to follow the prescribed 2/3, 2/3, 3/4.

I seriously don't know where to begin, you aren't even wrong, you are just deluded.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

There is nothing I can argue that would convince a liberal we need more State rights.

Straw man, let's try again. It's nothing more than trying to funnel money to pet companies and allies. That is why the amendment to end was ratified.

However, if you can get 2/3 2/3 3/4, amend it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison. Ever since, they used that power to re-write the Constitution. They make up law, such as the right to an abortion in Roe. v. Wade, strike down laws they don't like such as DOMA, twist words such as what equal protection in the 14th amendment. Then they let Constitutional abominations like the New London ruling and Obamacare stand. Just removing the power from them would be an advancement in liberty from what we have now.

However, there is a better way, and it's simple. Repeal the 17th amendment, which directly elects senators by popular vote and restore the State governments the power to appoint their Senators. Then the Senate rather than representing Federal power would return to representing State rights. Power divided is power checked.

Then

- Go to zero based budgeting, so every Federal expenditure must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Go to zero based taxing, so every Federal tax must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Give the State controlled Senate the power to eliminate any Federal regulation based on Constitutionality. So if you are appealing a case on a point of law, ultimately it goes to SCOTUS. If you are appealing a law on constitutionality, it goes to the US Senate. If you want to change the Constitution, SCOTUS loses that power and you have to follow the prescribed 2/3, 2/3, 3/4.

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

I thought the OP would be the dumbest post in the thread, I was wrong.

Just an FYI, the first two points, other than his blathering idiocy about who is in charge of each House of Congress, is exactly how it works. On top of that, the third point is already available to either House, or the entire Congress. If you need proof, consider the fact that Congress had no problem overruling some of the less popular Reagan era regulations that you still bitch about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I refuse to read the rest of this thread until people learn how the fucking government actually works.

 

[WillReadmore]

Once again, a liberal cannot address my actual argument...

You've got no argument.

And, I think you're learning that!

Exactly, I'm not arguing for socialism, it's no argument.

It is funny how you consider a liberal circle jerk to be a compelling argument though.

Now you're just picking random words out of the air.

If you had an argument, I assume you would state it.

btw, ad hom isn't an argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Incorrect.

The doctrine of judicial review predates the Constitution, and has been a fundamental principle of Anglo-American jurisprudence for centuries:

The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.

After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Although a few Framers worried about the power, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” In fact, the word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase observed that although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the Constitution void, this authority was acknowledged by general opinion, the entire Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court Justices.

By 1803, as Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in Marbury, “long and well established” principles answered “the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land.” Marshall concluded that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument.” As such, contrary to the traditional account of Marbury, Marshall’s decision did not conjure judicial review out of thin air, but rather affirmed the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority in the new context of the federal republic of the United States. In doing so, Marshall recommitted American constitutional law to a practice over four centuries old.

The Yale Law Journal Online - Why We Have Judicial Review

Consequently, the OP’s premise fails.

 

[Bluedog]

If the seventeenth amendment was appealed, the problems that led to it needed to be dealt with.


I support the idea but would make some adjustments:

Senators serve at the behest of the state government and may be replaced without cause by a majority vote.

If the state legislature cannot agree on an appointment the governor shall make such appointment.

That said, is this a cure all for judicial review, of course not. However, with both the states(senate) and the people(house) now having to agree on national legislation, the SC has to spend less time dealing with matters regarding the tenth amendment as well as both the commerce/necessary proper clause. Why, because now the states have a say in these pieces of legislation getting passed.


My two cents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

True.

But it’s incumbent upon state and local lawmakers to not enact un-Constitutional measures in the first place. Laws aren’t being subjected to judicial review and invalidated as a consequence of frivolous lawsuits and capricious judges, they’re being subjected to judicial review and invalidated because lawmakers knowingly enact un-Constitutional measures perceived to garner them some political advantage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The SCOTUS stole that power in Marbury v. Madison.....

And you are also incorrect, as is the OP. See post #88.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The OP falsely assumes that the purpose of judicial review is to protect the STATES from the federal government.

It's as much the purpose of judicial review to protect the PEOPLE from their state governments enacting unconstitutional laws.

Exactly.

Indeed, the doctrine of judicial review also protects citizens from un-Constitutional laws enacted by the Federal government, as we saw in Windsor last year.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This thread proves that the far left wants to rule without impunity and without opposition and wants to subjugate everyone under their religious ideology.

Actually not.

The thread demonstrates that liberals correctly understand the doctrine of judicial review being vital to the success of our Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; Proposition 8, DOMA, and Utah’s Amendment 3 are proof of that.

Ideally liberals want issues of the day resolved by the people through the democratic process and their elected representatives. When the people err, however, and enact measures offensive to the Constitution, violating the civil liberties of their fellow citizens, those injured may seek relief in the Federal courts, where laws are subject to judicial review to determine their constitutionality; and laws failing to meet that standard are appropriately invalidated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Having the Senate decide the constitutionality of laws is pretty close to letting the catcher call balls and strikes in a baseball game.

Not to mention it violates Separation of Powers Doctrine.

 

[regent]

The framers simply left out judicial review in the third article of the Constitution, why is not known. The argument that the framers intended is of no value or that it was written in some letters to the editor (Federalist Papers) is meaningless. Madison wanted a system with both judges and some members of the executive branch to form a committee to review laws. Marshall simply went beyond the Constitution and took the power, and America has accepted Marshall's interpretation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison. Ever since, they used that power to re-write the Constitution. They make up law, such as the right to an abortion in Roe. v. Wade, strike down laws they don't like such as DOMA, twist words such as what equal protection in the 14th amendment. Then they let Constitutional abominations like the New London ruling and Obamacare stand. Just removing the power from them would be an advancement in liberty from what we have now.

However, there is a better way, and it's simple. Repeal the 17th amendment, which directly elects senators by popular vote and restore the State governments the power to appoint their Senators. Then the Senate rather than representing Federal power would return to representing State rights. Power divided is power checked.

Then

- Go to zero based budgeting, so every Federal expenditure must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Go to zero based taxing, so every Federal tax must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Give the State controlled Senate the power to eliminate any Federal regulation based on Constitutionality. So if you are appealing a case on a point of law, ultimately it goes to SCOTUS. If you are appealing a law on constitutionality, it goes to the US Senate. If you want to change the Constitution, SCOTUS loses that power and you have to follow the prescribed 2/3, 2/3, 3/4.

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

I thought the OP would be the dumbest post in the thread, I was wrong.

Just an FYI, the first two points, other than his blathering idiocy about who is in charge of each House of Congress, is exactly how it works. On top of that, the third point is already available to either House, or the entire Congress. If you need proof, consider the fact that Congress had no problem overruling some of the less popular Reagan era regulations that you still bitch about.

So you show me how the bolded above leaves any power of determining constitutionality with the executive and judicial branches.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

There is nothing I can argue that would convince a liberal we need more State rights.

That's because 99% of the 'rights' the states rightsers demand are rights to rollback individual rights protected by the federal government via the Constitution.

 

[SwimExpert]

The courts interpreted the Constitution before the Constitution existed. Bam, you and the simpleton RW who thanked you are so stupid it's funny.

The courts interpreted the law well before the US constitution ever existed. The constitution is itself a law. Bam.

On a related note, how do you propose anything in the constitution is determined to have meaning, or what that meaning is? Let's say that a state passes a law that prohibits the practice of Christianity. People are charged with crimes for practicing Christianity. The defendants argue that the law violates their constitutional rights. How can the court entertain such a defense if they don't have the power of judicial review?

Bam again, you simpleton.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Article III covers original jurisdiction by SCOTUS on all matters constitutional.

Once the bill of rights was ratified, those rights fell within the purview of SCOTUS. And over time SCOTUS has incorporated most of those rights as in the purview of all matters constitutional, subject of SCOTUS review.

Tis what tis.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison. Ever since, they used that power to re-write the Constitution. They make up law, such as the right to an abortion in Roe. v. Wade, strike down laws they don't like such as DOMA, twist words such as what equal protection in the 14th amendment. Then they let Constitutional abominations like the New London ruling and Obamacare stand. Just removing the power from them would be an advancement in liberty from what we have now.

However, there is a better way, and it's simple. Repeal the 17th amendment, which directly elects senators by popular vote and restore the State governments the power to appoint their Senators. Then the Senate rather than representing Federal power would return to representing State rights. Power divided is power checked.

Then

- Go to zero based budgeting, so every Federal expenditure must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Go to zero based taxing, so every Federal tax must pass both the Federal controlled House and State controlled Senate each year.

- Give the State controlled Senate the power to eliminate any Federal regulation based on Constitutionality. So if you are appealing a case on a point of law, ultimately it goes to SCOTUS. If you are appealing a law on constitutionality, it goes to the US Senate. If you want to change the Constitution, SCOTUS loses that power and you have to follow the prescribed 2/3, 2/3, 3/4.

Better yet, and easier to do, let's just replace all the Teabaggers in the Congress and Senate.