Where does the constitution give federal judges the power to repeal laws?

[konradv]

Fuck dem judges brah. Checks n balances are for pussies.

Hey stinky-butt. Who acts as a check on our unelected Supreme Court?

Congress. Judges can be impeached.

 

[regent]

Add to the framers omission of stating in the Constitution the power of the Court to declare a law unconstitutional they also didn't require a member of the Supreme Court or most courts to have a law degree, or any education in law or even to have read a law book. I wonder in our history if....

The Framers didn't omit from the Constitution the authority of judicial review, it's clearly stated in Article VI.

Why do you Liberals say something is clearly stated when it's not? Clear would be direct words not your lame interpretation of those words.

I'm a liberal and learned of Marbury years ago. The interesting thing is the different approaches members of the Court use to interpret the Constitution today. Some want it in black and white, and the irony is, the framers did not put the power of the Court to interpret in black and white. Maybe it's not a liberal or conservative issue but just history.

pretty good: Name A Current Supreme Court Justice That Doesn t Believe In Judicial Review US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I don't think that's the way the Constitution works. If all the justices agreed to wear black robes does not mean that is a Constitutional requirement?

 

[WelfareQueen]

If the judicial branch can rule a law unconstitutional as the Constitution says it can,

You're lying. The constitution never says who has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional, which means, by the tenth amendment, the states have it. THINK

If a person brings a case against a state law before the court how would the court decide who was in the right?


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.

Repeating the same language is not addressing the fundamental question that is being asked. I'll try one more time.

What Branch of the Government other than the Legislative has the power to create, amend, or nullify Law?

Again....no one is saying it is not within the Court's discretion to say a law is not consistent with the Constitution. But it is a huge leap to then say the Court ruling thus nullifies Law. That power does not exist under the Constitution. Period. You have not provided any Constitutional language that grants the Court that power.

And remember...the core value of our Republic is rule by Consent of the Governed. That means only the People's Branch (The Congress) may create, amend, or nullify Law.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The Supremacy Clause clearly establishes that the Constitution, its case law, Federal laws, and the rulings of Federal courts invalidating state and local measures repugnant to the Constitution are the supreme law of the land, immune from attack by state and local jurisdictions (see Cooper v. Aaron 1958)).

The core value of our Republic is the supremacy of the rule of law, and the people are subject solely to the rule of law – not men or simple majorities, as they are incapable of ruling justly; measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law are proof of that.

The people remain at liberty to enact measures via the legislative process provided those measures comport with the Constitution and its case law; and when the people err and enact measures that violate the Constitution and its case law, those adversely effected retain the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court to seek relief.

In our Constitutional Republic the rights of citizens are not subject to majority rule, citizens do not forfeit their civil rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence, where states do not have the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil rights – one is an America citizen first and foremost, his rights as a citizen are paramount, with the states and legislative majorities subordinate to that.

You are in error. The Supremacy Clause simply states when in conflict, Federal Law trumps State Law. Period. There is no Constitutional provision.....none....which gives any Federal Court the Power to invalidate or nullify Law by declaring it unconstitutional.

Specifically: "The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts."

As many here have stated....the Federal Courts certainly have the discretion to declare a law unconstitutional. However....declaring a law unconstitutional does not give the Court power to vacate or nullify the law.

You are also in error about something else. The core value of our Republic is Rule by Consent of the Governed. Hence, the reason why only the people's branch of Government can create, amend, or nullify law....as the Congress is directly accountable to the People.

The Judicial Branch is not accountable to the People. Hence, the reason why the Founders gave the Courts zero authority to create, amend, or nullify existing law.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

they would decide who was right by interpreting the constitution

say g'night dick

Interpreting the constitution means writing the constitution. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You are in error. The Supremacy Clause simply states when in conflict, Federal Law trumps State Law. Period. .

Actually it doesn't say that. "This constitution and all laws, MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, shall be the supreme law of the land"

So a federal law is supreme only if it constitutional. And who decides that? By the tenth amendment, the states do.

 

[WelfareQueen]

You are correct. Sorry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are in error. The Supremacy Clause simply states when in conflict, Federal Law trumps State Law. Period. .

Actually it doesn't say that. "This constitution and all laws, MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, shall be the supreme law of the land"

So a federal law is supreme only if it constitutional. And who decides that? By the tenth amendment, the states do.

Wrong. The tenth amendment only allows the states powers that are not prohibited to the states by the constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

All legislative powers. Not judicial powers. Judicial review is a judicial power.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

All legislative powers. Not judicial powers. Judicial review is a judicial power.

What Branch of the Government other than the Legislative has the power to create, amend, or nullify Law?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

So a federal law is supreme only if it constitutional. And who decides that? By the tenth amendment, the states do.

Wrong. The tenth amendment only allows the states powers that are not prohibited to the states by the constitution.

Not quite.. " The powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So if a power is not mentioned in the constitution, then the states have it. Since the constitution never mentions who decides if a law is constitutional or not, the states have authority to do so.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

All legislative powers. Not judicial powers. Judicial review is a judicial power.

HAHAHA. You've got it backwards. Repealing laws is a legislative function and thus judges do NOT have it.

 

[Idadunno]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

Marbury v Madison was the case in which the Supreme Court clarified its jurisdiction as to the Constitution. Marbury was appointed a judicial post... (Marbury v. Madison LII Legal Information Institute the Supreme Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to the post but that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to enforce it.
The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to say whether something is unconstitutional or constitutional--that IS its jurisdiction as set by the Constitution of the United States, but the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to enforce laws, hence law suits. Every political science student learns this first year.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

Marbury v Madison was the case in which the Supreme Court clarified its jurisdiction as to the Constitution. Marbury was appointed a judicial post... (Marbury v. Madison LII Legal Information Institute the Supreme Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to the post but that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to enforce it.
The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to say whether something is unconstitutional or constitutional--that IS its jurisdiction as set by the Constitution of the United States, but the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to enforce laws, hence law suits. Every political science student learns this first year.

You correct....with a caveat. The Court cannot clarify or define it's jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution.

The Court used its ruling in Marbury v Madison to impose Judicial Review with implied nullification of existing Law. The Court has zero authority to create amend, or nullify any Law.

That power is strictly reserved to the Legislative Branch of Government.

 

[Idadunno]

SCOTUS obviously disagrees with you, and that is all that matters.

Jake, as usual you're wrong. Presidents have ignored the Supreme Court in the past...they will do so again. Google Andrew Jackson/Supreme Court.

What a convoluted answer that proves nothing the presidents disobeyed the law.

Google SCOTUS and judicial review.

Grilfriend,


You have not refuted my point or the point of other posters. Let me be explicit.


1. The Court has no authority under the Constitution to negate or invalidate law by declaring it unconstitutional.


2. The Chief Executive has overridden the Supreme Courts decisions in the past. The precedent has been set, which means it can happen again whenever the Chief Executive so desires.

I'm not sure where most people get their information, but the Supreme Court does have the authority to declare laws unconstitutional. To negate is to reverse, which Congress can do with amendments, but not the Supreme Court. For example, prohibition, the 18th amendment, was negated by Congress with the 21st amendment.
The Supreme Court can declare a law or an act unconstitutional, such as DOMA, but these are not amendments to the constitution, they are laws. Laws are not reversed, or negated, they nullified or struck down.
The president cannot override the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court decision can only be changed if two-thirds of the Senate and the House of Reps vote on it or if three fourths of the states ratify it. Article V of the Constitution
The Constitution

 

[Idadunno]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

Marbury v Madison was the case in which the Supreme Court clarified its jurisdiction as to the Constitution. Marbury was appointed a judicial post... (Marbury v. Madison LII Legal Information Institute the Supreme Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to the post but that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to enforce it.
The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to say whether something is unconstitutional or constitutional--that IS its jurisdiction as set by the Constitution of the United States, but the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to enforce laws, hence law suits. Every political science student learns this first year.

You correct....with a caveat. The Court cannot clarify or define it's jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution.

The Court used its ruling in Marbury v Madison to impose Judicial Review with implied nullification of existing Law. The Court has zero authority to create amend, or nullify any Law.

That power is strictly reserved to the Legislative Branch of Government.

The Supreme Court can nullify a law--to nullify as far as this goes is to throw out, invalidate. It gets confusing because negate and nullify can mean the same thing, but their definition changes with the context.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

Marbury v Madison was the case in which the Supreme Court clarified its jurisdiction as to the Constitution. Marbury was appointed a judicial post... (Marbury v. Madison LII Legal Information Institute the Supreme Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to the post but that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to enforce it.
The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to say whether something is unconstitutional or constitutional--that IS its jurisdiction as set by the Constitution of the United States, but the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to enforce laws, hence law suits. Every political science student learns this first year.

You correct....with a caveat. The Court cannot clarify or define it's jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution.

The Court used its ruling in Marbury v Madison to impose Judicial Review with implied nullification of existing Law. The Court has zero authority to create amend, or nullify any Law.

That power is strictly reserved to the Legislative Branch of Government.

The Supreme Court can nullify a law--to nullify as far as this goes is to throw out, invalidate. It gets confusing because negate and nullify can mean the same thing, but their definition changes with the context.

The Court can rule a law is unconstitutional....but there is no provision within the Constitution to then say the law is nullified.

I think that is the point many have been making throughout this thread.

If a law is unconstitutional shouldn't it then be up to the Congress to fix the law to make it compliant within the scope of the Constitution?

Invalidating law is not the Court's role under the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS, 200 years of case and constitutional law, and Idadunno all effectively refute you, WelfareQueen, well and effectively.

 

[Idadunno]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

Marbury v Madison was the case in which the Supreme Court clarified its jurisdiction as to the Constitution. Marbury was appointed a judicial post... (Marbury v. Madison LII Legal Information Institute the Supreme Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to the post but that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to enforce it.
The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to say whether something is unconstitutional or constitutional--that IS its jurisdiction as set by the Constitution of the United States, but the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to enforce laws, hence law suits. Every political science student learns this first year.

You correct....with a caveat. The Court cannot clarify or define it's jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution.

The Court used its ruling in Marbury v Madison to impose Judicial Review with implied nullification of existing Law. The Court has zero authority to create amend, or nullify any Law.

That power is strictly reserved to the Legislative Branch of Government.

The Supreme Court can nullify a law--to nullify as far as this goes is to throw out, invalidate. It gets confusing because negate and nullify can mean the same thing, but their definition changes with the context.

The Court can rule a law is unconstitutional....but there is no provision within the Constitution to then say the law is nullified.

I think that is the point many have been making throughout this thread.

If a law is unconstitutional shouldn't it then be up to the Congress to fix the law to make it compliant within the scope of the Constitution?

Invalidating law is not the Court's role under the Constitution.

If a law is unconstitutional, it cannot be enforced, therefore it is considered thrown out--nullified. Congress can negate or change a law--change it to get around the Supreme Court decision. For instance, if Congress made a law saying everyone had to eat oatmeal on Mondays, the Supreme Court could say that law was unconstitutional, and Congress can make a new law that says eating grains on Monday is a law. Of course, the Supreme Court would strike that down too. lol

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[. A Supreme Court decision can only be changed if two-thirds of the Senate and the House of Reps vote on it or if three fourths of the states ratify it. Article V of the Constitution
The Constitution

You're saying a SC decision can only be overturned by the amending process??? Nowhere does the constitution say that.

Fact is, according to the tenth amendment, every state has authority to nullify an SC decision in that state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 10th says absolutely no such thing.

No state has the power to nullify federal law. It can appeal to federal courts is what a state can do.