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

[WelfareQueen]

Dante....you'd think it would be simple. The power to create, amend, and nullify Law under our system of Government is pretty fucking basic.

Which Branch of Government is authorized under the Constitution to do those three things?

How much more basic and simple a question can be asked?

Federalist 78?

Not the Constitution. Doesn't count.

I have read the Federalist papers, but it's been years. Without looking, my guess is you're referencing Hamilton. He advocated for a stronger Judiciary than was ultimately agreed to in the Constitution. Fortunately, Madison was more influential and held sway.

And btw....Madison is the greatest political genius in our history. He truly is the Father of the Constitution.

the basic premise of your argument is flawed in the context of the discussion

please elaborate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

primer for the welfarequeen: How do courts make laws


"the Congress can overrule the Court's interpretation of a statute."

 

[WelfareQueen]

Dante....you'd think it would be simple. The power to create, amend, and nullify Law under our system of Government is pretty fucking basic.

Which Branch of Government is authorized under the Constitution to do those three things?

How much more basic and simple a question can be asked?

Only the Legislative Branch can do all three, but your ignorance of how courts make law: GeorgiaLegalAid.org A guide to free and low-cost legal aid assistance and services in Georgia

there is more that can be said on what courts do and don't do, but as long as you fallaciously frame the argument, there is no room for intelligent discussion that would involve context, our history and more.

Dante....the Courts do not make law. They have never made law....either at the State or Federal level. Yet...I am ignorant?

 

[WelfareQueen]

primer for the welfarequeen: How do courts make laws


"the Congress can overrule the Court's interpretation of a statute."

You are saying nothing that has not been repeated ad nauseam in this thread. The power of Judicial nullification was not granted by We the People under the Constitution.

The Court gave itself that power.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Supreme Court often uses the Federalist when clarifying it's interpretation. The US Constitution never has lived in the vacuum some would have it exist in. From day one the framers themselves were arguing over what is in the meaning of the words in the text and interpretations of it all.

If everything were as simple, as black and white as folks like welfarequeen would have it, there would never have been the Constitutional battles that have plagued the USA since the US Constitution's ratification

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante....you'd think it would be simple. The power to create, amend, and nullify Law under our system of Government is pretty fucking basic.

Which Branch of Government is authorized under the Constitution to do those three things?

How much more basic and simple a question can be asked?

Only the Legislative Branch can do all three, but your ignorance of how courts make law: GeorgiaLegalAid.org A guide to free and low-cost legal aid assistance and services in Georgia

there is more that can be said on what courts do and don't do, but as long as you fallaciously frame the argument, there is no room for intelligent discussion that would involve context, our history and more.

Dante....the Courts do not make law. They have never made law....either at the State or Federal level. Yet...I am ignorant?

WelfareQueen

you confuse law with legislation


next?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

primer for the welfarequeen: How do courts make laws


"the Congress can overrule the Court's interpretation of a statute."

You are saying nothing that has not been repeated ad nauseam in this thread. The power of Judicial nullification was not granted by We the People under the Constitution.

The Court gave itself that power.

Are you confused about judicial nullification and the supremacy clause, judicial review and other issues?
seems so

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Supreme Court often uses the Federalist when clarifying it's interpretation. The US Constitution never has lived in the vacuum some would have it exist in. From day one the framers themselves were arguing over what is in the meaning of the words in the text and interpretations of it all.

If everything were as simple, as black and white as folks like welfarequeen would have it, there would never have been the Constitutional battles that have plagued the USA since the US Constitution's ratification

My point is simple. The Court's ability to nullify law is not granted under the Constitution. Period. The Court gave itself that power.

Since all law must ultimately derive from We the People, that power of judicial nullification is very troubling because the people never granted the Courts that power.

Now if the Congress would like to amend the Constitution to formally grant that power....fine. The Congress represents all of us.

If folks disagree with me....that's fine. This message board is made for this type of discussion...right?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Dante....you'd think it would be simple. The power to create, amend, and nullify Law under our system of Government is pretty fucking basic.

Which Branch of Government is authorized under the Constitution to do those three things?

How much more basic and simple a question can be asked?

Only the Legislative Branch can do all three, but your ignorance of how courts make law: GeorgiaLegalAid.org A guide to free and low-cost legal aid assistance and services in Georgia

there is more that can be said on what courts do and don't do, but as long as you fallaciously frame the argument, there is no room for intelligent discussion that would involve context, our history and more.

Dante....the Courts do not make law. They have never made law....either at the State or Federal level. Yet...I am ignorant?

WelfareQueen

you confuse law with legislation


next?

I confuse nothing. Try again.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Article III, Section 2:

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.​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Supreme Court often uses the Federalist when clarifying it's interpretation. The US Constitution never has lived in the vacuum some would have it exist in. From day one the framers themselves were arguing over what is in the meaning of the words in the text and interpretations of it all.

If everything were as simple, as black and white as folks like welfarequeen would have it, there would never have been the Constitutional battles that have plagued the USA since the US Constitution's ratification

My point is simple. The Court's ability to nullify law is not granted under the Constitution. Period. The Court gave itself that power.

Since all law must ultimately derive from We the People, that power of judicial nullification is very troubling because the people never granted the Courts that power.

Now if the Congress would like to amend the Constitution to formally grant that power....fine. The Congress represents all of us.

If folks disagree with me....that's fine. This message board is made for this type of discussion...right?

When the courts rule a state law unconstitutional is that in your opinion nullification?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When the national courts rule a nation law violates the citizens' national protected civil rights, is the court using nullification?

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Supreme Court often uses the Federalist when clarifying it's interpretation. The US Constitution never has lived in the vacuum some would have it exist in. From day one the framers themselves were arguing over what is in the meaning of the words in the text and interpretations of it all.

If everything were as simple, as black and white as folks like welfarequeen would have it, there would never have been the Constitutional battles that have plagued the USA since the US Constitution's ratification

My point is simple. The Court's ability to nullify law is not granted under the Constitution. Period. The Court gave itself that power.

Since all law must ultimately derive from We the People, that power of judicial nullification is very troubling because the people never granted the Courts that power.

Now if the Congress would like to amend the Constitution to formally grant that power....fine. The Congress represents all of us.

If folks disagree with me....that's fine. This message board is made for this type of discussion...right?

When the courts rule a state law unconstitutional is that in your opinion nullification?

The Constitution grants Federal Courts supremacy where Federal and State Law are in conflict.

Example: Interstate Commerce where the Federal Government clearly has sway.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Supreme Court often uses the Federalist when clarifying it's interpretation. The US Constitution never has lived in the vacuum some would have it exist in. From day one the framers themselves were arguing over what is in the meaning of the words in the text and interpretations of it all.

If everything were as simple, as black and white as folks like welfarequeen would have it, there would never have been the Constitutional battles that have plagued the USA since the US Constitution's ratification

My point is simple. The Court's ability to nullify law is not granted under the Constitution. Period. The Court gave itself that power.

Since all law must ultimately derive from We the People, that power of judicial nullification is very troubling because the people never granted the Courts that power.

Now if the Congress would like to amend the Constitution to formally grant that power....fine. The Congress represents all of us.

If folks disagree with me....that's fine. This message board is made for this type of discussion...right?

You are as confused as ever. You are probably confusing yet again, judicial review with nullification. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Marshall's court solidified the concept of judicial review, not nullification.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Article III, Section 2:

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.​

Yep.....where does it say the Courts can invalidate a law passed by Congress and signed into Law by the President.

I'll wait.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Supreme Court often uses the Federalist when clarifying it's interpretation. The US Constitution never has lived in the vacuum some would have it exist in. From day one the framers themselves were arguing over what is in the meaning of the words in the text and interpretations of it all.

If everything were as simple, as black and white as folks like welfarequeen would have it, there would never have been the Constitutional battles that have plagued the USA since the US Constitution's ratification

My point is simple. The Court's ability to nullify law is not granted under the Constitution. Period. The Court gave itself that power.

Since all law must ultimately derive from We the People, that power of judicial nullification is very troubling because the people never granted the Courts that power.

Now if the Congress would like to amend the Constitution to formally grant that power....fine. The Congress represents all of us.

If folks disagree with me....that's fine. This message board is made for this type of discussion...right?

When the courts rule a state law unconstitutional is that in your opinion nullification?

The Constitution grants Federal Courts supremacy where Federal and State Law are in conflict.

Example: Interstate Commerce where the Federal Government clearly has sway.

to use your type of argument: you didn't answer the question

 

[WelfareQueen]

Have a nice night.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The Supreme Court often uses the Federalist when clarifying it's interpretation. The US Constitution never has lived in the vacuum some would have it exist in. From day one the framers themselves were arguing over what is in the meaning of the words in the text and interpretations of it all.

If everything were as simple, as black and white as folks like welfarequeen would have it, there would never have been the Constitutional battles that have plagued the USA since the US Constitution's ratification

My point is simple. The Court's ability to nullify law is not granted under the Constitution. Period. The Court gave itself that power.

Since all law must ultimately derive from We the People, that power of judicial nullification is very troubling because the people never granted the Courts that power.

Now if the Congress would like to amend the Constitution to formally grant that power....fine. The Congress represents all of us.

If folks disagree with me....that's fine. This message board is made for this type of discussion...right?

When the courts rule a state law unconstitutional is that in your opinion nullification?

The Constitution grants Federal Courts supremacy where Federal and State Law are in conflict.

Example: Interstate Commerce where the Federal Government clearly has sway.

to use your type of argument: you didn't answer the question

I most certainly did. Precisely. The Courts have zero power under the Constitution to nullify any Law that has been passed by the Congress and signed into Law by the President.

I cannot be any more clear. But you are certainly welcome to disagree.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Article III, Section 2:

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.​

Yep.....where does it say the Courts can invalidate a law passed by Congress and signed into Law by the President.

I'll wait.

"The Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review" but there is much that is not expressly provided for.

Your argument, as flawed and confusing as it is because of your ignorance over what exactly you are talking about, is about judicial philosophy: textualism, strict constructionism, and others

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Supreme Court often uses the Federalist when clarifying it's interpretation. The US Constitution never has lived in the vacuum some would have it exist in. From day one the framers themselves were arguing over what is in the meaning of the words in the text and interpretations of it all.

If everything were as simple, as black and white as folks like welfarequeen would have it, there would never have been the Constitutional battles that have plagued the USA since the US Constitution's ratification

My point is simple. The Court's ability to nullify law is not granted under the Constitution. Period. The Court gave itself that power.

Since all law must ultimately derive from We the People, that power of judicial nullification is very troubling because the people never granted the Courts that power.

Now if the Congress would like to amend the Constitution to formally grant that power....fine. The Congress represents all of us.

If folks disagree with me....that's fine. This message board is made for this type of discussion...right?

When the courts rule a state law unconstitutional is that in your opinion nullification?

The Constitution grants Federal Courts supremacy where Federal and State Law are in conflict.

Example: Interstate Commerce where the Federal Government clearly has sway.

to use your type of argument: you didn't answer the question

I most certainly did. Precisely. The Courts have zero power under the Constitution to nullify any Law that has been passed by the Congress and signed into Law by the President.

I cannot be any more clear. But you are certainly welcome to disagree.

using your own style of argument, you did not

"When the courts rule a state law unconstitutional is that in your opinion nullification?" yes or no will do.

see?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Supreme Court often uses the Federalist when clarifying it's interpretation. The US Constitution never has lived in the vacuum some would have it exist in. From day one the framers themselves were arguing over what is in the meaning of the words in the text and interpretations of it all.

If everything were as simple, as black and white as folks like welfarequeen would have it, there would never have been the Constitutional battles that have plagued the USA since the US Constitution's ratification

My point is simple. The Court's ability to nullify law is not granted under the Constitution. Period. The Court gave itself that power.

Since all law must ultimately derive from We the People, that power of judicial nullification is very troubling because the people never granted the Courts that power.

Now if the Congress would like to amend the Constitution to formally grant that power....fine. The Congress represents all of us.

If folks disagree with me....that's fine. This message board is made for this type of discussion...right?

When the courts rule a state law unconstitutional is that in your opinion nullification?

The Constitution grants Federal Courts supremacy where Federal and State Law are in conflict.

Example: Interstate Commerce where the Federal Government clearly has sway.

to use your type of argument: you didn't answer the question

I most certainly did. Precisely. The Courts have zero power under the Constitution to nullify any Law that has been passed by the Congress and signed into Law by the President.

I cannot be any more clear. But you are certainly welcome to disagree.

When the courts rule a state law unconstitutional is that in your opinion nullification?