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

[Skylar]

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 unconstitutional or not.

The legislature which can limit the scope of what they are allowed to rule on. Or impeach them. Along with having a say in their confirmation.

Per your reasoning, the legislatures have no balance. And its impossible for there to be an unconstitutional law. As the only body that the legislature is accountable to....is the legislature. And no one can touch them.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

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,""

Point number 1 - Struck down? So you admit the court repealed a law even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

Point number 2 - The first seven words of the constitution are "we the people of the united states" which makes it very clear that the word "people" means citizens.

 

[Skylar]

[

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,""

Point number 1 - Struck down? So you admit the court repealed a law even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

The judicial power includes the authority to interpret the constitution. With the Surpremecy clause mandating that any law that is in conflict with the constitution is subordinate to the Supreme Law of the Land. When a law conflicts with the constitution, the constitution wins.

Per you, the legislature has no accountabilty save to themselves. They decide what constitutionality is. And no law can be found to be unconstitutional by anyone.

That's not our system nor ever has been. As Federalist 78 makes ludicrously clear.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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 unconstitutional or not.

The legislature which can limit the scope of what they are allowed to rule on. Or impeach them. Along with having a say in their confirmation.

Per your reasoning, the legislatures have no balance. And its impossible for there to be an unconstitutional law. As the only body that the legislature is accountable to....is the legislature. And no one can touch them.

Impeach a supreme court judge???? HAHAHA. That has never happened in the 230 year history of america and it never will

As to who the legislature is accountable to - that would be the voters. Now who are supreme court justices accountable to?

 

[Skylar]

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 unconstitutional or not.

The legislature which can limit the scope of what they are allowed to rule on. Or impeach them. Along with having a say in their confirmation.

Per your reasoning, the legislatures have no balance. And its impossible for there to be an unconstitutional law. As the only body that the legislature is accountable to....is the legislature. And no one can touch them.

Impeach a supreme court judge???? HAHAHA. That has never happened in the 230 year history of america and it never will

It doesn't matter if it has. It matters if it can. And as the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase demonstrates, it most certainly can.

You're simply ignoring the checks and balances. But that doesn't make them disappear.

As to who the legislature is accountable to - that would be the voters. Now who are supreme court justices accountable to?

As you just ignored, the legislure. Which has a say in the appointment of these justices, can impeach them, and can limit the scope of their rulings.

Per you, the legislature has no check. They can pass....anything. And no one can stop them.

That's not our system of government. Nor ever has been, as Federalist Paper 78 makes clear. Statutes are checked by the judiciary. And if they are in conflict with the Constitution, the judiciary has an obligation to the Constitution. Not the statute.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Well Congress do. They can make laws, they can change the Constitution with the States. They can impeach the Supreme Court members, there are plenty of checks on the Supreme Court.

You want to judge Congress, but you don't understand the system. I doesn't really matter what you want, the system is there and it's been there longer than you've been alive, and you need to understand it, rather than say you're only interested in this part or that part.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[

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,""

Point number 1 - Struck down? So you admit the court repealed a law even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

Point number 2 - The first seven words of the constitution are "we the people of the united states" which makes it very clear that the word "people" means citizens.

No, I don't admit the court repealed a law. Texas repealed the law because of what the Supreme Court said and the consequences of not repealing the law.

No, people is not considered just citizens. Foreign tourists in the US, and foreign business people also share rights that are given to the people. Essentially the court was saying that Children are children. They have rights too, and as they're in the US and don't have much choice, they have the right to education and other such things.

This is an interpretation of the Constitution. You might not agree with it, well, tough, because that's the way it goes. Sometimes things happen in a different way to what you'd like, you can argue your side, but you still have to accept the decision, even if you're fighting for it to change.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 unconstitutional or not.

The legislature which can limit the scope of what they are allowed to rule on. Or impeach them. Along with having a say in their confirmation.

Per your reasoning, the legislatures have no balance. And its impossible for there to be an unconstitutional law. As the only body that the legislature is accountable to....is the legislature. And no one can touch them.

Impeach a supreme court judge???? HAHAHA. That has never happened in the 230 year history of america and it never will

As to who the legislature is accountable to - that would be the voters. Now who are supreme court justices accountable to?

Maybe because the Justices know how to play the game.

 

[Faun]

That power is not abused, emily.

This is how the system works.

Hi JakeStarkey
Are you saying people are PERFECT JakeStarkey
and the judges on the bench NEVER make mistakes in exceeding the limits of govt?
Really?

Here are some cases I would challenge you on that notion:
(1) When the Courts made a decision taking sides on the Terri Schiavo case
instead of ruling that there were faith based issues on both sides,and NO WRITTEN PROOF of her wishes.
Thus it was her family's word and faith vs. the beliefs of her ex-husband with a conflict of interest.
You can say that the other family members also had a conflict in beliefs.
So given 3-5 family members who believe she would want to continue support and they were willing to pay for and provide this,
versus the ex-husband (1 person) who believed she should be disconnected, and NO WRITTEN PROOF of Terri Schiavo's wishes
WHY do you feel the Courts had the right to make this decision for other people???

I call this a violation of separation of church and state.
That's one example

(2) I already gave the example of how the ACA mandates and ruling by Court
violated the Constitution by endorsing beliefs through govt that are against the beliefs and creeds of Constitutionalists
who believe in free market health care, free choice in health care, states' rights, and/or the necessity of a Constitutional Amendment
before extending authority to federal govt to require insurance to avoid tax penalties and basically regulate on the basis of religion,
(as the exemptions require either faith in govt health care or membership in religious organizations that are approved by govt).

(3) and the issue brought up several times of establishing the "belief in marriage as a right"
using the courts instead of Constitutional Amendment (compare the right to bear arms and right to vote that rely on Amendments)

These are examples of where the judiciary crossed the line into areas of beliefs
that not all people share, and thus violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments
by (1) establishing biased or faith-based policies (2) discriminating on the basis of creed.

Sorry JakeStarkey
I am willing to argue and prove my points all the way to the Presidency and Supreme Court if I have to.

Do you want to bet me 10 million dollars that 1-3 of the points above will prove to be
outside the jurisdiction of the Judiciary to decide for the public, because BELIEFS are involved.

I will bet you 10 million.
I am confident that my arguments, or some form of them, will be proven to
correct the problem with these judicial rulings exceeding Constitutional authority.
I may not be perfect either, but at least I recognize when the govt went too far.

[If you want to throw in govt decisions regarding the war in Iraq as faith based
and "not proven to the public" -- sure, we can argue about other branches of govt
exceeding Constitutional limits, too. The death penalty is also an issue of faith-based
beliefs for and against. Abortion, marriage laws, homosexuality, and even immigration.
I found gun rights and voting rights get equally religious as right to marriage and health care.
How far do you want to take this JakeStarkey?]

"ex-husband??"

WTF?

When did they divorce?

When did a husband lose the right to represent his wife's wishes as next of kin when his wife was no longer able to?

 

[emilynghiem]

That power is not abused, emily.

This is how the system works.

Hi JakeStarkey
Are you saying people are PERFECT JakeStarkey
and the judges on the bench NEVER make mistakes in exceeding the limits of govt?
Really?

Here are some cases I would challenge you on that notion:
(1) When the Courts made a decision taking sides on the Terri Schiavo case
instead of ruling that there were faith based issues on both sides,and NO WRITTEN PROOF of her wishes.
Thus it was her family's word and faith vs. the beliefs of her ex-husband with a conflict of interest.
You can say that the other family members also had a conflict in beliefs.
So given 3-5 family members who believe she would want to continue support and they were willing to pay for and provide this,
versus the ex-husband (1 person) who believed she should be disconnected, and NO WRITTEN PROOF of Terri Schiavo's wishes
WHY do you feel the Courts had the right to make this decision for other people???

I call this a violation of separation of church and state.
That's one example

(2) I already gave the example of how the ACA mandates and ruling by Court
violated the Constitution by endorsing beliefs through govt that are against the beliefs and creeds of Constitutionalists
who believe in free market health care, free choice in health care, states' rights, and/or the necessity of a Constitutional Amendment
before extending authority to federal govt to require insurance to avoid tax penalties and basically regulate on the basis of religion,
(as the exemptions require either faith in govt health care or membership in religious organizations that are approved by govt).

(3) and the issue brought up several times of establishing the "belief in marriage as a right"
using the courts instead of Constitutional Amendment (compare the right to bear arms and right to vote that rely on Amendments)

These are examples of where the judiciary crossed the line into areas of beliefs
that not all people share, and thus violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments
by (1) establishing biased or faith-based policies (2) discriminating on the basis of creed.

Sorry JakeStarkey
I am willing to argue and prove my points all the way to the Presidency and Supreme Court if I have to.

Do you want to bet me 10 million dollars that 1-3 of the points above will prove to be
outside the jurisdiction of the Judiciary to decide for the public, because BELIEFS are involved.

I will bet you 10 million.
I am confident that my arguments, or some form of them, will be proven to
correct the problem with these judicial rulings exceeding Constitutional authority.
I may not be perfect either, but at least I recognize when the govt went too far.

[If you want to throw in govt decisions regarding the war in Iraq as faith based
and "not proven to the public" -- sure, we can argue about other branches of govt
exceeding Constitutional limits, too. The death penalty is also an issue of faith-based
beliefs for and against. Abortion, marriage laws, homosexuality, and even immigration.
I found gun rights and voting rights get equally religious as right to marriage and health care.
How far do you want to take this JakeStarkey?]

"ex-husband??"

WTF?

When did they divorce?

When did a husband lose the right to represent his wife's wishes as next of kin when his wife was no longer able to?

There was a conflict of interest where her "legal husband" was already living
with and starting a family with another woman. Thus, he had a conflict of interest
in having more financial reason to end her life than to preserve it.

If the Court recognizing the "right of the husband" to make a spiritual decision
for his wife WITHOUT ANY WRITTEN PROOF, that is taking the beliefs
of one person over the beliefs of another who is DISABLED and unable to express
consent or dissent.

So even if he has rights as her husband, this was in dispute.

There was nothing in writing to prove her beliefs, consent or dissent.

And that is where the "conflict of interest" as her guardian came in.
The family argued if he was already acting in spirit and practice as the husband to another woman,
he cannot be expected to represent HER interests but HIS OWN.

That conflict was not resolved, but he was recognized as her legal husband
and this point about living with and starting a family with another woman
was not recognized as a conflict of interest with him as her legal guardian.

I agreed with the family that this should be grounds for disputing that.

If you count all people equally, including Terri Schiavo, all their opinions should be equal.
So his opinion was only one. There were other people arguing for the right to support her life.

Treating all people equally, this should either have deadlocked and been thrown out of court
and referred to a mediator to work out the family issues and form a consensus that respects
all these people equally. Or the court should have ordered the family members to AGREE on a NEUTRAL legal guardian to make decisions if they cannot arrive at a consensus. Either mediate or arbitrate by consensus decision, but in no way would I ever authorize a judge in a court to decide for the family.

You can include the husband or exhusband as one person.
But nothing gives him or anyone the right to take their belief
and force it through court onto other people without their consent.

Sorry but there is separation of church and state where the
court is not supposed to "play God" and make spiritual decisions for people.

Even the husband or ex-husband cannot force his religion or beliefs on
a person without committing abuse, especially not in a case of a disabled person.
Since Terri's opinion was not documented, all the other people were equally defending
their beliefs about what she would have wanted. None of these were proven, all were
faith based. The point against Michael Schiavo is he already started a committed relationship
with another woman, and could easily have been removed as legal guardian to appoint a
NEUTRAL third party.

Sure, there is a chance he is right and this is what Terri would want.
But there was nothing in writing to prove it, so the court was going
by FAITH BASED arguments and that is NOT for govt to decide.

The rest of the family had equal FAITH that she would want to live with their support.

Had there been written proof, that would be different.
I think it was more than clear that his legal guardianship was no longer neutral,
and if they couldn't agree, then a neutral party should have been appointed.

In order to respect all beliefs involved, I would have ordered the appt of a third
party guardian who could facilitate an agreement with the families with respect
to everyone's beliefs. I still believe they could work things out: where only people
who respect the consent of others 100% gets their input included 100%, where those people
would have direct say in the final decision, and to negotiate until they can all agree the issues are addressed and major points resolved. Anyone who only wants their
view respected and refuses to include the opposing side would still have their input heard,
but would have 0 say in the final decision if they are insisting others have 0 say.

 

[Faun]

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.

WTF? You want Congress to be the arbitrator of the very laws they themselves write??

Then what recourse do we the people have if, let's say, Congress passes an enabling act, declaring Obama is now fuhrer of America, will remain as president indefinately, and has plenary powers to pass laws, and there will be no more elections?

According to your nonsense, our only recourse is to revolt; when in reality, the Framers instituted a recourse through the judicial branch to determine the constitutionality of such a law.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

WTF? You want Congress to be the arbitrator of the very laws they themselves write??

Then what recourse do we the people have if, let's say, Congress passes an enabling act, declaring Obama is now fuhrer of America, will remain as president indefinately, and has plenary powers to pass laws, and there will be no more elections?

According to your nonsense, our only recourse is to revolt; when in reality, the Framers instituted a recourse through the judicial branch to determine the constitutionality of such a law.

I think the point was about the People not Congress acting as the ultimate check on whether govt and judiciary are within Constitutional bounds or not.

 

[Faun]

That power is not abused, emily.

This is how the system works.

Hi JakeStarkey
Are you saying people are PERFECT JakeStarkey
and the judges on the bench NEVER make mistakes in exceeding the limits of govt?
Really?

Here are some cases I would challenge you on that notion:
(1) When the Courts made a decision taking sides on the Terri Schiavo case
instead of ruling that there were faith based issues on both sides,and NO WRITTEN PROOF of her wishes.
Thus it was her family's word and faith vs. the beliefs of her ex-husband with a conflict of interest.
You can say that the other family members also had a conflict in beliefs.
So given 3-5 family members who believe she would want to continue support and they were willing to pay for and provide this,
versus the ex-husband (1 person) who believed she should be disconnected, and NO WRITTEN PROOF of Terri Schiavo's wishes
WHY do you feel the Courts had the right to make this decision for other people???

I call this a violation of separation of church and state.
That's one example

(2) I already gave the example of how the ACA mandates and ruling by Court
violated the Constitution by endorsing beliefs through govt that are against the beliefs and creeds of Constitutionalists
who believe in free market health care, free choice in health care, states' rights, and/or the necessity of a Constitutional Amendment
before extending authority to federal govt to require insurance to avoid tax penalties and basically regulate on the basis of religion,
(as the exemptions require either faith in govt health care or membership in religious organizations that are approved by govt).

(3) and the issue brought up several times of establishing the "belief in marriage as a right"
using the courts instead of Constitutional Amendment (compare the right to bear arms and right to vote that rely on Amendments)

These are examples of where the judiciary crossed the line into areas of beliefs
that not all people share, and thus violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments
by (1) establishing biased or faith-based policies (2) discriminating on the basis of creed.

Sorry JakeStarkey
I am willing to argue and prove my points all the way to the Presidency and Supreme Court if I have to.

Do you want to bet me 10 million dollars that 1-3 of the points above will prove to be
outside the jurisdiction of the Judiciary to decide for the public, because BELIEFS are involved.

I will bet you 10 million.
I am confident that my arguments, or some form of them, will be proven to
correct the problem with these judicial rulings exceeding Constitutional authority.
I may not be perfect either, but at least I recognize when the govt went too far.

[If you want to throw in govt decisions regarding the war in Iraq as faith based
and "not proven to the public" -- sure, we can argue about other branches of govt
exceeding Constitutional limits, too. The death penalty is also an issue of faith-based
beliefs for and against. Abortion, marriage laws, homosexuality, and even immigration.
I found gun rights and voting rights get equally religious as right to marriage and health care.
How far do you want to take this JakeStarkey?]

"ex-husband??"

WTF?

When did they divorce?

When did a husband lose the right to represent his wife's wishes as next of kin when his wife was no longer able to?

There was a conflict of interest where her "legal husband" was already living
with and starting a family with another woman. Thus, he had a conflict of interest
in having more financial reason to end her life than to preserve it.

If the Court recognizing the "right of the husband" to make a spiritual decision
for his wife WITHOUT ANY WRITTEN PROOF, that is taking the beliefs
of one person over the beliefs of another who is DISABLED and unable to express
consent or dissent.

So even if he has rights as her husband, this was in dispute.

There was nothing in writing to prove her beliefs, consent or dissent.

And that is where the "conflict of interest" as her guardian came in.
The family argued if he was already acting in spirit and practice as the husband to another woman,
he cannot be expected to represent HER interests but HIS OWN.

That conflict was not resolved, but he was recognized as her legal husband
and this point about living with and starting a family with another woman
was not recognized as a conflict of interest with him as her legal guardian.

I agreed with the family that this should be grounds for disputing that.

If you count all people equally, including Terri Schiavo, all their opinions should be equal.
So his opinion was only one. There were other people arguing for the right to support her life.

Treating all people equally, this should either have deadlocked and been thrown out of court
and referred to a mediator to work out the family issues and form a consensus that respects
all these people equally. Or the court should have ordered the family members to AGREE on a NEUTRAL legal guardian to make decisions if they cannot arrive at a consensus. Either mediate or arbitrate by consensus decision, but in no way would I ever authorize a judge in a court to decide for the family.

You can include the husband or exhusband as one person.
But nothing gives him or anyone the right to take their belief
and force it through court onto other people without their consent.

Sorry but there is separation of church and state where the
court is not supposed to "play God" and make spiritual decisions for people.

Even the husband or exhusband cannot force his religion or beliefs on
a person without committing abuse, especially not in a case of a disabled person.

There is a chance he is right and this is what Terri would want.
But there was nothing in writing to prove it, so the court was going
by FAITH BASED arguments and that is NOT for govt to decide.
The rest of the family had equal FAITH that she would want to live with their support.

Had there been written proof, that would be different.

You realize none of that establishes him as an "ex-husband", right? As you bizarrely painted him.

And regardless of his conflict of interest, it didn't matter since Terri's parents would have inherited a conflict of interest had the court removed Michael's legal guardianship of Terri. The court decided whomever was Terri's guardian would have a conflict of interest. So they left that status with her legal next of kin -- her husband (not "ex-husband"). As far as his relationship with another woman, that too was irrelevant to his guardianship of Terri since it was a relationship which began years after it was medically determined his wife was suffering from a permanent vegetative state of which there was no hope of recovery. Even then, the courts ruled Michael was Terri's next of kin and legal guardian.

 

[Faun]

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.

WTF? You want Congress to be the arbitrator of the very laws they themselves write??

Then what recourse do we the people have if, let's say, Congress passes an enabling act, declaring Obama is now fuhrer of America, will remain as president indefinately, and has plenary powers to pass laws, and there will be no more elections?

According to your nonsense, our only recourse is to revolt; when in reality, the Framers instituted a recourse through the judicial branch to determine the constitutionality of such a law.

I think the point was about the People not Congress acting as the ultimate check on whether govt and judiciary are within Constitutional bounds or not.

To which, I gracefully highlighted the glaring hole in his logic; which would allow the Congress to violate the Constitution by ending elections, which was the recourse he relied upon to rectify such an an egregious attack on our Constitution. Even worse, his idiocy would render we the people in the unenviable position of "hoping" the Congress would do the right thing of judging the constitutionality of their own laws.

Meanwhile, the Framers instituted a judicial branch for just such a reason.

 

[Faun]

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.

The Judiciary is not writing laws.

And just like that, your entire thread goes up in flames because your beliefs remain delusions.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

I didn't say you didn't accurately cite the Federalist Papers. What I said is that they aren't the Constitution, something you still haven't shown has the direct, delegated authority to declare a law unconstitutional. The Federalist Papers can say whatever but they weren't adopted as the principles behind which the government is supposed to run.

You really are 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.

I didn't say you didn't accurately cite the Federalist Papers. What I said is that they aren't the Constitution, something you still haven't shown has the direct, delegated authority to declare a law unconstitutional. The Federalist Papers can say whatever but they weren't adopted as the principles behind which the government is supposed to run.

Your exact words were:

You take things and twist them to make it fit what you WANT it to say.

Which you now admit is bullshit. I've twisted nothing. I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers describing the Judicial Power. You've ignored the Federalist Papers, insisting that you know better than the Founders what role the Judiciary is supposed to play.

The direct, delegated authority is the Judicial Power, cited specifically in the constitution. Which Federalist Paper 78 makes ludicrously clear includes the power to interpret the constitution and apply a greater obligation to the constitution than to a statute. And no, you don't know more than the Founders on the role of the Judiciary.

Oh, and you've wiped your ass with your own standard. As there's no mention of arrest, incarceration or enforcement in the constitution. Yet you've concluded that these powers, not specifically delegated by the constitution, are part of the Executive Power. Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit argument.

Which is convenient. Neither do I, did the founders, history, the Executive or the Judiciary.

 

[Skylar]

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.

WTF? You want Congress to be the arbitrator of the very laws they themselves write??

Then what recourse do we the people have if, let's say, Congress passes an enabling act, declaring Obama is now fuhrer of America, will remain as president indefinately, and has plenary powers to pass laws, and there will be no more elections?

According to your nonsense, our only recourse is to revolt; when in reality, the Framers instituted a recourse through the judicial branch to determine the constitutionality of such a law.

Laughing......in Shooters imagination, the USSC has jurisdiction over all cases that arise under the constitution. But can't rule against any law that may be challenged in those cases.

Worse, in the face of an unconstitutional law, the people could make NO legal challenges. Per Shooter, anyway.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

I didn't say you didn't accurately cite the Federalist Papers. What I said is that they aren't the Constitution, something you still haven't shown has the direct, delegated authority to declare a law unconstitutional. The Federalist Papers can say whatever but they weren't adopted as the principles behind which the government is supposed to run.

Your exact words were:

You take things and twist them to make it fit what you WANT it to say.

Which you now admit is bullshit. I've twisted nothing. I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers describing the Judicial Power. You've ignored the Federalist Papers, insisting that you know better than the Founders what role the Judiciary is supposed to play.

The direct, delegated authority is the Judicial Power, cited specifically in the constitution. Which Federalist Paper 78 makes ludicrously clear includes the power to interpret the constitution and apply a greater obligation to the constitution than to a statute. And no, you don't know more than the Founders on the role of the Judiciary.

Oh, and you've wiped your ass with your own standard. As there's no mention of arrest, incarceration or enforcement in the constitution. Yet you've concluded that these powers, not specifically delegated by the constitution, are part of the Executive Power. Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit argument.

Which is convenient. Neither do I, did the founders, history, the Executive or the Judiciary.

the only thing you buy is what you simple mind has been fooled into believing.

 

[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.

I didn't say you didn't accurately cite the Federalist Papers. What I said is that they aren't the Constitution, something you still haven't shown has the direct, delegated authority to declare a law unconstitutional. The Federalist Papers can say whatever but they weren't adopted as the principles behind which the government is supposed to run.

Your exact words were:

You take things and twist them to make it fit what you WANT it to say.

Which you now admit is bullshit. I've twisted nothing. I've accurately cited the Federalist Papers describing the Judicial Power. You've ignored the Federalist Papers, insisting that you know better than the Founders what role the Judiciary is supposed to play.

The direct, delegated authority is the Judicial Power, cited specifically in the constitution. Which Federalist Paper 78 makes ludicrously clear includes the power to interpret the constitution and apply a greater obligation to the constitution than to a statute. And no, you don't know more than the Founders on the role of the Judiciary.

Oh, and you've wiped your ass with your own standard. As there's no mention of arrest, incarceration or enforcement in the constitution. Yet you've concluded that these powers, not specifically delegated by the constitution, are part of the Executive Power. Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit argument.

Which is convenient. Neither do I, did the founders, history, the Executive or the Judiciary.

the only thing you buy is what you simple mind has been fooled into believing.

More accurately, I conclude that the Federalist Papers do a far better job telling us what the Constitution means than you do, citing yourself.