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

[frigidweirdo]

I'm just wondering what people think Judicial Power is.

 

[Skylar]

I'm just wondering what people think Judicial Power is.

Federalist Paper 78 lays it out pretty clearly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm just wondering what people think Judicial Power is.

Federalist Paper 78 lays it out pretty clearly.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."

Like this?

 

[Skylar]

I'm just wondering what people think Judicial Power is.

Federalist Paper 78 lays it out pretty clearly.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."

Like this?

Like that. And like this:

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.

And like this:

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.

The Judicial power is unremarkable, being largely identical to the authority wielded by the judiciary under British jurisprudence. Which makes sense...given that British legal tradition was the one the founders were most familiar with.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The Judicial power is unremarkable, being largely identical to the authority wielded by the judiciary under British jurisprudence. Which makes sense...given that British legal tradition was the one the founders were most familiar with."

And where the doctrine of judicial review was practiced by Colonial courts for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era; Americans of the new Nation fully expected state and Federal courts to continue that practice.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm just wondering what people think Judicial Power is.

Federalist Paper 78 lays it out pretty clearly.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."

Like this?

Like that. And like this:

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.

And like this:

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.

The Judicial power is unremarkable, being largely identical to the authority wielded by the judiciary under British jurisprudence. Which makes sense...given that British legal tradition was the one the founders were most familiar with.

Of course, and it makes sense, in opposition to the OP, that the courts have the power to strike down laws that are unconstitutional.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."

Like this?

So tell us what law or section of the constitution the judges were interpreting in plyler v doe when they ordered the states to give free k-12 to illegal kids.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Of course, and it makes sense, in opposition to the OP, that the courts have the power to strike down laws that are unconstitutional.

Repealing laws is a legislative function and as the board keeps reminding you, the first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

Judges are, of course, free to give their opinion on the constitutionality of a law, as is everyone; but that should not repeal the law.

 

[Skylar]

[

Of course, and it makes sense, in opposition to the OP, that the courts have the power to strike down laws that are unconstitutional.

Repealing laws is a legislative function and as the board keeps reminding you, the first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

Judges are, of course, free to give their opinion on the constitutionality of a law, as is everyone; but that should not repeal the law.

Overturning laws that violate the constitution is a judicial function. As the constitution is the supreme law that all laws passed by the legislatures are beholden to. When legislatures pass laws that violate the constitution, the supremecy clause kicks in and the violating law is overturned.

Exactly as Hamilton described in Federalist Paper 78.

You disagree. Um.....why would I ignore Hamilton, English Common law, colonial history, the Supreme Court and simple common sense....

......and believe you citing yourself?

 

[Conservative65]

[

Of course, and it makes sense, in opposition to the OP, that the courts have the power to strike down laws that are unconstitutional.

Repealing laws is a legislative function and as the board keeps reminding you, the first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

Judges are, of course, free to give their opinion on the constitutionality of a law, as is everyone; but that should not repeal the law.

Overturning laws that violate the constitution is a judicial function. As the constitution is the supreme law that all laws passed by the legislatures are beholden to. When legislatures pass laws that violate the constitution, the supremecy clause kicks in and the violating law is overturned.

Exactly as Hamilton described in Federalist Paper 78.

You disagree. Um.....why would I ignore Hamilton, English Common law, colonial history, the Supreme Court and simple common sense....

......and believe you citing yourself?

Where specifically does the Constitution say courts/judges have that power? You take things and twist them to make it fit what you WANT it to say. That's how you Liberals work.

 

[Skylar]

[

Of course, and it makes sense, in opposition to the OP, that the courts have the power to strike down laws that are unconstitutional.

Repealing laws is a legislative function and as the board keeps reminding you, the first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

Judges are, of course, free to give their opinion on the constitutionality of a law, as is everyone; but that should not repeal the law.

Overturning laws that violate the constitution is a judicial function. As the constitution is the supreme law that all laws passed by the legislatures are beholden to. When legislatures pass laws that violate the constitution, the supremecy clause kicks in and the violating law is overturned.

Exactly as Hamilton described in Federalist Paper 78.

You disagree. Um.....why would I ignore Hamilton, English Common law, colonial history, the Supreme Court and simple common sense....

......and believe you citing yourself?

Where specifically does the Constitution say courts/judges have that power?

The constitution cites the judicial power. Which, as Federalist 78 makes clear and everyone understood, includes the authority to interpret the constitution.

If you're gonna go with the 'the constitution has to explain ever term it uses' theory, then the Executive can't arrest anyone or enforce any law. Because that's not explicitly stated as being part of the executive power.

You take things and twist them to make it fit what you WANT it to say. That's how you Liberals work.

More accurately, I'm quoting Federalist 78:

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.

So when I say that the courts have the authority to interpret the constitution, I'm 'twisting them to fit what I want'? Or am I accurately citing the Federalist Papers on the matter?

When I say that the courts are obligated to give preference to the constitution over a statute, I'm 'twisting them to fit what I want'? Or am I accurately citing the Federalist Papers on the matter?

Even logically, your argument makes no sense. As it presupposes that its impossible for a law to violate the constitution.

 

[Conservative65]

[

Of course, and it makes sense, in opposition to the OP, that the courts have the power to strike down laws that are unconstitutional.

Repealing laws is a legislative function and as the board keeps reminding you, the first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

Judges are, of course, free to give their opinion on the constitutionality of a law, as is everyone; but that should not repeal the law.

Overturning laws that violate the constitution is a judicial function. As the constitution is the supreme law that all laws passed by the legislatures are beholden to. When legislatures pass laws that violate the constitution, the supremecy clause kicks in and the violating law is overturned.

Exactly as Hamilton described in Federalist Paper 78.

You disagree. Um.....why would I ignore Hamilton, English Common law, colonial history, the Supreme Court and simple common sense....

......and believe you citing yourself?

Where specifically does the Constitution say courts/judges have that power?

The constitution cites the judicial power. Which, as Federalist 78 makes clear and everyone understood, includes the authority to interpret the constitution.

If you're gonna go with the 'the constitution has to explain ever term it uses' theory, then the Executive can't arrest anyone or enforce any law. Because that's not explicitly stated as being part of the executive power.


You take things and twist them to make it fit what you WANT it to say. That's how you Liberals work.

[/QUOTE]

Executive powers, which means execute or carry out gives the executive the authority to enforce the laws. That's what the term means goof.

Like I said, you take thing and twist them.

 

[Skylar]

Executive powers, which means execute or carry out gives the executive the authority to enforce the laws. That's what the term means goof.

Show me anywhere in the constitution where the word 'enforce' is listed. Or 'arrest'. If you can't, then by your own standards, the Executive has no such authority.

See? Even you recognize that your standards make no sense. Which is why you abandon them the moment they are inconvenient.

Like I said, you take thing and twist them.

More accurately, I'm quoting Federalist 78:

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.

So when I say that the courts have the authority to interpret the constitution, I'm 'twisting them to fit what I want'? Or am I accurately citing the Federalist Papers on the matter?

When I say that the courts are obligated to give preference to the constitution over a statute, I'm 'twisting them to fit what I want'? Or am I accurately citing the Federalist Papers on the matter?

Even logically, your argument makes no sense. As it presupposes that its impossible for a law to violate the constitution.

 

[Conservative65]

Repealing laws is a legislative function and as the board keeps reminding you, the first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

Judges are, of course, free to give their opinion on the constitutionality of a law, as is everyone; but that should not repeal the law.

Overturning laws that violate the constitution is a judicial function. As the constitution is the supreme law that all laws passed by the legislatures are beholden to. When legislatures pass laws that violate the constitution, the supremecy clause kicks in and the violating law is overturned.

Exactly as Hamilton described in Federalist Paper 78.

You disagree. Um.....why would I ignore Hamilton, English Common law, colonial history, the Supreme Court and simple common sense....

......and believe you citing yourself?

Where specifically does the Constitution say courts/judges have that power?

The constitution cites the judicial power. Which, as Federalist 78 makes clear and everyone understood, includes the authority to interpret the constitution.

If you're gonna go with the 'the constitution has to explain ever term it uses' theory, then the Executive can't arrest anyone or enforce any law. Because that's not explicitly stated as being part of the executive power.


You take things and twist them to make it fit what you WANT it to say. That's how you Liberals work.

Executive powers, which means execute or carry out gives the executive the authority to enforce the laws. That's what the term means goof.

Show me anywhere in the constitution where the word 'enforce' is listed. Or 'arrest'. If you can't, then by your own standards, the Executive has no such authority.

See? Even you recognize that your standards make no sense. Which is why you abandon them the moment they are inconvenient.

Like I said, you take thing and twist them.

More accurately, I'm quoting Federalist 78:

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.

So when I say that the courts have the authority to interpret the constitution, I'm 'twisting them to fit what I want'? Or am I accurately citing the Federalist Papers on the matter?

When I say that the courts are obligated to give preference to the constitution over a statute, I'm 'twisting them to fit what I want'? Or am I accurately citing the Federalist Papers on the matter?

Even logically, your argument makes no sense. As it presupposes that its impossible for a law to violate the constitution.[/QUOTE]

What your doing is saying the Constitution says something it simply doesn't SAY.

Federalist 78 isn't the Constitution. You saying because Federalist 78 says something that means it's in the Constitution. What article, section, and clause says what you say the Constitution is stating?

The job of the President is to faithfully execute the laws. Ever heard of a thesaurus. Carry out, enforce, fulfill, etc. mean execute, hence, the term executive.

Are you really that stupid?

 

[Skylar]

What your doing is saying the Constitution says something it simply doesn't SAY.

Wrong....as the constitution does grant the judiciary the Judicial Power. Which, like the Executive Power, it doesn't define explicitly. But which the Federalist Papers make ridiculously obvious that the founders understood.

And your 'unless the constitution defines the term, there is no definitive' argument is garbage. As the constitution is riddled with terms that it doesn't define but have significant impact on its application. You yourself reject the ''unless the constitution defines the term' standard.....by concluding that the Executive Power includes all sorts of powers that the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention.

Like arrest, enforcement and incarceration. All of which the Executive obviously does have. And as the Federalist Papers, history, and simple common sense demonstrate, was intended to. Just like the Judicial Power includes the authority to interpret the constitution.

So even you don't buy your own bullshit. And I certainly have no use for it.

Federalist 78 isn't the Constitution. You saying because Federalist 78 says something that means it's in the Constitution. What article, section, and clause says what you say the Constitution is stating?

The job of the President is to faithfully execute the laws. Ever heard of a thesaurus. Carry out, enforce, fulfill, etc. mean execute, hence, the term executive.

Are you really that stupid?

Then your 'twisting to say what you want' argument just fell apart. As we BOTH agree that I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers. And that they indicate that the Judicial Power *does* include both the power to interpret the constitution and the obligation of the Judiciary to give preference to the constitution over a statute that violates it.

You simply choose to ignore the Federalist Papers. And apply a standard that even you ignore when its inconvenient. As the powers you attribute to the Executive aren't mentioned anywhere in the constitution explicitly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."

Like this?

So tell us what law or section of the constitution the judges were interpreting in plyler v doe when they ordered the states to give free k-12 to illegal kids.

The Supreme Court struck down a law. That law denied funding. They didn't order states to give anything to anyone. They ordered the state to remove the law that had been put in place. They said this violated the Constitution, specifically the 14A because these children were "are people "in any ordinary sense of the term,""

 

[frigidweirdo]

[

Of course, and it makes sense, in opposition to the OP, that the courts have the power to strike down laws that are unconstitutional.

Repealing laws is a legislative function and as the board keeps reminding you, the first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

Judges are, of course, free to give their opinion on the constitutionality of a law, as is everyone; but that should not repeal the law.

Ever heard of checks and balances?

If Congress make a law that is unconstitutional and the law needs to be repealed, who does this? Congress itself? It passed the law, why would it repeal this law after it passed it? It clearly didn't think it was unconstitutional or didn't care? The point of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and to strike down any law (basically this means telling the legislature to write a different law) that is considered unconstitutional.

Basically here's how things work.

You can go to court to sue people. If the Supreme Court has ruled against a law, and the law is still in place, then people will sue the government, and the Supreme Court has basically told people that they will win.

So the legislature has to repeal the law OR BE SUED TO DEATH by people.

So, yes, the legislature has to repeal the law, but they could choose not to, and they'd be choosing to being sued on a constant basis.

Got it?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The constitution cites the judicial power. Which, as Federalist 78 makes clear and everyone understood, includes the authority to interpret the constitution.

Interpret perhaps but judicial poser does not give authority to write and repeal laws. Those are the functions of the legislature, as everyone knows. And yet judges do those two things all the time.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Ever heard of checks and balances?

So who acts as a check on the Supreme Court? No one does since they serve for life.

But the voters act as a check on congress and that's why i want them judging whether a law is constitutional or not.

 

[Skylar]

The constitution cites the judicial power. Which, as Federalist 78 makes clear and everyone understood, includes the authority to interpret the constitution.

Interpret perhaps but judicial poser does not give authority to write and repeal laws. Those are the functions of the legislature, as everyone knows. And yet judges do those two things all the time.

They have the authority to enact the Supremecy Clause. When a legislature writes a law that conflicts with the Supreme law of the land, the Supreme Law of the land wins.

Or as Federalist Paper 78 said:

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.

The judiciary owes the superior obligation to the Constitution over the statute.