Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Point to the language authorizing Judicial Review. Otherwise, your opinion means nothing.
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."
.
How to replace Judial Review
2/3 2/3 3/4
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.
The Supremacy clause requires laws to be constitutional, and with that is the implied power of the federal government to enforce that. Since constitutinality determinations were an established function of the judiciary,
it is logical that the Supreme Court would hold that power under the US Constitution.
Bad decisions by the Supreme Court are tolerated because the stupid pop-culture media isn't paying attention.
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.
Nope. You can say that all you want. The Constitutional language does not exist.
The Supremacy Clause simply states that, in the event there is a conflict between state and federal law federal law will prevail.
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.
Nope. You can say that all you want. The Constitutional language does not exist.
How can the Bill of Rights meaningfully exist without a means of appeal in cases where one believes one's rights have been violated?
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.
The Supremacy clause requires laws to be constitutional, and with that is the implied power of the federal government to enforce that. Since constitutinality determinations were an established function of the judiciary,
it is logical that the Supreme Court would hold that power under the US Constitution.
If the Supremacy Clause requires laws to be constitutional can you explain why the court consistently said that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states until after a constitutional amendment was passed saying that it did?
Didn't think so.
While you are at it, give a list of all the laws that have been struck down because they violated the supremacy clause. It should be easy, unless you factor in that the Court actually ruled that the feds cannot force states to expand medicaid by cutting off all funding if they don't.
The Supremacy Clause simply states that, in the event there is a conflict between state and federal law federal law will prevail.
Partially correct.
With respect to federal laws, then, the Supremacy Clause gives "supreme" status only to those that are "made in Pursuance" of "[t]his Constitution." Ibid.; see
3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1831, p. 694 (1833
This structural limitation may be implicated in a pre-emption case if the federal law at issue is beyond the scope of Congress' enumerated powers. Expansion of congressional power through an "increasingly generous ... interpretation of the commerce power of Congress," for example, creates "a real risk that Congress will gradually erase the diffusion of power between State and Nation on which the Framers based their faith in the efficiency and vitality of our Republic." Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 583-584 (1985) (O'Connor, J., dissenting); see also Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803) ("The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written").
.
Point to the language authorizing Judicial Review. Otherwise, your opinion means nothing.
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."
.
So seriously, you don't know the difference between "judicial power" and "judicial review?" I expect that from the liberals, but not from you.
The Supremacy clause requires laws to be constitutional, and with that is the implied power of the federal government to enforce that. Since constitutinality determinations were an established function of the judiciary,
it is logical that the Supreme Court would hold that power under the US Constitution.
If the Supremacy Clause requires laws to be constitutional can you explain why the court consistently said that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states until after a constitutional amendment was passed saying that it did?
Didn't think so.
While you are at it, give a list of all the laws that have been struck down because they violated the supremacy clause. It should be easy, unless you factor in that the Court actually ruled that the feds cannot force states to expand medicaid by cutting off all funding if they don't.
I have no idea what you're trying to argue,
except to guess that you believe that the Constitution is an unenforceable document, and should be that way.
The Supremacy clause requires laws to be constitutional, and with that is the implied power of the federal government to enforce that. Since constitutinality determinations were an established function of the judiciary,
it is logical that the Supreme Court would hold that power under the US Constitution.
If the Supremacy Clause requires laws to be constitutional can you explain why the court consistently said that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states until after a constitutional amendment was passed saying that it did?
Didn't think so.
While you are at it, give a list of all the laws that have been struck down because they violated the supremacy clause. It should be easy, unless you factor in that the Court actually ruled that the feds cannot force states to expand medicaid by cutting off all funding if they don't.
I have no idea what you're trying to argue,
except to guess that you believe that the Constitution is an unenforceable document, and should be that way.
[ Find a single example anywhere of any court decision that cited the Supremacy Clause as justification for striking down a law that the court specifically said violates the constitution. All you have to do is provide one to prove that you are right.
Go for it, or go back to where I told you to learn how the government actually works and take my advice.
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.
Nope. You can say that all you want. The Constitutional language does not exist.
How can the Bill of Rights meaningfully exist without a means of appeal in cases where one believes one's rights have been violated?
Nope. You can say that all you want. The Constitutional language does not exist.
How can the Bill of Rights meaningfully exist without a means of appeal in cases where one believes one's rights have been violated?
The right of legal redress of grievances exists and is explicit in the Constitution. The right of Courts to invalidate law is not.
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."
.
So seriously, you don't know the difference between "judicial power" and "judicial review?" I expect that from the liberals, but not from you.
There is no distinction.
Founding Father Alexander Hamilton agreed that the purpose of Article III is to authorize judicial review.
However Judicial Review was defined as APPLYING THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN or AS INTENDED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.
.
