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

[JakeStarkey]

Fakey is to debating as he is to honesty.

And everyone knows that his US Message Board persona (he actually clings to the transparently dishonest claim that he is a "Republican," even though essentially no one buys that obvious lie) is the premise of most of his other lies. I have kicked his ass here so hard and so often, I end up with a callous on my foot.

That must be some strange stuff you are huffing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is evidence that the framers intended the court to do what they do, Federalist Papers and all that.
The framers simply didn't put it into the Constitution and the Court decided lo and behold it was there all the time. People have accepted Marbury and most think it was written into the Constitution.

Even Robert Bork gives credit to Marshall for Marbury. In his estimation, it seems that without it the Union would tear itself a part.

But then he says that Marshall was somewhat contradictory in his behavior as a judge in his later years.

Certainly, one thing that has failed has been the legislature. They should move to make sure the exact limitations defined by the courts are challenged on a routine basis.

I don't believe courts seek to write laws (with some exceptions). However, their words are often interpreted as such.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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!

Can you please provide an example of the courts "writing a law" ?

I believe it has happened on occasion.

But an example would do this argument wonders.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

READING Article III is not enough, Fakey. One must try to understand it and one should attempt to do so in conjunction with the rest of the Constitution and what the Founders and Framers were attempting to accomplish. You lolberals (and other fraud "Republicans" like you) are seemingly incapable of grasping any of that.

You are a lawyer, so you know just how laughable is that which you just wrote.

What the Founders and Framers did, as commendable as it was, still lacked basic decency towards women and slaves and Native Americans and others.

If I were a history teacher, I would use some of your examples as evidence of the progress that we have made in the last 200 plus years from your silly mindset.

A lawyer...


BWahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa....

what kind of a lawyer? Jesus, what a joke

Correll is often wrong, but he will fight yet he will try to learn. Ilar, asshole though he is, is always up for a good fight. Sun Devil and BobBlaylock are the quintessential "can't take what they try to dish out" Board losers. Better they stay down, because if they get try get up, they will get the crap kicked out of them.

Sad.

Fakey is never up for a good fight because his entire persona is a dishonest bit of fiction. He lies habitually and is utterly unequipped to make a coherent argument or defend any of his "positions" via logic -- ever.

Dainty is even worse in some ways.

The claim that what the Founders and Framers did lacked "decency" toward native Americans and Indians is so ignorant and misinformed as to require nothing more than highlighting.

Dainty, in all seriousness, you are a truly pathetic vile little person.

Pathetic? Vile? little person?

Wow! What did I ever do to deserve such praise from your hurt-butt? I'm a bit flabbergasted, speechless, and humbled...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Can you please provide an example of the courts "writing a law" ?

I believe it has happened on occasion.

But an example would do this argument wonders.

yes, please...

lead the way ... post example(s)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

READING Article III is not enough, Fakey. One must try to understand it and one should attempt to do so in conjunction with the rest of the Constitution and what the Founders and Framers were attempting to accomplish. You lolberals (and other fraud "Republicans" like you) are seemingly incapable of grasping any of that.

You are a lawyer, so you know just how laughable is that which you just wrote.

What the Founders and Framers did, as commendable as it was, still lacked basic decency towards women and slaves and Native Americans and others.

If I were a history teacher, I would use some of your examples as evidence of the progress that we have made in the last 200 plus years from your silly mindset.

A lawyer...


BWahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa....

what kind of a lawyer? Jesus, what a joke

Correll is often wrong, but he will fight yet he will try to learn. Ilar, asshole though he is, is always up for a good fight. Sun Devil and BobBlaylock are the quintessential "can't take what they try to dish out" Board losers. Better they stay down, because if they get try get up, they will get the crap kicked out of them.

Sad.

Fakey is never up for a good fight because his entire persona is a dishonest bit of fiction. He lies habitually and is utterly unequipped to make a coherent argument or defend any of his "positions" via logic -- ever.

Dainty is even worse in some ways.

The claim that what the Founders and Framers did lacked "decency" toward native Americans and Indians is so ignorant and misinformed as to require nothing more than highlighting.

Dainty, in all seriousness, you are a truly pathetic vile little person.

IlarMeilyr / Liability /Liar-in-Chief @ usmb, why do people from cheap immigrant stock like you always claim to speak for the ancestors of your betters?

You have about as much connection to the founding generation as Special ( EdwardBaiamonte ) Ed has to sanity

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do people on political websites not go and learn what the separation of powers are before they start talking crap?

This OP is typical of people who have big gobs and know nothing about anything, but will still tell everyone how wrong they are.

Jesus, a friggin weirdo nut outgunning a Shoot Speeders nut???

whatever will usmb gives us to equal this sideshow? How will they trump this?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Fakey is incapable of ever being honest.

...

Everyone here knows...

So old school of you to speak as if you are the leader of some imaginary crowd. But you never did answer why the likes of you Poor-Ole-Dave and others share this habit?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is evidence that the framers intended the court to do what they do, Federalist Papers and all that.
The framers simply didn't put it into the Constitution and the Court decided lo and behold it was there all the time. People have accepted Marbury and most think it was written into the Constitution.

Even Robert Bork gives credit to Marshall for Marbury. In his estimation, it seems that without it the Union would tear itself a part.

But then he says that Marshall was somewhat contradictory in his behavior as a judge in his later years.

Certainly, one thing that has failed has been the legislature. They should move to make sure the exact limitations defined by the courts are challenged on a routine basis.

I don't believe courts seek to write laws (with some exceptions). However, their words are often interpreted as such.

So Bork "says that Marshall was somewhat contradictory in his behavior as a judge in his later years."???

Wow! I'd rather see what historians say. But I am sure Marshall's views on some things probably evolved as he aged. His old nemesis Jefferson, the failed Nail Manufacturer changed his views so often in his career (before he aged) he was considered one of the biggest hypocrites of his era -- and is saying lots


and Bork -- part of the reason Senator Kennedy and others went after Bork was his actions around the Watergate/Saturday Night Massacre Saturday Night Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Watergate's Saturday Night Massacre gets more interesting with age

 

[JakeStarkey]

Love it when Ilar gets going, he is so boring, he would bore anybody to death or back to death.

 

[Flopper]

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!

Courts do not repeal laws. A process know as judicial review allows courts to set aside state or federal laws that violate the US Constitution. Judicial review although not specifically stated in the constitution is supported by the Supremacy Clause and other constitutional text.

Without judicial review, there would be no way of settling issues of supremacy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can you please provide an example of the courts "writing a law" ?

.

abortion is a good example. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about it; yet the SCOTUS has decided there is a Constitutional right to an abortion. They took over what was obviously an legislative function and in effect wrote a law.

Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Without judicial review, there would be no way of settling issues of supremacy.

of course that's stupid given that judicial review was not established until 100 years after the Constitution was adopted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

abortion is a good example. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about it; yet the SCOTUS has decided there is a Constitutional right to an abortion. They took over what was obviously an legislative function and in effect wrote a law.

SCOTUS says the Constitution recognizes a right to privacy, a very conservative position. Do you understand?

 

[JakeStarkey]

of course that's stupid given that judicial review was not established until 100 years after the Constitution was adopted.

Too stupid. A libertarian simply has too low an IQ to understand these matters.

Judicial Review Before Marbury - Scholarship ...
scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2040...
by WM Treanor - ‎2005 - ‎Cited by 152 - ‎Related articles
judicial review case law in the United States before Marbury v. Madison that is ......judicial review. Private parties in the colonies could appeal cases to the Privy.
[PDF]The Origins of Judicial Review Revisited - Washington ...
scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1542...
by GS Wood - ‎1999 - ‎Cited by 97 - ‎Related articles
Jun 1, 1999 - Gordon S. Wood, The Origins of Judicial Review Revisited, or How the ....Not only had the colonial judges been closely connected with the gover- ..... constitution by itself could never have accounted for the development of.
Judicial Review and National Supremacy :: Article III ... - Justia
law.justia.com › ... › Article III. Judicial Department
Justia
Judicial review is one of the distinctive features of United States constitutional law. ...Privy Council review of colonial legislation and its validity under the colonial ... While much of the debate focuses on judicial review of acts of Congress, the ...
Talking Points - History of the Federal Judiciary
www.fjc.gov/history/talking_co_tp.html
Federal Judicial Center
Beginning in 1776, the newly independent states dismantled the colonial court ....Judicial Review—The Convention's longest debate involving the judiciary ...
The Judicial Branch of State Government: People, Process, ...
isbn:1851097511 - Google Search
Sean O. Hogan - 2006 - ‎Law
By 1820, state supreme courts in ten of the original thirteen colonies had ... Therefore, state legislatures had ample experience with judicial review prior to the ... the United States) State Courts and the Development of Judicial Review The use.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Can you please provide an example of the courts "writing a law" ?

.

abortion is a good example. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about it; yet the SCOTUS has decided there is a Constitutional right to an abortion. They took over what was obviously an legislative function and in effect wrote a law.

Do you understand?

Law?

Name the law. You can't because the Supreme Court has NEVER written a law.

The legislative function? What function -- passing laws? Name a law the court has made. The courts have never legislated

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Without judicial review, there would be no way of settling issues of supremacy.

of course that's stupid given that judicial review was not established until 100 years after the Constitution was adopted.

another nonsense post by Special Ed

Why We Have Judicial Review
09 Jan 2007
Mary Sarah Bilder
The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.

After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Why We Have Judicial Review​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Without judicial review, there would be no way of settling issues of supremacy.

of course that's stupid given that judicial review was not established until 100 years after the Constitution was adopted.

notice review is first used under the new government in Marbury, but it is NOT new to colonial Americans

Although it was first asserted in Marbury v. Madison614 to strike down an act of Congress as inconsistent with the Constitution, judicial review did not spring full-blown from the brain of Chief Justice Marshall. The concept had been long known, having been utilized in a much more limited form by Privy Council review of colonial legislation and its validity under the colonial charters,615 and there were several instances known to the Framers of state court invalidation of state legislation as inconsistent with state constitutions.616 Judicial Review and National Supremacy​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Will Special EdwardBaiamonte Ed review the last few posts?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Special Ed? Are you out there? Shall we send a rescue squad into the netherworld of idiots-lost-in-google-searches?