R congressman says SCOTUS doesn't decide what is Constitutional

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There is the problem, if you think that the proper way to alter the Constitution is to argue that times have changed you are, effectively, ignoring that the Constitution is actually designed to be changed. It is a lot better to go through the Amendment process and actually change the Constitution than it is to look like you are ignoring it. Currently, the government prefers ignoring it to changing it.

Then you agree that the Constitution is a living document? You disagree with Scalia (and of course, Thomas, who is Scalia's parrot)?

I agree it can be Amended.

Feel free to point anyplace I ever said that Scalia is always right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which proves the point of the op.

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

Can you show me anything in the Constitution that prohibits me from determining what the Constitution says?

By the way, the Supreme Court actually ruled that people have the right to challenge whether or not a law is constitutional, and that ruling was unanimous. In other words, a woman decided a law was unconstitutional all by herself, took it to court, and won.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

Nope. There's also nothing in the Constitution that says your opinion is worth a shit - the polar opposite of SCOTUS.

Then you agree with me, and disagree with Luddly.

Good to know.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

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

Funny, I seem to remember you whinging about the Supreme court getting it wrong on Citizen's United and how that, even though they said it was constitutional corporations to run ads, they were wrong. did you change your mind about that?

Hey dope - he argued that SCOTUS got it wrong. He didn't argue that SCOTUS didn't have the authority to rule on it definitively.


I swear you get dumber ever day.

That's correct and thanks for saying it.

Weird that all rw's are also Constitutional scholars.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Fact, the Constitution does not exist only in the context of case law, case law exists only in the context of the Constitution. Until you get that right you are not going to be able to effectively discuss either the Constitution or the law.

Another fact is case law no longer exists. The principle of stare decisis was tossed out the window by the scotus in bush v gore 2000.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

so who decides the constitutionality of a law if not the courts?

According to the 10th amendment the states determine the constitutionality of a federal law. We could let state courts or state legislatures do it. When america was founded the states were ABOVE the federal govt.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

You must agree after all I know of 5 rulings at least from the Supreme Court that says Military type weapons are what is protected by the 2nd Amendment and you claim they can be banned.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Judicial review was a practice that predated the Constitution; the founders were quite familiar with it.

Maybe you will answer the question nobody else will:

If the Supreme Court should not have the power to review constitutional challenges to state laws, and rule on them based on the SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution,

how would the Chicago ban on handguns have been overturned as unconstitutional??

Why doesn't anyone want to answer the above question?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We need to also stop the SCOTUS from LEGISLATING like they did in roe v wade and plyler v doe (giving illegals free k-12).

The constitution says all legislative power is vested in congress.

Roe v Wade overturned a state law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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.

Both of the above are incorrect, as is anyone in agreement.

The doctrine of judicial review authorizes the courts to review laws to determine their constitutionality. The Framers fully intended and expected the courts to interpret the Constitution in the context of this doctrine:

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

 

[ShootSpeeders]

We need to also stop the SCOTUS from LEGISLATING like they did in roe v wade and plyler v doe (giving illegals free k-12).

The constitution says all legislative power is vested in congress.

Roe v Wade overturned a state law.

So? What's your point. ? The scotus had no authority to

1. overturn a state law

2. replace it with a law written by a court!!!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

You must agree after all I know of 5 rulings at least from the Supreme Court that says Military type weapons are what is protected by the 2nd Amendment and you claim they can be banned.

Don't use the word "rulings". Scotus decides cases strictly by which side pays them the most money. They take bribes every time just like congress and obozo do.