Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’? Let’s ask Thomas Jefferson. . .

[ShootSpeeders]

The SCOTUS determines the Constitutionality of laws.

So they say. But where does the constitution say that?. Most people say the tenth amendment gives the states the power to decide the constitutionality of laws. THINK

 

[bodecea]

The SCOTUS determines the Constitutionality of laws.

So they say. But where does the constitution say that?. Most people say the tenth amendment gives the states the power to decide the constitutionality of laws. THINK

Well, you are certainly welcome to bring a lawsuit as to the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court determining the Constitutionality of laws. That will be fun to watch.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

so you tell me how a court case would be decided if the supreme court is not allowed to consider the constitutionality of a law

The courts should refuse to hear cases based on whether a law is constitutional or not. If the public wants a law repealed on constitutional grounds, they should petition the legislature. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Well, you are certainly welcome to bring a lawsuit as to the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court determining the Constitutionality of laws. That will be fun to watch.

That's not how it's done, peabrain. The states need to defy the SCOTUS when they, the scotus, repeal a law. They should point to the constitutional clause i quoted that says all legislative powers are vested in congress. THINK

 

[ScienceRocks]

Time to start dealing with reality now. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is or isn't constitutional. Just deal with it, the rest of us do.

That's what liberals always say. When someone asks why the courts are allowed to write laws when the constitution says only congress can, they say - that's just how we do things. HAHAHA. Liberals are so pathetic.

Judicial review is one of the powers of the supreme court. So yes they can rewrite the law based on their opinion of it.

 

[ogibillm]

so you tell me how a court case would be decided if the supreme court is not allowed to consider the constitutionality of a law

The courts should refuse to hear cases based on whether a law is constitutional or not. If the public wants a law repealed on constitutional grounds, they should petition the legislature. THINK

you can't be serious. if the constitution is the supreme law of the land why should the supreme court not be allowed to consider it in rendering a decision?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, you are certainly welcome to bring a lawsuit as to the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court determining the Constitutionality of laws. That will be fun to watch.

That's not how it's done, peabrain. The states need to defy the SCOTUS when they, the scotus, repeal a law. They should point to the constitutional clause i quoted that says all legislative powers are vested in congress. THINK

Wrong again.

When the Supreme Court invalidates a measure that measure has not been 'repealed'; the measure remains on the books but unenforceable.

 

[ogibillm]

Well, you are certainly welcome to bring a lawsuit as to the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court determining the Constitutionality of laws. That will be fun to watch.

That's not how it's done, peabrain. The states need to defy the SCOTUS when they, the scotus, repeal a law. They should point to the constitutional clause i quoted that says all legislative powers are vested in congress. THINK

judicial review is not a legislative power. THINK

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The SCOTUS determines the Constitutionality of laws.

So they say. But where does the constitution say that?. Most people say the tenth amendment gives the states the power to decide the constitutionality of laws. THINK

Most people are wrong about the 10th Amendment.

And the authority of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws can be found in Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

Indeed, the existence Founding Document codifies the doctrine of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts.

 

[WinterBorn]

[
Time to start dealing with reality now. The Supreme Court has the final say on what is or isn't constitutional. Just deal with it, the rest of us do.

HAHAHA. That's what liberals always say - "This is how we do things and that's that". Unfortunately for you the constitution says courts cannot write laws. Deal with that.

And, unfortunately for you, they did not write any law. They ruled that a law was unconstitutional. And that is their job.

This bullshit claim that they wrote law only appeals to the most ignorant.

 

[WinterBorn]

The SCOTUS can not write law. But they CAN rule on the constitutionality of laws. .

Which is the same as repealing a law and that is a legislative function. Judges cannot write or repeal laws. It's in the constitution. THINK

Bullshit! They can rule on whether a law is constitutional or not.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, they said that all anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional. Not the same thing.

They said all states must recognize queer marriage. That's a law, nitwit.

No, nitwit. They said that laws forbidding gay marriage were unconstitutional. That is plain judicial review, not writing laws.

 

[Harry Dresden]

why are you guys are arguing with one stupidest people in the forum?....THINK.....

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The SCOTUS can not write law. But they CAN rule on the constitutionality of laws. And that is what they did. They ruled that the laws forbidding same sex marriage were unconstitutional. Without those laws, same sex marriage is legal.

So how do states get away with denying drivers licences to blind people?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The SCOTUS can not write law. But they CAN rule on the constitutionality of laws. And that is what they did. They ruled that the laws forbidding same sex marriage were unconstitutional. Without those laws, same sex marriage is legal.

So how do states get away with denying drivers licences to blind people?

They can present a rational basis for discrimination, and therefore get the courts to declare it legal. In this case no rational basis could be found, so the anti-gay marriage laws got tossed

 

[WinterBorn]

The SCOTUS can not write law. But they CAN rule on the constitutionality of laws. And that is what they did. They ruled that the laws forbidding same sex marriage were unconstitutional. Without those laws, same sex marriage is legal.

So how do states get away with denying drivers licences to blind people?

Because there is a very good reason for denying blind people a license to operate a motor vehicle. Because the states have standards that must be met for public safety. Surely you are not seriously asking this question.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The SCOTUS can not write law. But they CAN rule on the constitutionality of laws. And that is what they did. They ruled that the laws forbidding same sex marriage were unconstitutional. Without those laws, same sex marriage is legal.

So how do states get away with denying drivers licences to blind people?

Denying a driver's license to a blind person is rationally based and pursues a proper legislative end – denying same-sex couples access to marriage law simply because they're gay is not rational, failing to pursue a proper legislative end.

There's also no Constitutional right to drive, there is a Constitutional right to marry.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The SCOTUS can not write law. But they CAN rule on the constitutionality of laws. And that is what they did. They ruled that the laws forbidding same sex marriage were unconstitutional. Without those laws, same sex marriage is legal.

So how do states get away with denying drivers licences to blind people?

They can present a rational basis for discrimination, and therefore get the courts to declare it legal. In this case no rational basis could be found, so the anti-gay marriage laws got tossed

The rational basis (procreation) was obfuscated and otherwise not presented at all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". Courts cannot write laws or repeal laws. In the kim davis case the court ordered all states to recognize queer marriage. That's a law obviously!!!

But the government isn't just legislative power. The legislative power is the power to MAKE laws. Not the power to INTERPRET the laws.

The courts have the power to interpret what Congress says. If Congress doesn't like it they can change the law. Simple as.

Congress can't interpret the constitution.It can only make laws. There are different powers and they are separate. Hence why they call it checks and balances.

To recognise gay marriage is not legislature, it's interpreting the constitution.

It's not hard.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The SCOTUS can not write law. But they CAN rule on the constitutionality of laws. And that is what they did. They ruled that the laws forbidding same sex marriage were unconstitutional. Without those laws, same sex marriage is legal.

So how do states get away with denying drivers licences to blind people?

Because there is a very good reason for denying blind people a license to operate a motor vehicle. Because the states have standards that must be met for public safety. Surely you are not seriously asking this question.

Very seriously and logically.