Should Supreme Court Decisions Be Ignored???

[PoliticalChic]

The commie states have been ignoring the Heller case big time.

I am far more concerned about what the Left, through the courts, has done to morality, attitudes, and values in America.


“Americans live under an ever-growing administrative state, in which distant bureaucrats centralize legislative, executive, and judicial power. States and localities are increasingly overpowered by a growing federal government that transgresses the Constitution’s original limits. The Constitution, we’re told by the progressive-minded, is a “living, breathing” document that allows for such updating in the modern age. On the other side, originalists and textualists argue that the Constitution’s meaning is stable, that its words retain the meaning they possessed when they were written.

“A constitution that is viewed as only what the judges say it is no longer is a constitution in the true sense,” said attorney general Edwin Meese in a landmark 1985 speech to the American Bar Association. Words have meaning, Meese said, and judges can discern those meanings. Judges will always have predispositions, but this can’t mean that anything goes. The Reagan administration in which he served, Meese promised, would “endeavor to resurrect the original meaning of the constitutional provisions and statutes as the only reliable guide for judgment.”


…originalists emphasized the “original public meaning” of a constitutional provision that those who ratified the Constitution would have understood it to have.”
The Case for Originalism

 

[Dick Foster]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

SCOTUS has run amok since John Marshall and none of the assholes in the administrative or legislative branches since has had balls enough to do anything about it. What they can and should have done a long time ago is to impeach and remove from the bench justices who stay beyond their constitutional bounds. Interpret doesn't mean rewrite or nullify nor does it mean to stretch to cover what it was clearly never meant to cover.
It means to read and apply what was put there by the legislature and agreed to by the administration. That is the one and the only purpose of SCOTUS under the constitution which they are bound to and bound by.

 

[Kilroy2]

You seem to have misinterpreted that one as he does not makes a strong to your position as his meaning is pretty deep but I will give you a hint

Understand what judicial activism is will put it in more prospective for you and it does not support you opinion that court is overstepping their authority


Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.



Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country."

Ideally The courts are there to reign in the Congress and the President when they step on constitutional issues and rights of government, people etc.

with all the partisan hacking gone on it is up to the Supreme Court to not have political bias but to rise above it but it is hard for some of them.

that why I really would like to see a more balanced court with equal number of both democrats and republicans and the Chief justice and be either one but is the ultimate arbitrator of fairness and should be the least partisan



The Supreme court is a part of the government

Article III of the Constitution identifies the third branch of our separated government, empowering the courts to decide cases and limiting them to the exercise of a certain kind of authority.

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

Can it be interrupted in different way , yeah if you are deeply partisian

Laws that are struck down by the court can be rewritten to where it becomes acceptable to the court

Balance of power

catch it and understand it

In the my opinion the Constitution is a legal document between the people and the government

Can you keep all the people happy

NO

English is not my first language....but it appears that you don't have even a first one.


Rehnquist clearly says....CLEARLY SAYS....that judges have no business engaging in judicial activism, and that any of their decisions not based on the language of the Constitution, are bogus.



The Supreme Court itself, as it stands today, is unconstitutional.

Marshall worked tirelessly to expand the power of the federal government.
The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789




“The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III. “
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman

Rehnquist clearly says....CLEARLY SAYS....that judges have no business engaging in judicial activism, and that any of their decisions not based on the language of the Constitution, are bogus.

Just because you can speak English, does not mean you can understand English

You quote the 11 amendment well for a person who is never wrong you got this one wrong

Claim that this supports you position but it doesn't

(The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789)

This basically means that a foreign state cannot bring a suite in law before the court as a foreign state is another country and it is pretty clear what they mean.

but your boy Rehnquist did not like that interpretation and took it one step further and wanted to get involved in suits with citizens within a US state

Your boy tried to limit the federal government and even got involved in State squabbles

Rehnquist tried to weave his view of the 14th amendment into his opinion for Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, but it was rejected by the other justices.

He voted against the expansion of school desegregation plans

Still his federalism doctrine was more focused on limited the federal government and resolving individual issues within the states in America.

So in reality he was all for making decisions that involved the federal government and state government

Thus the problem with judicial activism it can mean different things to different people

when it suits repubs they are all for it but when it goes against them then they complain

well he was a good repub and he was against Roe VS Wade

There is only one "law of the land."

And you don't know what that is.


It isn't caselaw, nor the Supreme Court decisions.

The constitution and the laws of the US, treaties made by the US are the supreme law of the land well that what the constitution says

Yet the Court has held that any law that Congress makes that is contrary to the Constitution should not stand. the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

So any law that Congress makes that is not meet the standards of the Constitution can be go thru "Judicial Review"

Doesn't Change anything as your boy Rehnquist had no problem doing this

You should read his opinions if you are that enamored with him''

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

. Marshall worked tirelessly to expand the power of the federal government.
The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789




“The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III. “
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman

In the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia Marshall decided that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.
Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.
The villain knew better.



This was similar to a recent President announcing that “ I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” and this meant that he, as Marshall did, could ignore the restrictions of the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Marshall authorized ‘judicial review, and “made it a reality in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 by invalidating an insignificant provision of a federal statute in an otherwise insignificant case.

Marshall read a sentence of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, as adding to the original jurisdiction granted the Court by the Constitution, although the sentence does not even mention original jurisdiction.

Judicial review was born in sin and has rarely risen above the circumstances of its birth.”
Professor Lino Graglia,
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf

Judicial review was established over 200 years ago and whether repub or demo the supreme court has made rulings

Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand.

That is the way it was been and established.Those who disagree can disagree but it changes nothing

You can harp, dance or sing but it changes nothing. Even the judges on the supreme court disagree in case matters but in the end the majority ruling wins

You agree with some ruling but disagree with others and in the end you can't have it both ways.

Still Congress and the states retain some power to influence what cases come before the Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court seeks to avoid reviewing the Constitutionality of an act where the case before it could be decided on other grounds, an attitude and practice exemplifying judicial restraint .
l
Now if you want to be the minority then fine but you lose in the issue of judicial review because its not going away even with repubs siting on the court

So they have made decisions on constitutional grounds either to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down and it is established precedent

The Supreme court is a branch of government and they make ruling in court cases.
It does not take this lightly

Yes it is an implied power but the President uses implied powers

executive agreements which are not a treaty that would required congressional vote

Executive orders which is a way to circumvent the whole system

War powers

 

[PoliticalChic]

English is not my first language....but it appears that you don't have even a first one.


Rehnquist clearly says....CLEARLY SAYS....that judges have no business engaging in judicial activism, and that any of their decisions not based on the language of the Constitution, are bogus.



The Supreme Court itself, as it stands today, is unconstitutional.

Marshall worked tirelessly to expand the power of the federal government.
The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789




“The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III. “
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman

Rehnquist clearly says....CLEARLY SAYS....that judges have no business engaging in judicial activism, and that any of their decisions not based on the language of the Constitution, are bogus.

Just because you can speak English, does not mean you can understand English

You quote the 11 amendment well for a person who is never wrong you got this one wrong

Claim that this supports you position but it doesn't

(The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789)

This basically means that a foreign state cannot bring a suite in law before the court as a foreign state is another country and it is pretty clear what they mean.

but your boy Rehnquist did not like that interpretation and took it one step further and wanted to get involved in suits with citizens within a US state

Your boy tried to limit the federal government and even got involved in State squabbles

Rehnquist tried to weave his view of the 14th amendment into his opinion for Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, but it was rejected by the other justices.

He voted against the expansion of school desegregation plans

Still his federalism doctrine was more focused on limited the federal government and resolving individual issues within the states in America.

So in reality he was all for making decisions that involved the federal government and state government

Thus the problem with judicial activism it can mean different things to different people

when it suits repubs they are all for it but when it goes against them then they complain

well he was a good repub and he was against Roe VS Wade

There is only one "law of the land."

And you don't know what that is.


It isn't caselaw, nor the Supreme Court decisions.

The constitution and the laws of the US, treaties made by the US are the supreme law of the land well that what the constitution says

Yet the Court has held that any law that Congress makes that is contrary to the Constitution should not stand. the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

So any law that Congress makes that is not meet the standards of the Constitution can be go thru "Judicial Review"

Doesn't Change anything as your boy Rehnquist had no problem doing this

You should read his opinions if you are that enamored with him''

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

. Marshall worked tirelessly to expand the power of the federal government.
The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789




“The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III. “
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman

In the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia Marshall decided that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.
Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.
The villain knew better.



This was similar to a recent President announcing that “ I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” and this meant that he, as Marshall did, could ignore the restrictions of the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Marshall authorized ‘judicial review, and “made it a reality in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 by invalidating an insignificant provision of a federal statute in an otherwise insignificant case.

Marshall read a sentence of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, as adding to the original jurisdiction granted the Court by the Constitution, although the sentence does not even mention original jurisdiction.

Judicial review was born in sin and has rarely risen above the circumstances of its birth.”
Professor Lino Graglia,
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf

Judicial review was established over 200 years ago and whether repub or demo the supreme court has made rulings

Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand.

That is the way it was been and established.Those who disagree can disagree but it changes nothing

You can harp, dance or sing but it changes nothing. Even the judges on the supreme court disagree in case matters but in the end the majority ruling wins

You agree with some ruling but disagree with others and in the end you can't have it both ways.

Still Congress and the states retain some power to influence what cases come before the Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court seeks to avoid reviewing the Constitutionality of an act where the case before it could be decided on other grounds, an attitude and practice exemplifying judicial restraint .
l
Now if you want to be the minority then fine but you lose in the issue of judicial review because its not going away even with repubs siting on the court

So they have made decisions on constitutional grounds either to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down and it is established precedent

The Supreme court is a branch of government and they make ruling in court cases.
It does not take this lightly

Yes it is an implied power but the President uses implied powers

executive agreements which are not a treaty that would required congressional vote

Executive orders which is a way to circumvent the whole system

War powers

"Judicial review was established over 200 years ago and whether repub or demo the supreme court has made rulings"


Well, then....you should be able to quote said authority from the law of the land, the Constitution,

 

[regent]

Rehnquist clearly says....CLEARLY SAYS....that judges have no business engaging in judicial activism, and that any of their decisions not based on the language of the Constitution, are bogus.

Just because you can speak English, does not mean you can understand English

You quote the 11 amendment well for a person who is never wrong you got this one wrong

Claim that this supports you position but it doesn't

(The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789)

This basically means that a foreign state cannot bring a suite in law before the court as a foreign state is another country and it is pretty clear what they mean.

but your boy Rehnquist did not like that interpretation and took it one step further and wanted to get involved in suits with citizens within a US state

Your boy tried to limit the federal government and even got involved in State squabbles

Rehnquist tried to weave his view of the 14th amendment into his opinion for Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, but it was rejected by the other justices.

He voted against the expansion of school desegregation plans

Still his federalism doctrine was more focused on limited the federal government and resolving individual issues within the states in America.

So in reality he was all for making decisions that involved the federal government and state government

Thus the problem with judicial activism it can mean different things to different people

when it suits repubs they are all for it but when it goes against them then they complain

well he was a good repub and he was against Roe VS Wade

There is only one "law of the land."

And you don't know what that is.


It isn't caselaw, nor the Supreme Court decisions.

The constitution and the laws of the US, treaties made by the US are the supreme law of the land well that what the constitution says

Yet the Court has held that any law that Congress makes that is contrary to the Constitution should not stand. the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

So any law that Congress makes that is not meet the standards of the Constitution can be go thru "Judicial Review"

Doesn't Change anything as your boy Rehnquist had no problem doing this

You should read his opinions if you are that enamored with him''

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

. Marshall worked tirelessly to expand the power of the federal government.
The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789




“The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III. “
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman

In the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia Marshall decided that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.
Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.
The villain knew better.



This was similar to a recent President announcing that “ I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” and this meant that he, as Marshall did, could ignore the restrictions of the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Marshall authorized ‘judicial review, and “made it a reality in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 by invalidating an insignificant provision of a federal statute in an otherwise insignificant case.

Marshall read a sentence of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, as adding to the original jurisdiction granted the Court by the Constitution, although the sentence does not even mention original jurisdiction.

Judicial review was born in sin and has rarely risen above the circumstances of its birth.”
Professor Lino Graglia,
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf

Judicial review was established over 200 years ago and whether repub or demo the supreme court has made rulings

Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand.

That is the way it was been and established.Those who disagree can disagree but it changes nothing

You can harp, dance or sing but it changes nothing. Even the judges on the supreme court disagree in case matters but in the end the majority ruling wins

You agree with some ruling but disagree with others and in the end you can't have it both ways.

Still Congress and the states retain some power to influence what cases come before the Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court seeks to avoid reviewing the Constitutionality of an act where the case before it could be decided on other grounds, an attitude and practice exemplifying judicial restraint .
l
Now if you want to be the minority then fine but you lose in the issue of judicial review because its not going away even with repubs siting on the court

So they have made decisions on constitutional grounds either to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down and it is established precedent

The Supreme court is a branch of government and they make ruling in court cases.
It does not take this lightly

Yes it is an implied power but the President uses implied powers

executive agreements which are not a treaty that would required congressional vote

Executive orders which is a way to circumvent the whole system

War powers

"Judicial review was established over 200 years ago and whether repub or demo the supreme court has made rulings"


Well, then....you should be able to quote said authority from the law of the land, the Constitution,

It was the conservative party of that time that enabled Judicial Review, just as they had objected to the Bill of Rights.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is only one "law of the land."

And you don't know what that is.


It isn't caselaw, nor the Supreme Court decisions.

The constitution and the laws of the US, treaties made by the US are the supreme law of the land well that what the constitution says

Yet the Court has held that any law that Congress makes that is contrary to the Constitution should not stand. the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

So any law that Congress makes that is not meet the standards of the Constitution can be go thru "Judicial Review"

Doesn't Change anything as your boy Rehnquist had no problem doing this

You should read his opinions if you are that enamored with him''

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

. Marshall worked tirelessly to expand the power of the federal government.
The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789




“The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III. “
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman

In the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia Marshall decided that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.
Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.
The villain knew better.



This was similar to a recent President announcing that “ I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” and this meant that he, as Marshall did, could ignore the restrictions of the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Marshall authorized ‘judicial review, and “made it a reality in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 by invalidating an insignificant provision of a federal statute in an otherwise insignificant case.

Marshall read a sentence of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, as adding to the original jurisdiction granted the Court by the Constitution, although the sentence does not even mention original jurisdiction.

Judicial review was born in sin and has rarely risen above the circumstances of its birth.”
Professor Lino Graglia,
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf

Judicial review was established over 200 years ago and whether repub or demo the supreme court has made rulings

Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand.

That is the way it was been and established.Those who disagree can disagree but it changes nothing

You can harp, dance or sing but it changes nothing. Even the judges on the supreme court disagree in case matters but in the end the majority ruling wins

You agree with some ruling but disagree with others and in the end you can't have it both ways.

Still Congress and the states retain some power to influence what cases come before the Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court seeks to avoid reviewing the Constitutionality of an act where the case before it could be decided on other grounds, an attitude and practice exemplifying judicial restraint .
l
Now if you want to be the minority then fine but you lose in the issue of judicial review because its not going away even with repubs siting on the court

So they have made decisions on constitutional grounds either to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down and it is established precedent

The Supreme court is a branch of government and they make ruling in court cases.
It does not take this lightly

Yes it is an implied power but the President uses implied powers

executive agreements which are not a treaty that would required congressional vote

Executive orders which is a way to circumvent the whole system

War powers

"Judicial review was established over 200 years ago and whether repub or demo the supreme court has made rulings"


Well, then....you should be able to quote said authority from the law of the land, the Constitution,

It was the conservative party of that time that enabled Judicial Review, just as they had objected to the Bill of Rights.

"...enabled Judicial Review,....."


Soooo......where is that authorized in the Constitution????


It isn't????

You just made it up because it supports the neo-Fascist who you idolize, Franklin Roosevelt.

This guy:

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation.

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[Kilroy2]

Oh Annie

you head must be in a spin but I will keep it simple

explain executive orders and executive privileged and why the president can use it

because its an implied power

obvious everything that Congress, President, and Judicial do is not spelled out in the Constitution and yes some things are but not everything

Implied powers for Congress comes from the ability to pass any laws considered necessary and proper

sounds pretty vague so who is determine what is necessary and proper

Its just the basis where they can use implied powers to run the government

The banking industry, the constitution does not mention it but where is the US going to keep all that tax money. So Congress make banking laws

The constitution is vague in a lot of areas and thus this vagueness created disagreements as some say this and the others say that

yet all government branches use implied power because everything is not listed in the Constitution

Checks and balances should keep each branch in it's lane

everything is not listed in the constitution and things that are are an example of expressed power

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh Annie

you head must be in a spin but I will keep it simple

explain executive orders and executive privileged and why the president can use it

because its an implied power

obvious everything that Congress, President, and Judicial do is not spelled out in the Constitution and yes some things are but not everything

Implied powers for Congress comes from the ability to pass any laws considered necessary and proper

sounds pretty vague so who is determine what is necessary and proper

Its just the basis where they can use implied powers to run the government

The banking industry, the constitution does not mention it but where is the US going to keep all that tax money. So Congress make banking laws

The constitution is vague in a lot of areas and thus this vagueness created disagreements as some say this and the others say that

yet all government branches use implied power because everything is not listed in the Constitution

Checks and balances should keep each branch in it's lane

everything is not listed in the constitution and things that are are an example of expressed power

h


".... implied power..."


What a bogus attempt to hide the fact that you've admitted that no such power is authorized by the Constitution.


I win again, huh?

 

[Kilroy2]

Oh Annie

you head must be in a spin but I will keep it simple

explain executive orders and executive privileged and why the president can use it

because its an implied power

obvious everything that Congress, President, and Judicial do is not spelled out in the Constitution and yes some things are but not everything

Implied powers for Congress comes from the ability to pass any laws considered necessary and proper

sounds pretty vague so who is determine what is necessary and proper

Its just the basis where they can use implied powers to run the government

The banking industry, the constitution does not mention it but where is the US going to keep all that tax money. So Congress make banking laws

The constitution is vague in a lot of areas and thus this vagueness created disagreements as some say this and the others say that

yet all government branches use implied power because everything is not listed in the Constitution

Checks and balances should keep each branch in it's lane

everything is not listed in the constitution and things that are are an example of expressed power

h


".... implied power..."


What a bogus attempt to hide the fact that you've admitted that no such power is authorized by the Constitution.


I win again, huh?

Well you just implied that you won without an ounce of evidence

The supreme court does judicial reviews yet you say they can't

Is the court just ignoring you

they do it because under the concept of implied power they can just like Trump and the Congress whom also use implied power

But I guess it does make sense to deny implied power as it blows a big hole in your argument

implied power is not a free for all but some may try and use it that way but that why you have the concept of balance of power

The court can strike down a law but all the congress have to do is rewrite it and avoid what cause it to be a thumbs down from the court

boom goes the
dynamite

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution.

Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)
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.

Section 2
1: 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;10 —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.

2: 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 appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: 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
1: 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.

2: 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.

and

[Article XI] (Amendment 11 - Suits Against States)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Both of these make it clear that in all Cases of law dealing with the Federal Government that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. ALL cases. Any case dealing with Federal law is heard in the Federal Courts under article 3 of the US Constitution. That meas that any time someone disagrees with federal law they have to take it to Federal Court and that said Federal Court RULES on the legal issues involved.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh Annie

you head must be in a spin but I will keep it simple

explain executive orders and executive privileged and why the president can use it

because its an implied power

obvious everything that Congress, President, and Judicial do is not spelled out in the Constitution and yes some things are but not everything

Implied powers for Congress comes from the ability to pass any laws considered necessary and proper

sounds pretty vague so who is determine what is necessary and proper

Its just the basis where they can use implied powers to run the government

The banking industry, the constitution does not mention it but where is the US going to keep all that tax money. So Congress make banking laws

The constitution is vague in a lot of areas and thus this vagueness created disagreements as some say this and the others say that

yet all government branches use implied power because everything is not listed in the Constitution

Checks and balances should keep each branch in it's lane

everything is not listed in the constitution and things that are are an example of expressed power

h


".... implied power..."


What a bogus attempt to hide the fact that you've admitted that no such power is authorized by the Constitution.


I win again, huh?

Well you just implied that you won without an ounce of evidence

The supreme court does judicial reviews yet you say they can't

Is the court just ignoring you

they do it because under the concept of implied power they can just like Trump and the Congress whom also use implied power

But I guess it does make sense to deny implied power as it blows a big hole in your argument

implied power is not a free for all but some may try and use it that way but that why you have the concept of balance of power

The court can strike down a law but all the congress have to do is rewrite it and avoid what cause it to be a thumbs down from the court

boom goes the
dynamite

Of course I won.

You've admitted that there is no such authorization in the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution.

Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)
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.

Section 2
1: 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;10 —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.

2: 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 appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: 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
1: 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.

2: 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.

and





[Article XI] (Amendment 11 - Suits Against States)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Both of these make it clear that in all Cases of law dealing with the Federal Government that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. ALL cases. Any case dealing with Federal law is heard in the Federal Courts under article 3 of the US Constitution. That meas that any time someone disagrees with federal law they have to take it to Federal Court and that said Federal Court RULES on the legal issues involved.

Glad you're back.

The essence of this thread is my contention that there is no constitutional authorization for the Supreme Court to judge any subjects or issues pertaining to values, morality, social issues.


And you included the 11th amendment which proves my contention. The areas and issued reserved for this court are few and enumerated therein.

To understand what the Founders had in mind, you must understand the federalism that is central to our nation's creation.


In order to understand what the Court has stolen, one must be historically astute, must have studied the basis on which our nation was created: Federalism.

Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on the concept of federalism, there was no need for a Supreme Court making certain that every locality had the very same view of culture, custom, tradition, and values.

Ronald Reagan used the phrase ‘voting with your feet,’ meaning move to where you are more comfortable with the rules. This nation was founded on individualism, not on collectivism.




“The tendency of elite domination, moreover, is to press America ever more steadily towards the cultural left.

The complaint here is not that old virtues are eroding and new values rising. Morality inevitably evolves….What is objectionable is that, in too many instances, a natural evolution of the moral balance is blocked and a minority morality forced upon us by judicial decrees.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values,” xi


There is a culture war, and the weapon that is being successfully used is the Supreme Court, which has taken for itself an authority not granted by the only set of laws the people have agreed to be bound by, the Constitution,




"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."


No power to adjudicate suits by citizens....against a state.

Thus, the highest court within a state gets to decide.
Therefore there can be different rules in different states.

Ignore the Supreme Court in such cases.

 

[Kilroy2]

Oh Annie

you head must be in a spin but I will keep it simple

explain executive orders and executive privileged and why the president can use it

because its an implied power

obvious everything that Congress, President, and Judicial do is not spelled out in the Constitution and yes some things are but not everything

Implied powers for Congress comes from the ability to pass any laws considered necessary and proper

sounds pretty vague so who is determine what is necessary and proper

Its just the basis where they can use implied powers to run the government

The banking industry, the constitution does not mention it but where is the US going to keep all that tax money. So Congress make banking laws

The constitution is vague in a lot of areas and thus this vagueness created disagreements as some say this and the others say that

yet all government branches use implied power because everything is not listed in the Constitution

Checks and balances should keep each branch in it's lane

everything is not listed in the constitution and things that are are an example of expressed power

h


".... implied power..."


What a bogus attempt to hide the fact that you've admitted that no such power is authorized by the Constitution.


I win again, huh?

Well you just implied that you won without an ounce of evidence

The supreme court does judicial reviews yet you say they can't

Is the court just ignoring you

they do it because under the concept of implied power they can just like Trump and the Congress whom also use implied power

But I guess it does make sense to deny implied power as it blows a big hole in your argument

implied power is not a free for all but some may try and use it that way but that why you have the concept of balance of power

The court can strike down a law but all the congress have to do is rewrite it and avoid what cause it to be a thumbs down from the court

boom goes the
dynamite

Of course I won.

You've admitted that there is no such authorization in the Constitution.

Oh annie

Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up

The constitution is just the basis

The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.

why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff

not the president

why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power

Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall

There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution

Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

tap dance to that tune

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution.

Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)
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.

Section 2
1: 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;10 —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.

2: 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 appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: 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
1: 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.

2: 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.

and





[Article XI] (Amendment 11 - Suits Against States)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Both of these make it clear that in all Cases of law dealing with the Federal Government that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. ALL cases. Any case dealing with Federal law is heard in the Federal Courts under article 3 of the US Constitution. That meas that any time someone disagrees with federal law they have to take it to Federal Court and that said Federal Court RULES on the legal issues involved.

Glad you're back.

The essence of this thread is my contention that there is no constitutional authorization for the Supreme Court to judge any subjects or issues pertaining to values, morality, social issues.


And you included the 11th amendment which proves my contention. The areas and issued reserved for this court are few and enumerated therein.

To understand what the Founders had in mind, you must understand the federalism that is central to our nation's creation.


In order to understand what the Court has stolen, one must be historically astute, must have studied the basis on which our nation was created: Federalism.

Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on the concept of federalism, there was no need for a Supreme Court making certain that every locality had the very same view of culture, custom, tradition, and values.

Ronald Reagan used the phrase ‘voting with your feet,’ meaning move to where you are more comfortable with the rules. This nation was founded on individualism, not on collectivism.




“The tendency of elite domination, moreover, is to press America ever more steadily towards the cultural left.

The complaint here is not that old virtues are eroding and new values rising. Morality inevitably evolves….What is objectionable is that, in too many instances, a natural evolution of the moral balance is blocked and a minority morality forced upon us by judicial decrees.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values,” xi


There is a culture war, and the weapon that is being successfully used is the Supreme Court, which has taken for itself an authority not granted by the only set of laws the people have agreed to be bound by, the Constitution,




"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."


No power to adjudicate suits by citizens....against a state.

Thus, the highest court within a state gets to decide.
Therefore there can be different rules in different states.

Ignore the Supreme Court in such cases.

You argued and continue to argue that the Courts have no power to decide federal cases. You have claimed the Court has no authority to determine a federal law passed by Congress is null and void. That is a bald faced lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh Annie

you head must be in a spin but I will keep it simple

explain executive orders and executive privileged and why the president can use it

because its an implied power

obvious everything that Congress, President, and Judicial do is not spelled out in the Constitution and yes some things are but not everything

Implied powers for Congress comes from the ability to pass any laws considered necessary and proper

sounds pretty vague so who is determine what is necessary and proper

Its just the basis where they can use implied powers to run the government

The banking industry, the constitution does not mention it but where is the US going to keep all that tax money. So Congress make banking laws

The constitution is vague in a lot of areas and thus this vagueness created disagreements as some say this and the others say that

yet all government branches use implied power because everything is not listed in the Constitution

Checks and balances should keep each branch in it's lane

everything is not listed in the constitution and things that are are an example of expressed power

h


".... implied power..."


What a bogus attempt to hide the fact that you've admitted that no such power is authorized by the Constitution.


I win again, huh?

Well you just implied that you won without an ounce of evidence

The supreme court does judicial reviews yet you say they can't

Is the court just ignoring you

they do it because under the concept of implied power they can just like Trump and the Congress whom also use implied power

But I guess it does make sense to deny implied power as it blows a big hole in your argument

implied power is not a free for all but some may try and use it that way but that why you have the concept of balance of power

The court can strike down a law but all the congress have to do is rewrite it and avoid what cause it to be a thumbs down from the court

boom goes the
dynamite

Of course I won.

You've admitted that there is no such authorization in the Constitution.

Oh annie

Implied powers of each branch is a reality so wake up

The constitution is just the basis

The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.

why would they need a resolution when its in the Constitution
clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war and other stuff

not the president

why because Nixon thought he could do his bombing runs as an implied power

Just like Trump diverting money that congress authorized for certain government functions and Trump took there money to build his wall

There is no explicit power there it just using some implied power basid on some vague reference in the constitution

Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

tap dance to that tune

Look up what 'implied' means.

Try to stick to words you can define.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution.

Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)
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.

Section 2
1: 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;10 —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.

2: 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 appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: 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
1: 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.

2: 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.

and





[Article XI] (Amendment 11 - Suits Against States)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Both of these make it clear that in all Cases of law dealing with the Federal Government that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. ALL cases. Any case dealing with Federal law is heard in the Federal Courts under article 3 of the US Constitution. That meas that any time someone disagrees with federal law they have to take it to Federal Court and that said Federal Court RULES on the legal issues involved.

Glad you're back.

The essence of this thread is my contention that there is no constitutional authorization for the Supreme Court to judge any subjects or issues pertaining to values, morality, social issues.


And you included the 11th amendment which proves my contention. The areas and issued reserved for this court are few and enumerated therein.

To understand what the Founders had in mind, you must understand the federalism that is central to our nation's creation.


In order to understand what the Court has stolen, one must be historically astute, must have studied the basis on which our nation was created: Federalism.

Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on the concept of federalism, there was no need for a Supreme Court making certain that every locality had the very same view of culture, custom, tradition, and values.

Ronald Reagan used the phrase ‘voting with your feet,’ meaning move to where you are more comfortable with the rules. This nation was founded on individualism, not on collectivism.




“The tendency of elite domination, moreover, is to press America ever more steadily towards the cultural left.

The complaint here is not that old virtues are eroding and new values rising. Morality inevitably evolves….What is objectionable is that, in too many instances, a natural evolution of the moral balance is blocked and a minority morality forced upon us by judicial decrees.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values,” xi


There is a culture war, and the weapon that is being successfully used is the Supreme Court, which has taken for itself an authority not granted by the only set of laws the people have agreed to be bound by, the Constitution,




"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."


No power to adjudicate suits by citizens....against a state.

Thus, the highest court within a state gets to decide.
Therefore there can be different rules in different states.

Ignore the Supreme Court in such cases.

You argued and continue to argue that the Courts have no power to decide federal cases. You have claimed the Court has no authority to determine a federal law passed by Congress is null and void. That is a bald faced lie.

. "We Americans are heading into a 'crisis of foundations' of our own right now. Our judicial elites, with politicians and pundits close behind, are already at work deconstructing our most fundamental institutions — marriage, the family, religion, equality under the law."
Column on the human sciences


“On one side of this “culture war” is the majority of the American people, largely committed to traditional American values, practices, and institutions.
On the other side is what might be called the “knowledge” or “verbal” class or “cultural elite,” consisting primarily of academics, most importantly at elite schools, and their progeny in the media, mainline churches, and generally, the verbal or literary occupations—people whose only tools and products are words.

At one time the most educated and successful members of a society could be expected to be its strongest defenders. Today, however, for a variety of reasons, they—particularly academics—often see it as part of their function to maintain an adversary relationship with their society, to challenge its values and assumptions, and to lead it to the acceptance of newer and presumably better values.


The justices of the Supreme Court, usually products of elite schools, especially law schools, are themselves members of this cultural class.”
Professor Lino Graglia
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




There are a host of issues that the Supreme Court has decided that are not authorized to same under the Constitution.

The power was stolen, and the Court should be ignored.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL I cited the entire article 3 of the US Constitution which clearly states that the Supreme and other federal Courts are the final legal arbiter of what is and is not legal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL I cited the entire article 3 of the US Constitution which clearly states that the Supreme and other federal Courts are the final legal arbiter of what is and is not legal.

Amendments predominate. They represent changes to the original document.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL I cited the entire article 3 of the US Constitution which clearly states that the Supreme and other federal Courts are the final legal arbiter of what is and is not legal.

Amendments predominate. They represent changes to the original document.

The 11th does not in anyway change the power of the Courts in regards the power of Law over the Federal Government. I cited it too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL I cited the entire article 3 of the US Constitution which clearly states that the Supreme and other federal Courts are the final legal arbiter of what is and is not legal.

Amendments predominate. They represent changes to the original document.

The 11th does not in anyway change the power of the Courts in regards the power of Law over the Federal Government. I cited it too.

It specifies what the court can and cannot do.

Ignoring same made the Supreme Court illegitimate.

This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!

a. The 11th amendment explicitly denies the federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

b. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman