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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WELFAREQUEEN SAID:

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

When the Supreme Court invalidates a state law that is un-Constitutional, the law is not 'nullified,' the law remains in effect but unenforceable.

Again, the Constitution does authorize the Supreme Court to invalidate state laws in Articles III and VI; this authority is reaffirmed as well in the First Amendment's Petition Clause.

WELFAREQUEEN SAID:

“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.”

The Constitution is the creation of the people, and it was the intent of the people to authorize the judiciary to invalidate laws that are un-Constitutional.

WELFAREQUEEN SAID:

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

There is no need to 'amend' the Constitution to afford the judiciary a power already granted it by the Constitution, as intended by the Framing Generation.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Nope. There is zero power under the Constitution granted to the Federal Courts to nullify existing law passed by the Congress and signed by the President.

Dante has admitted that language does not exist in the Constitution. A friend who has taught Constitutional Law admits no such language exists. The Court gave itself that power under Marbury v Madison. That power was never granted by We the People.

The remedy for bad law under the Constitution is one of three things. 1. Presidential Veto. 2. Vote the bastards out who made or voted for the law. 3. Have Congress revise, amend, or nullify the law.

There is no provision within the Constitution to allow the Courts to make law...amend law....or nullify law. That remedy does not exist.

Girls....there is a huge amount of debate about this by legal scholars. All agree the explicit Constitutional language does not exist. There is an open question among legal scholars about the legality of the Courts nullfying law by declaring it unconstitutional.

Instead of talking the same old nonsense....educate yourself.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

WELFAREQUEEN SAID:

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

C_Clayton_Jones: When the Supreme Court invalidates a state law that is un-Constitutional, the law is not 'nullified,' the law remains in effect but unenforceable.

Again, the Constitution does authorize the Supreme Court to invalidate state laws in Articles III and VI; this authority is reaffirmed as well in the First Amendment's Petition Clause.

WELFAREQUEEN SAID:

“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.”

C_Clayton_Jones: The Constitution is the creation of the people, and it was the intent of the people to authorize the judiciary to invalidate laws that are un-Constitutional.

WELFAREQUEEN SAID:

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

C_Clayton_Jones: There is no need to 'amend' the Constitution to afford the judiciary a power already granted it by the Constitution, as intended by the Framing Generation.

in reply, WelfareQueen used a straw man : see if you can spot it clue: statements about the Judiciary's power to review state law turns into a refutation of Judiciary and legislation passed by congress and a misrepresentation/misunderstanding/ignorance of the term "nullification"

Nope. There is zero power under the Constitution granted to the Federal Courts to nullify existing law passed by the Congress and signed by the President.

-----

The 'we the people' crap is just that - crap/ Here She (a welfare queen is a woman, no?) confuses Judicial Review with nullification. tsk, tsk, tsk...

Dante has admitted that language does not exist in the Constitution. A friend who has taught Constitutional Law admits no such language exists. The Court gave itself that power under Marbury v Madison. That power was never granted by We the People.

-----
rant and rave...

The remedy for bad law under the Constitution is one of three things. 1. Presidential Veto. 2. Vote the bastards out who made or voted for the law. 3. Have Congress revise, amend, or nullify the law.

---

ignoring common law and other issues implicit in the USC

There is no provision within the Constitution to allow the Courts to make law...amend law....or nullify law. That remedy does not exist.

Girls....there is a huge amount of debate about this by legal scholars. All agree the explicit Constitutional language does not exist. There is an open question among legal scholars about the legality of the Courts nullfying law by declaring it unconstitutional.

Instead of talking the same old nonsense....educate yourself.

There is no debate about the legality of Judicial Review.

Name A Current Supreme Court Justice That Doesn't Believe In Judicial Review

should be easy.

Name any of the Justices in the history of the Supreme Court who were against Judicial Review.

Trickier: name two framers who were against Judicial Review? Name three framers who were for it?

 

[WelfareQueen]

The butt hurt is deep in this thread. There are thousands of links regarding this Constitutional question as well as much debate about the legality and appropriateness of Federal Courts attempts to nullifying laws duly passed by Congress.

Invoking State law when in direct conflict with Federal law is a ruse of course. That is not in question.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The butt hurt is deep in this thread. There are thousands of links regarding this Constitutional question as well as much debate about the legality and appropriateness of Federal Courts attempts to nullifying laws duly passed by Congress.

Invoking State law when in direct conflict with Federal law is a ruse of course. That is not in question.

even a simple Wikipedia entry knows more than you and your supposed professor friend

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review ...

Not nullification, but Judicial Review.

now name a current conservative Justice who says the Court does not have a constitutional roll of Judicial Review...

better yet, name a Justice in the history of the Supreme Court who was of the opinion that Judicial Review was in your words 'illegal'

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The butt hurt is deep in this thread. There are thousands of links regarding this Constitutional question as well as much debate about the legality and appropriateness of Federal Courts attempts to nullifying laws duly passed by Congress.

Invoking State law when in direct conflict with Federal law is a ruse of course. That is not in question.

even a simple Wikipedia entry knows more than you and your supposed professor friend

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review ...

Not nullification, but Judicial Review.

now name a current conservative Justice who says the Court does not have a constitutional roll of Judicial Review...

better yet, name a Justice in the history of the Supreme Court who was of the opinion that Judicial Review was in your words 'illegal'

better...

Name A Current Supreme Court Justice That Doesn't Believe In Judicial Review

should be easy.

Name any of the Justices in the history of the Supreme Court who were against Judicial Review.

Trickier: name two framers who were against Judicial Review? Name three framers who were for it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hostility toward judicial review is not predicated on facts of law and the Constitution but on the frustration of racists and bigots unable to codify their racism and bigotry in state laws, whereby disadvantaging those whom they hate, such as African-Americans and gay Americans.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hostility toward judicial review is not predicated on facts of law and the Constitution but on the frustration of racists and bigots unable to codify their racism and bigotry in state laws, whereby disadvantaging those whom they hate, such as African-Americans and gay Americans.

Interesting thing is WQ is clueless about Judicial Review and nullification.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hostility toward judicial review is not predicated on facts of law and the Constitution but on the frustration of racists and bigots unable to codify their racism and bigotry in state laws, whereby disadvantaging those whom they hate, such as African-Americans and gay Americans.

Interesting thing is WQ is clueless about Judicial Review and nullification.

Also interesting is how most on the right are avid supporters of judicial review and the authority of the courts to invalidate state and Federal laws when a gun control measure is ruled un-Constitutional.

So much for 'the will of the people.'

 

[WelfareQueen]

Idiots.


Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case:

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."


Some legal scholars have questioned the legal reasoning of Marshall's opinion. They argue that Marshall selectively quoted the Judiciary Act of 1789, interpreting it to grant the Supreme Court the power to hear writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction.[36] These scholars argue that there is little connection between the notion of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court, and note that the Act seems to affirm the Court's power to exercise only appellate jurisdiction.[37] Furthermore, it has been argued that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction "all cases affecting ... public ministers and consuls," and that James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a "public minister [or] consul."[38]

Questions have also frequently been raised about the logic of Marshall's argument for judicial review, for example by Alexander Bickel in his book The Least Dangerous Branch.[39] Bickel argues that Marshall's argument implies an unrealistically mechanical view of jurisprudence, one which suggests that the Court has an absolute duty to strike down every law it finds violative of the Constitution.[citation needed] Under Marshall's conception of the judicial process in Marbury, judges themselves have no independent agency and can never take into account the consequences of their actions when deciding cases.[citation needed]

Marbury can also be criticized[by whom?] on grounds that it was improper for the Court to consider any issues beyond jurisdiction. After concluding that the Court lacked jurisdiction in the case, the further review regarding the substantive issues presented was arguably improper.[40] Also, it has been argued that Justice Marshall should have recused himself on the grounds that he was still acting Secretary of State at the time the commissions were to be delivered and it was his brother, James Marshall, who was charged with delivering a number of the commissions.[41]

"Because the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches, critics contend that the argument for judicial review must rely on a significant gloss on the Constitution's terms."



Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Also interesting is how most on the right are avid supporters of judicial review and the authority of the courts to invalidate state and Federal laws when a gun control measure is ruled un-Constitutional.

So much for 'the will of the people.'

yes

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Idiots.


Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case:

...



Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Jefferson disagreed with Madison often and the best part is -- Jefferson often disagreed with Jefferson.. Little Tommy Nail Factory was a hypocrite's hypocrite

 

[Idadunno]

Federal judges do not repeal laws, they declare them unconstitutional, which means the law is still there (until Congress repeals it--such as the 21st amendment to repeal the 18th amendment) but it is illegal to enforce it. Marbury v. Madison is where the Supreme Court recognized, identified, found it's jurisdiction--to interpret laws as to their constitutionality, thus giving all federal courts the same rights as a step ladder of appeals leading to the US Supreme Court. If legislators would stop wasting tax payer money making laws they know are unconstitutional thus landing that state in court, then chances are questions like this would not be asked. Alabama is notorious for constantly making state laws that go against the Constitution, but they think they are a country separate from the US.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The far right reactionaries with their radical anti-American agenda have never read Article III.

They forget we are a Republic not a Democracy.

Has anyone else told you what a jerk you are?

Repeatedly....

You don't have him on ignore.... ?

It really saves on getting a cynical view of humanity (as in there are lot of morons).

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right reactionaries with their radical anti-American agenda have never read Article III.

They forget we are a Republic not a Democracy.

Has anyone else told you what a jerk you are?

Repeatedly....

You don't have him on ignore....

It really saves on getting a cynical view of humanity (as in there are lot of morons).

He has me on ignore because I kicked his ass repeatedly for being stupid.

We are a Republic, you jerks, not a democracy.

Read Article III.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Hostility toward judicial review is not predicated on facts of law and the Constitution but on the frustration of racists and bigots unable to codify their racism and bigotry in state laws, whereby disadvantaging those whom they hate, such as African-Americans and gay Americans.

Interesting thing is WQ is clueless about Judicial Review and nullification.

Also interesting is how most on the right are avid supporters of judicial review and the authority of the courts to invalidate state and Federal laws when a gun control measure is ruled un-Constitutional.

So much for 'the will of the people.'

On this we can agree.

The 1st amendment should not prevent states from regulating guns.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hostility toward judicial review is not predicated on facts of law and the Constitution but on the frustration of racists and bigots unable to codify their racism and bigotry in state laws, whereby disadvantaging those whom they hate, such as African-Americans and gay Americans.

Interesting thing is WQ is clueless about Judicial Review and nullification.

Also interesting is how most on the right are avid supporters of judicial review and the authority of the courts to invalidate state and Federal laws when a gun control measure is ruled un-Constitutional.

So much for 'the will of the people.'

On this we can agree.

The 1st amendment should not prevent states from regulating guns.

Or from regulating religion.

Or from regulating free speech.

Or from regulating civil liberties.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jefferson disagreed with Madison often and the best part is -- Jefferson often disagreed with Jefferson.. Little Tommy Nail Factory was a hypocrite's hypocrite

Jefferson and Madison of course founded
the Republican party in 1792 to stand for freedom and liberty from central govt after they saw the Federalists abuse of central govt.

To this day Republicans stand for freedom and liberty while Democrats oppose. Its no surprise they spied for Hitler and Stalin and even gave Stalin the bomb.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Hostility toward judicial review is not predicated on facts of law and the Constitution but on the frustration of racists and bigots unable to codify their racism and bigotry in state laws, whereby disadvantaging those whom they hate, such as African-Americans and gay Americans.

Interesting thing is WQ is clueless about Judicial Review and nullification.

Also interesting is how most on the right are avid supporters of judicial review and the authority of the courts to invalidate state and Federal laws when a gun control measure is ruled un-Constitutional.

So much for 'the will of the people.'

dear, if the will of the people mattered a great deal we would not use the Constitution.

Do you understand??

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hostility toward judicial review is not predicated on facts of law and the Constitution but on the frustration of racists and bigots unable to codify their racism and bigotry in state laws, whereby disadvantaging those whom they hate, such as African-Americans and gay Americans.

Interesting thing is WQ is clueless about Judicial Review and nullification.

Also interesting is how most on the right are avid supporters of judicial review and the authority of the courts to invalidate state and Federal laws when a gun control measure is ruled un-Constitutional.

So much for 'the will of the people.'

dear, if the will of the people mattered a great deal we would not use the Constitution.

Do you understand??

EB is now for judicial review?

OK, that is a start, and not too stupid.