How to replace Judial Review

[g5000]

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

OK, you morons are not going to Google anything you don't understand. I got I.

Speaking of being too much of an ignorant asshole to google:

https://www.google.com/search?q=jud...-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the power of judicial review had been exercised in a number of states. In the years from 1776 to 1787, state courts in at least seven of the thirteen states had engaged in judicial review and had invalidated state statutes because they violated the state constitution or other higher law.[5] These state courts treated state constitutions as statements of governing law to be interpreted and applied by judges. These courts reasoned that because their state constitution was the fundamental law of the state, they must apply the state constitution rather than an act of the legislature that was inconsistent with the state constitution.[6]

These state court cases involving judicial review were reported in the press and produced public discussion and comment.[7] At least seven of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Randolph, had personal experience with judicial review because they had been lawyers or judges in these state court cases involving judicial review.[8] Other delegates referred to some of these state court cases during the debates at the Constitutional Convention.[9] The concept of judicial review therefore was familiar to the framers and to the public before the Constitutional Convention.

Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because you can vote, your stupidity depresses me.

We were discussing the Federal government and Judicial Review for the US Constitution. No where did she say she either that she was changing the subject to State Courts or State Constitutions. If that was what she meant, that is what she should have said. It's still completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Wow.

Just...wow.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why should I?

 

[Nyvin]

What balance of power would there be on the legislative branch if not for judicial review?

The legislature could override a presidential veto, and they could proclaim their own laws constitutional.

One of the primary motives to creating the federal system was a valid balance of powers, if the judicial branch doesn't have a check on the legislature then there really isn't one. A presidential veto is not enough.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Revoking the 17th won't work.

Article III bedrocks the foundation of judicial review.

The Constitution would have to be amended.

Wrong...the Constitution would have to be amended to allow for Judicial Review as the Court gave itself that power in Marbury v Madison and that power has never been explicitly authorized in the Constitution or by We the People.

 

[WelfareQueen]

What balance of power would there be on the legislative branch if not for judicial review?

The legislature could override a presidential veto, and they could proclaim their own laws constitutional.

One of the primary motives to creating the federal system was a valid balance of powers, if the judicial branch doesn't have a check on the legislature then there really isn't one. A presidential veto is not enough.

All three Branches have a co-equal responsibility to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility has never rested solely with the Judicial Branch nor should it. The answer to your question above is very simple.

There are three Constitutional remedies for bad law.


1. Presidential Veto which requires a 2/3 override by both the House and Senate. This is a very high bar to climb.

2. Legislative action to repeal or amend bad law.

3. We the People can vote the bastards out that made the bad law.


There is no provision or authority granted to the Courts to repeal or nullify existing law under the Constitution. The Court may point out perceived conflict with existing law and the Constitution...but the Court has no authority to repeal or nullify any law. Period. Article III has zero language referencing Judicial Review.

 

[WelfareQueen]

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.

The Court has every right to point out conflict with a State's law and the Constitution. The Court has zero authority to repeal or nullify the law. There is the difference. The Constitution is very clear in enumerated powers that only Congress may pass, repeal, or amend law. The Courts has no such authority. They never have.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Again, incorrect. And again, see post #88.

The doctrine of judicial review existed before the Constitution and the advent of the Foundation Era, where it as practiced in Colonial courts for well over a century – and the Framers fully expected that practice to continue in the Republic.

In Marbury Marshall only acknowledged and reaffirmed the doctrine of judicial review; Marshall neither ‘went beyond’ the Constitution nor did he ‘take’ any power. The Court couldn’t ‘take’ the authority of judicial review it already possessed as a consequence of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The Court has every right to point out conflict with a State's law and the Constitution. The Court has zero authority to repeal or nullify the law. There is the difference. The Constitution is very clear in enumerated powers that only Congress may pass, repeal, or amend law. The Courts has no such authority. They never have.

No one ever said it did.

But the Federal courts do have the authority to invalidate laws determined to be un-Constitutional and render them unenforceable.

 

[SwimExpert]

Wrong...the Constitution would have to be amended to allow for Judicial Review as the Court gave itself that power in Marbury v Madison and that power has never been explicitly authorized in the Constitution or by We the People.

What part of judicial power do you not understand?

 

[SwimExpert]

The Court has every right to point out conflict with a State's law and the Constitution. The Court has zero authority to repeal or nullify the law. There is the difference. The Constitution is very clear in enumerated powers that only Congress may pass, repeal, or amend law. The Courts has no such authority. They never have.

The courts don't repeal unconstitutional laws. An unconstitutional law is void. When a law is found unconstitutional, the court will not apply it. Your idea would have the court apply an unconstitutional law at the same time as seeing it as unconstitutional. The courts would be regularly saying "Yes, this law violates your 1st amendment rights, however you are still guilty of violating the law and are therefore sentenced life in prison."

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The Court has every right to point out conflict with a State's law and the Constitution. The Court has zero authority to repeal or nullify the law. There is the difference. The Constitution is very clear in enumerated powers that only Congress may pass, repeal, or amend law. The Courts has no such authority. They never have.

That is wrong. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.

If the Court can't strike down an unconstitutional state or federal law, then the Constitution is unenforceable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Why should I?

To demonstrate that you actually had a substantive argument to support your attack on my post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What balance of power would there be on the legislative branch if not for judicial review?

The legislature could override a presidential veto, and they could proclaim their own laws constitutional.

One of the primary motives to creating the federal system was a valid balance of powers, if the judicial branch doesn't have a check on the legislature then there really isn't one. A presidential veto is not enough.

All three Branches have a co-equal responsibility to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility has never rested solely with the Judicial Branch nor should it. The answer to your question above is very simple.

There are three Constitutional remedies for bad law.


1. Presidential Veto which requires a 2/3 override by both the House and Senate. This is a very high bar to climb.

2. Legislative action to repeal or amend bad law.

3. We the People can vote the bastards out that made the bad law.


There is no provision or authority granted to the Courts to repeal or nullify existing law under the Constitution. The Court may point out perceived conflict with existing law and the Constitution...but the Court has no authority to repeal or nullify any law. Period. Article III has zero language referencing Judicial Review.

lol, so your belief is that the power to decide whether or not a law is constitutional rests in the hands of the people who passed the law.

jeezus, what next?

 

[kaz]

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.

The Court has every right to point out conflict with a State's law and the Constitution. The Court has zero authority to repeal or nullify the law. There is the difference. The Constitution is very clear in enumerated powers that only Congress may pass, repeal, or amend law. The Courts has no such authority. They never have.

They have no legitimate power to do that, yet they do it all the time. And they don't enforce Constitutional limits, particularly the 1st (so called campaign finance reform), 2nd, 4th (war on drugs, war on terror, IRS), 5th (property taken for public use), 9th and 10th amendments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Revoking the 17th won't work.

Article III bedrocks the foundation of judicial review.

The Constitution would have to be amended.

Wrong...the Constitution would have to be amended to allow for Judicial Review as the Court gave itself that power in Marbury v Madison and that power has never been explicitly authorized in the Constitution or by We the People.

Your opinion is erroneous, of course. We the People approved the Constitution with Article III. Judicial Review is inherent in the document. No amendment is required at all.

Argue all you want, but it means nothing.

 

[Darkwind]

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

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

No, I am not incorrect. Precedence in other countries is not a valid argument to count the fact that the SCOTUS did not start out with the power to review legislation for Constitutional merits. That was decided in Marbury v. Madison. Sorry, but you simply cannot get away from the fact that prior to that ruling, no such authority was established by the Constitution.

With regards to your other post, a Congress that knowingly passes legislation that will not muster the Constitutional test is a sign of corruption. The ACA had to be so narrowly defined that it proved the corruption of the Congress, and is also where I base My opinion on the lack of Constitutional legitimacy of the law.

Many people don' know it, but the SCOTUS can't actually invalidate a law. They rule it un Constitutional and kick it back to the Congress. The Congress then has the right and ability to modify the law once again vote on it.

But that is a deeper subject than is expected of this thread.

 

[kaz]

Revoking the 17th won't work.

Article III bedrocks the foundation of judicial review.

The Constitution would have to be amended.

Wrong...the Constitution would have to be amended to allow for Judicial Review as the Court gave itself that power in Marbury v Madison and that power has never been explicitly authorized in the Constitution or by We the People.

Your opinion is erroneous, of course. We the People approved the Constitution with Article III. Judicial Review is inherent in the document. No amendment is required at all.

Argue all you want, but it means nothing.

So you finally stopped saying it's in Article III and you're saying it's "inherent."

How is it inherent that the courts can change and overturn laws when there is no Constitutional basis for them to do that? It's specifically the purview of the legislative branch to do that.

 

[Darkwind]

The Court has every right to point out conflict with a State's law and the Constitution. The Court has zero authority to repeal or nullify the law. There is the difference. The Constitution is very clear in enumerated powers that only Congress may pass, repeal, or amend law. The Courts has no such authority. They never have.

The courts don't repeal unconstitutional laws. An unconstitutional law is void. When a law is found unconstitutional, the court will not apply it. Your idea would have the court apply an unconstitutional law at the same time as seeing it as unconstitutional. The courts would be regularly saying "Yes, this law violates your 1st amendment rights, however you are still guilty of violating the law and are therefore sentenced life in prison."

Actually, the courts cannot invalidate a law...they can only return it to the Congress for alteration to remove the parts that violate the Constitution. Often times, the Congress won't bother and that is why people think that the SCOTUS ruling is the final word on a law, when in fact, it is not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wrong...the Constitution would have to be amended to allow for Judicial Review as the Court gave itself that power in Marbury v Madison and that power has never been explicitly authorized in the Constitution or by We the People.

Your opinion is erroneous, of course. We the People approved the Constitution with Article III. Judicial Review is inherent in the document. No amendment is required at all.

Argue all you want, but it means nothing.

So you finally stopped saying it's in Article III and you're saying it's "inherent."

How is it inherent that the courts can change and overturn laws when there is no Constitutional basis for them to do that? It's specifically the purview of the legislative branch to do that.

You are saying that. I am saying that is in Article III. Article III's grant of original jurisdiction on all matters constitutional (have you read the document) empowers the Court.

Your opinions mean nothing, but keep trying.

 

[kaz]

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

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

No, I am not incorrect. Precedence in other countries is not a valid argument to count the fact that the SCOTUS did not start out with the power to review legislation for Constitutional merits. That was decided in Marbury v. Madison. Sorry, but you simply cannot get away from the fact that prior to that ruling, no such authority was established by the Constitution.

With regards to your other post, a Congress that knowingly passes legislation that will not muster the Constitutional test is a sign of corruption. The ACA had to be so narrowly defined that it proved the corruption of the Congress, and is also where I base My opinion on the lack of Constitutional legitimacy of the law.

Many people don' know it, but the SCOTUS can't actually invalidate a law. They rule it un Constitutional and kick it back to the Congress. The Congress then has the right and ability to modify the law once again vote on it.

But that is a deeper subject than is expected of this thread.

The Constitution doesn't actually say that, it's only the judiciary's job to interpret the law as it was passed by the legislative branch, it doesn't say they have the power to own interpreting the Constitutional basis for the law. But it's not unreasonable that in their rulings they would question the Constitutionality of a law.