R congressman says SCOTUS doesn't decide what is Constitutional

[Derideo_Te]

I hold that Constitution as close to my heart as I do the Bible.

One for my soul, the other for my freedom.

Have fun with that. I hold the thoughts and ideals of my forefathers close to my heart however, I am also smart enough to realize times change and the peoples needs change. To adhere to a transcript that was meant to be altered anyways as some sort of faith based ideal is little more than a lesson in futility.

More than just futility, it is also unconstitutional.

 

[Nole]

Conservatives understand you're just not that smart.

wait. The same conservatives that spent 3 Trillion in Iraq, rebuilding a Muslim country? those same conservatives?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Accusations of ignorances coming from the one who says the Supreme Court determines Constitutionality rather than the Document itself.

The Constitution is incapable of making a determination because it is only a document. The SCOTUS is the arbiter of the Constitution. They make the decision as to whether or not something falls within the constraints of the Constitution based upon a majority consensus of justices.

How stupid are you? Is there no inherent meaning in the written word?

Words just mean what SCOTUs tells us they do?

Please.

The constraints of the Constitution are the actual written words in the Constitution.

 

[California Girl]

While we're talking dumb congress critters... Pop Quiz: Which CongressCritter recently claimed it's legal to hunt humans?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Before you rw's start saying its not true, take note that there's video. You can't pretend this idiot didn't say this. Get ready to see a whole hell of a lot of stupid -

GOP Congressman Says Supreme Court Doesn't Actually Get To Decide Whether Laws Are Constitutional | ThinkProgress

“Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional,” Bridenstine said in a Daily Caller interview posted Sunday. After accusing Democrats of “stacking the courts in their favor” — five of the current nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents — Bridenstine dismissed the idea that Congress must write laws within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court. “That’s not the case,” the Oklahoma congressman said.

Bridenstine should know better and its just stunning that he does not - but here's where he learned this -

RAND PAUL: The Supreme Court Doesn't Get To Decide What's Constitutional - Business Insider

“Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so," Paul said in the statement. "The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right."

“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare,” he continued.

Read more: RAND PAUL: The Supreme Court Doesn't Get To Decide What's Constitutional - Business Insider

We hear the above ignorance and nonsense from many republicans and conservatives all the time; indeed, right here on this very forum.

It’s really not that surprising or new.

And Rand Paul has already established himself as among the most ignorant of conservatives with regard to the Constitution and its case law, his complete lack of knowledge with regard to Commerce Clause jurisprudence is one of many glaring examples.

Conservatives must accept the fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as decided by the Supreme Court; and that case law becomes the law of the land.

One might be entitled to his own opinion as to what the Constitution means, but he is not entitled to his own facts.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Hmmmm

Perhaps you need to read this..

"Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decision"

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/048.pdf

The SCotUS has over-ruled previous decisions over 220 times in it's history.

Which proves the point of the op.

And, your idea that every American can decide what is Constitution is just plain silly.

 

[PaulS1950]

The constitution grants certain powers to the federal government. That is all the main document does.
You will not find anything in the constitution granting the supreme court the authority to make decisions of constitutionality.

The supreme court does not have any powers not granted to it by the constitution. Those powers are reserved by the tenth amendment to the states or the people - respectively.

Between the main document and the 10th amendment is a list of rights that are inalienable and thus untouchable by any governmental power or even by the people.

Study the constitution and you will find that anyone who believes differently is ignorant of the facts.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Now once the scotus says its law then its law.


UNTIL the SCOTUS overrules its self

...or until the judges are impeached.

Well yeah. And that happens .. how often?

If only the SCOTUS were the constitutional scholars all you rw's are.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Now once the scotus says its law then its law.


UNTIL the SCOTUS overrules its self

...or until the judges are impeached.

Well yeah. And that happens .. how often?

If only the SCOTUS were the constitutional scholars all you rw's are.

I looked that up for you ...

No SCOTUS as ever been successfully impeached.

But hey, tomorrow is another day.

did I mention that you're

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hmmmm

Perhaps you need to read this..

"Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decision"

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/048.pdf

The SCotUS has over-ruled previous decisions over 220 times in it's history.

SCOTUS holds the whip hand.

 

[Intense]

Before you rw's start saying its not true, take note that there's video. You can't pretend this idiot didn't say this. Get ready to see a whole hell of a lot of stupid -

GOP Congressman Says Supreme Court Doesn't Actually Get To Decide Whether Laws Are Constitutional | ThinkProgress

“Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional,” Bridenstine said in a Daily Caller interview posted Sunday. After accusing Democrats of “stacking the courts in their favor” — five of the current nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents — Bridenstine dismissed the idea that Congress must write laws within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court. “That’s not the case,” the Oklahoma congressman said.

Bridenstine should know better and its just stunning that he does not - but here's where he learned this -

RAND PAUL: The Supreme Court Doesn't Get To Decide What's Constitutional - Business Insider

“Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so," Paul said in the statement. "The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right."

“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare,” he continued.

Read more: RAND PAUL: The Supreme Court Doesn't Get To Decide What's Constitutional - Business Insider

Like the Court has never reversed itself? True, the Court does interpret, yet, even that has limits. When those limits are ignored, Decades of strife result.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Citizens United, very Constitutional! So the Supreme Court said so!

 

[NYcarbineer]

They don't. The Constitution does.

You're insane.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not being sarcastic snotty but I really do believe the right takes pride in being ignorant.

That's the only concept they can all agree on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not being sarcastic snotty but I really do believe the right takes pride in being ignorant. They hold their ignorance as close as their guns - like it keeps them warm at night.

Accusations of ignorances coming from the one who says the Supreme Court determines Constitutionality rather than the Document itself.

Why does the Supreme Court even conduct judicial review then, if all issues of constitutionality have already been determined by the document?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The constitution grants certain powers to the federal government. That is all the main document does.
You will not find anything in the constitution granting the supreme court the authority to make decisions of constitutionality.

The supreme court does not have any powers not granted to it by the constitution. Those powers are reserved by the tenth amendment to the states or the people - respectively.

Between the main document and the 10th amendment is a list of rights that are inalienable and thus untouchable by any governmental power or even by the people.

Study the constitution and you will find that anyone who believes differently is ignorant of the facts.

If that is true then you tell us how the Chicago law that banned handguns would have been voided as unconstitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The constitution grants certain powers to the federal government. That is all the main document does.
You will not find anything in the constitution granting the supreme court the authority to make decisions of constitutionality.

The supreme court does not have any powers not granted to it by the constitution. Those powers are reserved by the tenth amendment to the states or the people - respectively.

Between the main document and the 10th amendment is a list of rights that are inalienable and thus untouchable by any governmental power or even by the people.

Study the constitution and you will find that anyone who believes differently is ignorant of the facts.

The 10th amendment only says that states can have any powers that the Constitution doesn't prohibit them from having.

 

[regent]

They don't. The Constitution does.

The Supreme Court is the body that interprets the Constitution.

According to the Constitution, only their interpretation counts.

Not yours, or that Congressman's.

But where in the Constitution does it say the Court has this power? The Court took this power unto itself in the most famous court case, Marbury v. Madison.

 

[DiamondDave]

They don't. The Constitution does.

The Supreme Court is the body that interprets the Constitution.

According to the Constitution, only their interpretation counts.

Not yours, or that Congressman's.

But where in the Constitution does it say the Court has this power? The Court took this power unto itself in the most famous court case, Marbury v. Madison.

Bingo... an illegal power grab in the first place.. which has helped lead to more illegal power grabs throughout the government

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

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 Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Talk like this scares the hell out of the libs. Nowhere does the constitution say who has the power to interpret it so by the tenth amendment the power rests with the states or the people. It's time to end this idiotic policy of letting 9 unelected crooks have final say on everything.