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

[JakeStarkey]

IlarLiability, my bitch, is getting frisky out so I will punk him.

 

[emilynghiem]

"You voted for HHH, Carter, Bubba Clinton and Lurch, you despicable lying rodent" is lying from LiabilitaryIlar. Nothing new.

He is a dirty lying pretender who is not even a Republican, so he won't be attending the convention. I will be there.

No true blue American really pays much attention to his posts, other than kick at them on occasion like this.

Poor Fakey. I got him all pissed off in mid-period. Again.

Anyway, Fakey, you diseased lying rat twat, I am not a Republican. I have already noted that I am not a Republican.

Neither are you you dishonest pin prick. But one of us (i.e., me) openly acknowledges not being a Republican. YOU falsely pose as a Republican.

Thankfully, you are so wholly dishonest and KNOWN to be entirely dishonest that you lack any shred of credibility.

Thus, you fool nobody. Ever.

Now, go take your Midol my little bitch. Face facts. I own you.

Sorry IlarMeilyr but neither you nor anyone on here "owns" JakeStarkey who
continues to speak, think and post as an individual. I am still trying to find the angle
that speaks to Jake, so I can align and agree with that wavelength.

If you are not on the same page, that shows the views that you both own are separate.

When you speak the same language, you can share ownership over the points you agree on.

Jake and I haven't even found that place where we are perfectly in tune and sync with each other.
We are still missing notes, and out of key/tune here and there.

So if he and I are off, certainly you who is not even trying to find agreement with Jake
cannot claim ownership, thinking you have this.

If you were so right, Jake would agree and correct things to align with you.
I don't see that happening yet.

We don't own each other. The process guides us until we reach agreement
on the key principles that should remain public policy, and agree on the private areas and how
to set that up where they aren't in conflict with the interests of others protected equally.

Then we will all be on the same page. It's not a matter of owning others, but correcting ourselves where we can align without compromising points or principles that are key to the solution.

Jake represents views outside my own I cannot fully identify with myself,
but I must include in order for Constitutional laws to be equally inclusive.

Wherever that is coming from, I am sure I will never own it.
We all belong to God, so if God respects our free will, surely we should not be in the
business of trying to own or dictate to each other, but just try to correct and align mutually
so that God's will puts all of ours in perspective and harmonic balance.

He is totally owned. He my bitch and shit.

Seriously, he knows what to say because he is a far left wing goober and just spews what those brain-dead Soros inspired Daily Kos guzzling numbnutz TELL him to think.

I feel guilty owning him. You know, what with slavery being properly outlawed and all. But it is all his own fault.

He may not like being my bitch. But that is irrelevant. He my bitch all the same. I have owned him since jump.

At least you keep JakeStarkey entertained, dear IlarMeilyr
I fear I bore my poor friend to tears, causing him to bang his head against the wall: NO NO NO not again!
If you provide him entertainment value, you have one up on me, for sure!

Perhaps we should have auditions on USMB to find the pair of people
whose endless blah blah blah should be used in stereo headphones
to replace waterboarding as a UN approved form of torture.

Me in one ear, and either you or GISMYS yelling Bible passages from the rooftop.
Or Sunniman and Irosie in stereo.

I think ISIS would surrender rather than listen to that!
Take care, and enjoy the rest of your holiday season.
Thanks for the entertainment value, I'm glad someone can find humor here and remind us to be Merry!

Yours truly, Emily

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"You voted for HHH, Carter, Bubba Clinton and Lurch, you despicable lying rodent" is lying from LiabilitaryIlar. Nothing new.

He is a dirty lying pretender who is not even a Republican, so he won't be attending the convention. I will be there.

No true blue American really pays much attention to his posts, other than kick at them on occasion like this.

Poor Fakey. I got him all pissed off in mid-period. Again.

Anyway, Fakey, you diseased lying rat twat, I am not a Republican. I have already noted that I am not a Republican.

Neither are you you dishonest pin prick. But one of us (i.e., me) openly acknowledges not being a Republican. YOU falsely pose as a Republican.

Thankfully, you are so wholly dishonest and KNOWN to be entirely dishonest that you lack any shred of credibility.

Thus, you fool nobody. Ever.

Now, go take your Midol my little bitch. Face facts. I own you.

Sorry IlarMeilyr but neither you nor anyone on here "owns" JakeStarkey who
continues to speak, think and post as an individual. I am still trying to find the angle
that speaks to Jake, so I can align and agree with that wavelength.

If you are not on the same page, that shows the views that you both own are separate.

When you speak the same language, you can share ownership over the points you agree on.

Jake and I haven't even found that place where we are perfectly in tune and sync with each other.
We are still missing notes, and out of key/tune here and there.

So if he and I are off, certainly you who is not even trying to find agreement with Jake
cannot claim ownership, thinking you have this.

If you were so right, Jake would agree and correct things to align with you.
I don't see that happening yet.

We don't own each other. The process guides us until we reach agreement
on the key principles that should remain public policy, and agree on the private areas and how
to set that up where they aren't in conflict with the interests of others protected equally.

Then we will all be on the same page. It's not a matter of owning others, but correcting ourselves where we can align without compromising points or principles that are key to the solution.

Jake represents views outside my own I cannot fully identify with myself,
but I must include in order for Constitutional laws to be equally inclusive.

Wherever that is coming from, I am sure I will never own it.
We all belong to God, so if God respects our free will, surely we should not be in the
business of trying to own or dictate to each other, but just try to correct and align mutually
so that God's will puts all of ours in perspective and harmonic balance.

He is totally owned. He my bitch and shit.

Seriously, he knows what to say because he is a far left wing goober and just spews what those brain-dead Soros inspired Daily Kos guzzling numbnutz TELL him to think.

I feel guilty owning him. You know, what with slavery being properly outlawed and all. But it is all his own fault.

He may not like being my bitch. But that is irrelevant. He my bitch all the same. I have owned him since jump.

At least you keep JakeStarkey entertained, dear IlarMeilyr
I fear I bore my poor friend to tears, causing him to bang his head against the wall: NO NO NO not again!
If you provide him entertainment value, you have one up on me, for sure!

Perhaps we should have auditions on USMB to find the pair of people
whose endless blah blah blah should be used in stereo headphones
to replace waterboarding as a UN approved form of torture.

Me in one ear, and either you or GISMYS yelling Bible passages from the rooftop.
Or Sunniman and Irosie in stereo.

I think ISIS would surrender rather than listen to that!
Take care, and enjoy the rest of your holiday season.
Thanks for the entertainment value, I'm glad someone can find humor here and remind us to be Merry!

Yours truly, Emily

Giving him a tiny snippet of tin foil to catch the sun's reflection will provide that pinhead with endless hours of amusement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[IlarMeilyr]

View attachment 57025

Fakey (as all can plainly see) ^ remains entirely derivative and utterly boring.

His ongoing obsession with me is kind of icky, though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You say something, Valentine?

 

[emilynghiem]

"You voted for HHH, Carter, Bubba Clinton and Lurch, you despicable lying rodent" is lying from LiabilitaryIlar. Nothing new.

He is a dirty lying pretender who is not even a Republican, so he won't be attending the convention. I will be there.

No true blue American really pays much attention to his posts, other than kick at them on occasion like this.

Poor Fakey. I got him all pissed off in mid-period. Again.

Anyway, Fakey, you diseased lying rat twat, I am not a Republican. I have already noted that I am not a Republican.

Neither are you you dishonest pin prick. But one of us (i.e., me) openly acknowledges not being a Republican. YOU falsely pose as a Republican.

Thankfully, you are so wholly dishonest and KNOWN to be entirely dishonest that you lack any shred of credibility.

Thus, you fool nobody. Ever.

Now, go take your Midol my little bitch. Face facts. I own you.

Sorry IlarMeilyr but neither you nor anyone on here "owns" JakeStarkey who
continues to speak, think and post as an individual. I am still trying to find the angle
that speaks to Jake, so I can align and agree with that wavelength.

If you are not on the same page, that shows the views that you both own are separate.

When you speak the same language, you can share ownership over the points you agree on.

Jake and I haven't even found that place where we are perfectly in tune and sync with each other.
We are still missing notes, and out of key/tune here and there.

So if he and I are off, certainly you who is not even trying to find agreement with Jake
cannot claim ownership, thinking you have this.

If you were so right, Jake would agree and correct things to align with you.
I don't see that happening yet.

We don't own each other. The process guides us until we reach agreement
on the key principles that should remain public policy, and agree on the private areas and how
to set that up where they aren't in conflict with the interests of others protected equally.

Then we will all be on the same page. It's not a matter of owning others, but correcting ourselves where we can align without compromising points or principles that are key to the solution.

Jake represents views outside my own I cannot fully identify with myself,
but I must include in order for Constitutional laws to be equally inclusive.

Wherever that is coming from, I am sure I will never own it.
We all belong to God, so if God respects our free will, surely we should not be in the
business of trying to own or dictate to each other, but just try to correct and align mutually
so that God's will puts all of ours in perspective and harmonic balance.

He is totally owned. He my bitch and shit.

Seriously, he knows what to say because he is a far left wing goober and just spews what those brain-dead Soros inspired Daily Kos guzzling numbnutz TELL him to think.

I feel guilty owning him. You know, what with slavery being properly outlawed and all. But it is all his own fault.

He may not like being my bitch. But that is irrelevant. He my bitch all the same. I have owned him since jump.

At least you keep JakeStarkey entertained, dear IlarMeilyr
I fear I bore my poor friend to tears, causing him to bang his head against the wall: NO NO NO not again!
If you provide him entertainment value, you have one up on me, for sure!

Perhaps we should have auditions on USMB to find the pair of people
whose endless blah blah blah should be used in stereo headphones
to replace waterboarding as a UN approved form of torture.

Me in one ear, and either you or GISMYS yelling Bible passages from the rooftop.
Or Sunniman and Irosie in stereo.

I think ISIS would surrender rather than listen to that!
Take care, and enjoy the rest of your holiday season.
Thanks for the entertainment value, I'm glad someone can find humor here and remind us to be Merry!

Yours truly, Emily

Giving him a tiny snippet of tin foil to catch the sun's reflection will provide that pinhead with endless hours of amusement.

Ha ha IlarMeilyr
Not if JakeStarkey and I are too busy using all that foil to make fancy hats.
So we can communicate with each other -- as aliens from opposite ends of the universe, left and right!
[insert Twilight Zone theme, and the five tones....]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily?

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 57025

Fakey (as all can plainly see) ^ remains entirely derivative and utterly boring.

His ongoing obsession with me is kind of icky, though.

I see it is mutual between you, that you both have a karmic thing going.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? You were designed concurrently to be
stuck in a lovehate relationship. Until you both outgrow it and decide to be bigger and move on.
You are both very entertaining in the meantime, so thank you for that.
Have fun fighting like lovebirds, and I'll see where this leads after you kiss and make up!
Those break up and make up fights tend to produce a lot of hormones, so be careful where you direct your energy.
With the chemistry between you, you have enough potential energy to blow ISIS off the map. Please use it for good!

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily?

JakeStarkey if you can keep IlarMeilyr this entertained and contained,
you are quite the beast whisperer yourself. I didn't know you had it in ya!
You would make a great interplanetary mediator to avert Universal War 6.
You will have them convinced they've captured their wascally wabbit
and be too proud of themselves to pursue further conquest. Their work ends with you. Done!

You handle those cases, and I will befuddle the others with my blah blah blah ray gun. Zapppp!!
Blast them silly. That will leave only the people who can make sense of what we're really saying, seriously.
The rest will screen themselves out. We'd make a great team in cleaning up the Universe by process of elimination.

 

[Programmer]

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.

The authority is granted by a citizen with standing and a case.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

The authority is granted by a citizen with standing and a case.

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

Sec. 3. EQUAL RIGHTS. All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.

Sec. 3a. EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative.

(Added Nov. 7, 1972.)

 

[IlarMeilyr]

He loathes me, Fakey does, just because I have never relented in exposing his fundamental fraud.

Everything else is just fluff stuff and nonsense.

I don't value his opinion in anything on Earth. And that includes the fact that he doesn't seem to value my views, either.

It doesn't matter. What does matter is that I am the sharp little speck of dirt in his eye, irritating the living shit out of him constantly by ALWAYS reminding him -- and others -- that his Board persona is premised on a falsity.

It suffices to amuse me from time to time.

If I look for intelligent observations or discussions, I look elsewhere. Everyone should.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You say something, Valentine?

Hey look! ^ There it goes again.

 

[Skylar]

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!

The judicial power.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It is NOT written IN the Constitution that the Judicial Branch has the power of judicial review.

That claimed Constitutional power was READ INTO it. It is said to be inherent or implied.

Debate the basis of the implication all you want. But for now, that IS one of the basic powers of the judicial branch.

(For my part, I do see it as a necessary power. But that doesn't mean that it, too, cannot be subject to checks and balances.)

 

[Skylar]

It is NOT written IN the Constitution that the Judicial Branch has the power of judicial review.

The Federalist Papers made it clear that the judicial power included the authority the interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violated the constitution.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents...

Federalist Paper 78

Further, Judicial review was already well established in British jurisprudence and common law, from which the US system was drawn.

Even logically, how would the judiciary have the power to rule on all cases that arise under the constitution....if they couldn't rule against laws that violate the constitution? It would be like an Executive tasked with executing the law that couldn't arrest anyone. It simply makes no sense.

(For my part, I do see it as a necessary power. But that doesn't mean that it, too, cannot be subject to checks and balances.)

I agree. There could be no such thing as unconstitutional legislation if there were no judicial review. As the very bodies that were passing the legislation would be the only judge of if their legislation were in accordance with the constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't hate you, Valentine, you are my bitch. Can't hate my bitch.

Judicial Review was recognized by nine of the states before the Convention. The concept was not new to anyone, if not liked by everyone.

The fact is that JR has been resolved for 200 plus years, despite Jefferson and Jackson's screaming, and it will not go away.

Ilar, your dislike of it means no more than a leaf before a hurricane.

 

[jillian]

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.

that's insane, you know and has no relationship to our governmental or legal system.

try again, nutter.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

that's insane, you know and has no relationship to our governmental or legal system.

try again, nutter.

Dear jillian and WelfareQueen
I will go out on a limb and support WQ on this point.

(1) It is NATURAL LAW that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
That is how government authority is justified, like a contract, by consent of the parties to the contract, ie the people.

(2) I will back jillian JakeStarkey and others who are saying that
"we the people already agreed to authorize the judiciary to do x y z" by democratic process.
I understand that is the established precedent.

However, if this authority is ABUSED to violate the "consent of the governed" it contradicts itself.
You are saying that by consent of the people, we authorized govt, YES,
but NO we did not authorize govt to push this power so far as to violate the consent and rights of the public.

Examples: (a) Just because we give the President and Congress certain authorities in war decisions,
does NOT mean they can ABUSE that power to overreach and make decisions outside the agreement.
Many people did NOT agree that the UN resolutions called for going to war if there were refusals to inspections.
Many people did NOT agree that Congress or President should be subjecting troops to UN jurisdiction instead of US.
(b) Just because we authorize the judiciary to determine issues of Constitutionality, if a law is Constitutional or not,
does NOT mean we agree to let the judiciary MAKE RELIGIOUS DECISIONS for people in the case of conflicts.
Throwing out a case and refusing to rule, because issues of faith or belief on both sides are involved, is ONE THING.
But to rule in FAVOR of one faith-based side over another is NOT the same as throwing out a case or a law and requiring
the people or states to rewrite it so it does not impose, infringe or establish one belief over another.

So YES there are points where you are both right:
YES I agree with WelfareQueen that ultimately the govt answers to the people and is held accountable that way,
where any conflicts or grievances must be resolved in order to represent the public interest -- that ideally is the spirit of the law or contract
YES I agree with those saying we have authorized the judiciary to make decisions on law and interpretation

but NO this does not mean we give judiciary or govt "unchecked" authority -- there are LIMITS and CHECKS on this authority.

THAT is where we DISAGREE.
When our political beliefs are at stake, we don't agree which decisions were fair or not.
In truth, regardless if such contested rulings align or diverge from OUR beliefs,
the fact that overreaching rulings violate the beliefs of others, THAT is what makes them
unconstitutional -- not whether we agree with the content or not.

We should resolve those conflicts so there is Equal protection of Consent of the Governed. That should be the ruling principle -- do people affected by a contract agree to it? Or do we need to resolve issues before we can all consent equally?

We should be in the business of resolving these issues, NOT stifling or censoring by abusing the judiciary to overrule others "when we don't agree with the outcome." If we want the judicial decisions to reflect the consent of the people, we should reach agreement first, and base laws on that. We are all hypocrites if we only contest decisions that exclude or discriminate against our beliefs but endorse rulings that violate the beliefs of others we don't agree with anyway.
I prefer to stand on principle and refrain from any such imposition on creeds in general.
So yes, I do enforce the idea of LIMITS and CHECKS on what things the judiciary can
mandate or rule on; and just like my fellow progressive liberals, I do call for a "separation of
church and state authority" to stop the abuse of judicial and legal authority that amounts to "divine right to rule" by making decisions for people outside the Constitutional bounds of govt.