The States are ABOVE the federal govt - 4 ways the constitution says so

[Soggy in NOLA]

[

Judicial power is judicial review, the authority to interpret what the Constitution means, and the authority to invalidate laws offensive to the Constitution.

You keep saying that but the constitution does not. Nullifying laws is NOT part of judicial power It is an extra-legal power that the supreme court simply granted to itself.

think

So you believe that constitutionally the Supreme Court had no authority to strike down the city of Chicago's ban on handguns?

So any local or state government that wants to ban guns should be able to do so without the SCOTUS saying otherwise?

Of course not, the 2nd amendment is the law of the land.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Judicial power has been CLAIMED to include so-called "judicial review." The SCOTUS took that "power" upon themselves.

A fair (reasonable) case can be made that it exists inferentially, although the Constitution itself says no such thing.

A fair and reasonable case can also be made for the proposition that "judicial review" includes the notion of nullification of "laws" that are Constitutionally invalid. But again, it is not a SCOTUS power that is actually mentioned in the Constitution. It is a matter (again) of inference.

That said, it is irrational and absurd to believe that ONLY the SCOTUS gets to make such determinations. And it is also absurd and contrary to our Constitutional principles to believe that there can be no "review" of SCOTUS determinations. They need to have checks on THEM, too.

And when you get down to it, this is all that Mr. Levin is suggesting in his new book on this topic.

Good for him. I love the fact that it has started a discussion. We need some healthy debate. We need to change things big time.

There is a 'review' of SCOTUS decisions. It's called the amendment process.

There are other ways, too.

And there is a proposal for yet another option.

Who the fuck ever said that the SCOTUS gets the final word in a Constitutional system PREDICATED on CHECKS and BALANCES?

And who says the only way to put the reigns on the SCOTUS is by the cumbersome Amendment process?

Is that found in your living breathing highly mutable version of the Constitution in the invisible ink section of the Penumbra Clauses?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution STATES in no ambiguous terms in Article III that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in all cases as to law and the Constitution on any matter concerning the US, laws it passed or what the Constitution says.

No inference is needed, it is spelled out in plain English in Paragraph 2.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
So you believe that constitutionally the Supreme Court had no authority to strike down the city of Chicago's ban on handguns?

So any local or state government that wants to ban guns should be able to do so without the SCOTUS saying otherwise?

Absolutely. Looks like we're finally getting thru that thick skull of yours.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
then the implied power of the federal government is to enforce the above. The Supreme Court has the implied power to rule laws unconstitutional, and the power to strike them down.

Implied power? HAHAHAHA. That can mean anything, you nitiwit.

Hell - the president can say he has implied power to nullify laws.!!! THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
There is a 'review' of SCOTUS decisions. It's called the amendment process.

hahaha. Yeah - easiest thing in the world. I got a better idea. Don't let unelected judges nullify laws passed by elected congress men.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nothing implied about it.

Article III section 2 states

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 controversies to which the United States shall be a party;

No implied power it is a stated power granted by the Constitution to the Court.

And the check on that is the power of Congress to regulate what the Court has authority over.

and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Article III | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The Constitution STATES in no ambiguous terms in Article III that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in all cases as to law and the Constitution on any matter concerning the US, laws it passed or what the Constitution says.

No inference is needed, it is spelled out in plain English in Paragraph 2.

HAHAHA. We've explained this to you a million times and you still don't get it. Article 3 talks about JUDICIAL POWER. Nullifying laws is NOT part of judicial power. If anything it's part of legislative power and the constitution says all legislative power is vested in congress.

think, you miserable hind.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
then the implied power of the federal government is to enforce the above. The Supreme Court has the implied power to rule laws unconstitutional, and the power to strike them down.

Implied power? HAHAHAHA. That can mean anything, you nitiwit.

Hell - the president can say he has implied power to nullify laws.!!! THINK

You're essentially claiming that the Constitution is a meaningless document.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution STATES in no ambiguous terms in Article III that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in all cases as to law and the Constitution on any matter concerning the US, laws it passed or what the Constitution says.

No inference is needed, it is spelled out in plain English in Paragraph 2.

HAHAHA. We've explained this to you a million times and you still don't get it. Article 3 talks about JUDICIAL POWER. Nullifying laws is NOT part of judicial power. If anything it's part of legislative power and the constitution says all legislative power is vested in congress.

think, you miserable hind.

Is that why it specifically states that all matters pertaining to the Constitution and laws passed by Congress are its authority to judge?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
So you believe that constitutionally the Supreme Court had no authority to strike down the city of Chicago's ban on handguns?

So any local or state government that wants to ban guns should be able to do so without the SCOTUS saying otherwise?

Absolutely. Looks like we're finally getting thru that thick skull of yours.

Everyone take note. This poster is claiming you have no constitutionally protected rights whatsoever.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution STATES in no ambiguous terms in Article III that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in all cases as to law and the Constitution on any matter concerning the US, laws it passed or what the Constitution says.

No inference is needed, it is spelled out in plain English in Paragraph 2.

HAHAHA. We've explained this to you a million times and you still don't get it. Article 3 talks about JUDICIAL POWER. Nullifying laws is NOT part of judicial power. If anything it's part of legislative power and the constitution says all legislative power is vested in congress.

think, you miserable hind.

Somebody in the federal government has to have the right to nullify state laws because the Supremacy Clause makes laws that violate the Constitution illegal.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Is that why it specifically states that all matters pertaining to the Constitution and laws passed by Congress are its authority to judge?

HAHAHA. Show us where it says that you brazen liar!!!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
So you believe that constitutionally the Supreme Court had no authority to strike down the city of Chicago's ban on handguns?

So any local or state government that wants to ban guns should be able to do so without the SCOTUS saying otherwise?

Absolutely. Looks like we're finally getting thru that thick skull of yours.

Everyone take note. This poster is claiming you have no constitutionally protected rights whatsoever.

HAHAHA. I never said that. But i do say unelected judges should NOT decide what our rights are.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
Somebody in the federal government has to have the right to nullify state laws because the Supremacy Clause makes laws that violate the Constitution illegal.

Does that mean you also think states must have the right to nullify federal laws the states think are unconstitutional? THINK

 

[bendog]

My God. )-: