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

[Skylar]

So, the Congress makes the laws. When a case goes to the courts they then have to decide what the Congress meant when they said what they said, and then decide whether the person is guilty or not.

If there are two laws that are contradictory then one must win and the other must be dismissed. If it's a Congress made law against a Constitutional power, the we know which wins out every time, don't we?

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

As Frigid said, if two laws are in conflict, the judiciary has to put one above the other. And congressional statute falls before the constitution when they are in conflict.

As it should.

are you talking about statutory law?

have you ever read the plethora of conflicting law we have today?

If a judge is faced with two contradictory laws, the judge must decide which is supreme over the other. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a statutory law contradicts the law of the constitution.....the judge goes with the Supreme law.. With the Supremecy clause mandating that it be the constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So, the Congress makes the laws. When a case goes to the courts they then have to decide what the Congress meant when they said what they said, and then decide whether the person is guilty or not.

If there are two laws that are contradictory then one must win and the other must be dismissed. If it's a Congress made law against a Constitutional power, the we know which wins out every time, don't we?

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

As Frigid said, if two laws are in conflict, the judiciary has to put one above the other. And congressional statute falls before the constitution when they are in conflict.

As it should.

are you talking about statutory law?

have you ever read the plethora of conflicting law we have today?

If a judge is faced with two contradictory laws, the judge must decide which is supreme over the other. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a statutory law contradicts the law of the constitution.....the judge goes with the Supreme law.. With the Supremecy clause mandating that it be the constitution.

Of course.

 

[Skylar]

So, the Congress makes the laws. When a case goes to the courts they then have to decide what the Congress meant when they said what they said, and then decide whether the person is guilty or not.

If there are two laws that are contradictory then one must win and the other must be dismissed. If it's a Congress made law against a Constitutional power, the we know which wins out every time, don't we?

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

As Frigid said, if two laws are in conflict, the judiciary has to put one above the other. And congressional statute falls before the constitution when they are in conflict.

As it should.

are you talking about statutory law?

have you ever read the plethora of conflicting law we have today?

If a judge is faced with two contradictory laws, the judge must decide which is supreme over the other. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a statutory law contradicts the law of the constitution.....the judge goes with the Supreme law.. With the Supremecy clause mandating that it be the constitution.

Of course.

One would think this is obvious, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

As Frigid said, if two laws are in conflict, the judiciary has to put one above the other. And congressional statute falls before the constitution when they are in conflict.

As it should.

are you talking about statutory law?

have you ever read the plethora of conflicting law we have today?

If a judge is faced with two contradictory laws, the judge must decide which is supreme over the other. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a statutory law contradicts the law of the constitution.....the judge goes with the Supreme law.. With the Supremecy clause mandating that it be the constitution.

Of course.

One would think this is obvious, right?

Rational and reasonable standard Americans do think that, yeah.

 

[Faun]

You're fucking deranged.

The very first item in that list begins the list of enumerated powers...
... starting with the enumerated power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

And again, it bears repeating because you are so brain-dead .... if you claim that is not an enumerated power and that Congress has no powers beyond the enumerated powers following that first one, then it's unconstitutional for Congress to fund the Air Force since the Air Force is not specifically enumerated.

Do you see now how fucking retarded you have to be to assert such a ridiculous position?

No Fauny. YOU are the one who cant wrap you diminutive little "mind" around a not exactly subtle difference between an enumerated power and one of the list of objective for which the enumerated power is given.

Congress DOES have an enumerated power to lay taxes. That power granted to Congress is to enable the Government to address some pretty lofty goals. For example, the power to lay taxes has AS ONE of its purposes, "to pay the Debts . . ."

I realize that this sails over your petty little mind but --

the subject itself it isn't hard at all. YOU are merely uncommonly dull witted.

The enumerate power here is "to lay and collect taxes TO PROVIDE FOR ... [a litany of purposes is then spelled out]." That should be more than enough clue even for a simpleton like you. The POWER EXISTS for a number of purposes. Those purposes are then set forth. The purposes are not themselves enumerated powers, you dolt.

... that enumerated power is to provide for the general welfare of the nation. You don't have to understand it... But it is what it is.

Wrong, Fauny.

You STILL flail futilely.

The enumerated power is: to lay taxes.

One of the purposes for granting that power is so that Congress may provide for the general welfare.

The enumerated power is for a purpose or purposes. The purpose(s) don't get magically converted into enumerated powers on that basis, you bombastic simpleton.

Obviously simple basic comprehension skills are far beyond your tragically limited abilities. But as you incorrectly tried to say about me, you did say something on point (albeit about you, instead): It is NOT required that you understand it. Your ignorance and vapidity are what they are. Boundless.

At least you understand they can provide for the general welfare of the nation. That alone puts you leaps and bounds above most of your fellow yahoos.

Poor Fauny. I don't see anybody claiming that the government is prohibited from providing for the general welfare.

What you small-minded trolls seem incapable of ever grasping is that "purpose" and "power" are not synonyms.

Let's see if we can dumb it so far down that even a dope like you has some small chance of catching a glimmer of it:

No matter how much you value a particular purpose, if you don't have the authority and the power to accomplish it in the way you propose, then either you cannot do it at all OR you have to find some other way to do it.

 

[KokomoJojo]

If a judge is faced with two contradictory laws, the judge must decide which is supreme over the other.

the creamiest supremiest law of them all eh.....
Can we at least step up to the academic level of a high school debate?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Yeh congress keeps what they meant a 'secret' and everyone gets to guess what they meant.

Thats not law thats bullshit, but I agree with you 'in part' that is the way they do it all to often.

As Frigid said, if two laws are in conflict, the judiciary has to put one above the other. And congressional statute falls before the constitution when they are in conflict.

As it should.

are you talking about statutory law?

have you ever read the plethora of conflicting law we have today?

If a judge is faced with two contradictory laws, the judge must decide which is supreme over the other. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a statutory law contradicts the law of the constitution.....the judge goes with the Supreme law.. With the Supremecy clause mandating that it be the constitution.

Of course.

One would think this is obvious, right?

not grade school students as I just pointed out.

 

[KokomoJojo]

[

As Frigid said, if two laws are in conflict, the judiciary has to put one above the other. And congressional statute falls before the constitution when they are in conflict.

As it should.

are you talking about statutory law?

have you ever read the plethora of conflicting law we have today?

I hate the term massive but if there was ever a good application for it conflicting law is it. There are over 63 million laws in this country on the books, the greater majority of which either conflict or are unconstitutional.

The only way to clear up the conflicts is to go to the source and cases today never address the few hundred years of precedence the result of previous corrupt courts citizen ignorance or denial.

Worse have you forgotten that most states have created a huge bureaucracy of nonelected administrative tards that make law outside the state legislatures, that the state then upholds as 'the law of the land' most of which goes unchallenged simply because of the huge costs involved?

Gubacracy makes laws at our tax paying expense and we have to fight for our rights out of our own pockets and most wind up financially ruined in the process.

We are part of the gubmint when it comes to paying them to make laws but not when it comes to unmaking them, then we are on our own.

I find most of these so called discussions shallow, as if to teach someone at a high school level rather than attract people with actual legal experience. Thats the reality when dealing with the 'Just-Us' club.

There are no laws made outside of the law. The govt makes the laws. The Supreme Court can interpret them, and the executive executes them, or has the power to make certain things the law, but Congress can get rid of them if they choose and so can the Supreme Court.

Correct.

And acts of Congress are presumed to be in compliance with the Constitution until ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court (US v. Morrison).

so you agree despite your back door approach that the gubmint enforces unconstitutional law.

Its certainly possible for congress (or a State) to pass a law that is in conflict with the constitution. ANd when this occurs it is the Judiciary's obligation to put the constitution above the unconstitutional law.

and likewise you agree that the law is the law of the gubmint judges not the law of the people since the people have nothing to do with the supreme court which is 100% gubmint.

The Constitution is the law of the people. And it is the judiciary's responsibility to follow the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by placing the constitution above any congressional or state statute that is in conflict with it.

Now shall we talk about conflict in interest and RICO?

In a thread you create on the topic, feel free.

[

As Frigid said, if two laws are in conflict, the judiciary has to put one above the other. And congressional statute falls before the constitution when they are in conflict.

As it should.

are you talking about statutory law?

have you ever read the plethora of conflicting law we have today?

I hate the term massive but if there was ever a good application for it conflicting law is it. There are over 63 million laws in this country on the books, the greater majority of which either conflict or are unconstitutional.

The only way to clear up the conflicts is to go to the source and cases today never address the few hundred years of precedence the result of previous corrupt courts citizen ignorance or denial.

Worse have you forgotten that most states have created a huge bureaucracy of nonelected administrative tards that make law outside the state legislatures, that the state then upholds as 'the law of the land' most of which goes unchallenged simply because of the huge costs involved?

Gubacracy makes laws at our tax paying expense and we have to fight for our rights out of our own pockets and most wind up financially ruined in the process.

We are part of the gubmint when it comes to paying them to make laws but not when it comes to unmaking them, then we are on our own.

I find most of these so called discussions shallow, as if to teach someone at a high school level rather than attract people with actual legal experience. Thats the reality when dealing with the 'Just-Us' club.

There are no laws made outside of the law. The govt makes the laws. The Supreme Court can interpret them, and the executive executes them, or has the power to make certain things the law, but Congress can get rid of them if they choose and so can the Supreme Court.

Correct.

And acts of Congress are presumed to be in compliance with the Constitution until ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court (US v. Morrison).

so you agree despite your back door approach that the gubmint enforces unconstitutional law.

Its certainly possible for congress (or a State) to pass a law that is in conflict with the constitution. ANd when this occurs it is the Judiciary's obligation to put the constitution above the unconstitutional law.

and likewise you agree that the law is the law of the gubmint judges not the law of the people since the people have nothing to do with the supreme court which is 100% gubmint.

The Constitution is the law of the people. And it is the judiciary's responsibility to follow the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by placing the constitution above any congressional or state statute that is in conflict with it.

Now shall we talk about conflict in interest and RICO?

In a thread you create on the topic, feel free.

lot of good it would do. you didnt even get the purpose of the supremacy clause right

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kokomojojo would prefer the Articles of Confederation. That's idiotic.

 

[KokomoJojo]

And kokomojojo does not like constitutional, republican (representative) government.

if thats all you came away from what I said then this conversation is light years over your head.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The point is that you have done nothing, koko, to make this discussion worthwhile.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The point is that you have done nothing, koko, to make this discussion worthwhile.

its not that I havent tried. Pretty tough to do when its over everyones heads.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The point is that you have done nothing, koko, to make this discussion worthwhile.

its not that I havent tried. Pretty tough to do when its over everyones heads.

The difficulty is your inability to frame coherent, complete thoughts.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The point is that you have done nothing, koko, to make this discussion worthwhile.

its not that I havent tried. Pretty tough to do when its over everyones heads.

The difficulty is your inability to frame coherent, complete thoughts.

On the contrary its your inability to comprehend complete thoughts. Here is an example before the juveniles got involved:

Just look at all those complete thoughts eh....

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; [they did one step better, they have established themselves as a religion] they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” ~James Madison


Madison is saying that general welfare does not give the government the authority over every area of life, but only those specific powers listed or enumerated in the Constitution.


It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it… For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars… But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? (Federalists #41) ~Alexander Hamilton


The argument he makes is that the general welfare clause gives the government unquestionable ability to do what it wants as long as it is in the general welfare, good for everyone. He even disagrees with himself sometimes as he was the author of many Federalist Papers:

The only qualification of the generality of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this–That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorized in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication. ~Alexander Hamilton


Alexander Hamilton was arguing that the general welfare phrase only applies to the powers authorize to Congress in the Constitution. Again we see the founders had a clear view of this phrase even when they seem to contradict themselves.


Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, [good v. evil = religion] it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

That of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. ~Thomas Jefferson


The people who say we don’t know what the Founders meant about any particular phrase in the Constitution are just plain wrong, because they fail to do their research about the matter.

I did not read the thread but whoever agrees with the above I agree with them.

Presently the gubmint has well established itself as a religion, and while the courts do not write law they have the power to construct and deconstruct it outside the purview of the people, and later the guns to enforce those decisions on the people despite those who do not agree.

No where in the constitution are we to expect that we must give up our rights to appease some agenda of democracy outside their legitimate jurisdiction 'commerce'.








Warning lights are flashing down at Quality Control Somebody threw a spanner and they threw him in the hole There's rumors in the loading bay and anger in the town Somebody blew the whistle and the walls came down There's a meeting in the boardroom they're trying to trace the smell There's leaking in the washroom there's a sneak in personnel Somewhere in the corridors someone was heard to sneeze 'goodness me could this be Industrial Disease?

The caretaker was crucified for sleeping at his post They're refusing to be pacified it's him they blame the most The watchdog's got rabies the foreman's got fleas And everyone's concerned about Industrial Disease

There's panic on the switchboard tongues are ties in knots Some come out in sympathy some come out in spots Some blame the management some the employees And everybody knows it's the Industrial Disease

The work force is disgusted downs tools and walks Innocence is injured experience just talks Everyone seeks damages and everyone agrees That these are 'classic symptoms of a monetary squeeze'

On ITV and BBC they talk about the curse Philosophy is useless theology is worse
History boils over there's an economics freeze

Sociologists invent words that mean 'Industrial Disease'

Doctor Parkinson declared 'I'm not surprised to see you here You've got smokers cough from smoking, brewer's droop from drinking beer I don't know how you came to get the Betty Davis knees But worst of all young man you've got Industrial Disease'

He wrote me a prescription he said 'you are depressed But I'm glad you came to see me to get this off your chest Come back and see me later - next patient please Send in another victim of Industrial Disease'

I go down to Speaker's Corner I'm thunderstruck
They got free speech, tourists, police in trucks
Two men say they're Jesus one of them must be wrong

There's a protest singer singing a protest song - he says 'they wanna have a war to keep us on our knees

They wanna have a war to keep their factories They wanna have a war to stop us buying Japanese They wanna have a war to stop Industrial Disease

They're pointing out the enemy to keep you deaf and blind They wanna sap your energy incarcerate your mind They give you Rule Brittania, gassy beer, page three Two weeks in Espana and Sunday striptease' Meanwhile the first Jesus says 'I'd cure it soon Abolish monday mornings and friday afternoons' The other one's on a hunger strike he's dying by degrees

How come Jesus gets Industrial Disease







Since I am on a roll why stop there huh?

The Courts and the Commerce Clause: Obliterating Original Intent
by D.T. Armentano, Mises.org

Article one Section 8 of the U S Constitution states that the “congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states.” [which means between the states] This so-called “commerce clause” is the legal bedrock for all federal regulation of business activity that crosses state lines. Every piece of federal economic regulation from the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) to all of the 1930s New Deal securities and banking law has been rationalized (made “constitutional”) by reference to the commerce clause.

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) , the Supreme Court expanded the original interpretation of the commerce clause to cover intrastate economic activity that was said to “affect” interstate commerce. Wickard grew wheat for his own consumption but the court reasoned that the wheat locally consumed could, theoretically, [purely a overlord court invention] have been sold in interstate commerce; so when Wickard “withdrew” that wheat and consumed it, output and prices in interstate commerce were affected.

Hence the Feds could regulate locally grown wheat and the legislation that prescribed that was constitutional. The “logic” of Wickard obliterated two original and important constitutional principles, namely (1) that the states can regulate their own commerce, not the Feds and (2) that the federal Constitution embodies only limited and clearly enumerated powers.

Wickard substantiated the notion that the Feds could now regulate ANY economic activity (with little resistance from individuals or the states) since almost ANY good or service produced and consumed locally could, at least theoretically, affect interstate commerce.

We have all lived in a post-Wickard regulatory world ever since. So in some sense, the medical marijuana case decided June 6th, 2005 (Gonzales v Raich, et al..) in favor of the government (6-3) was an easy slam dunk (see also S. Kinsella’s post on the topic).

Reich and the other defendants in California grew marijuana for their own consumption but the majority asserted, following Wickard, that such private activity “affected” interstate commerce and, thus, could be regulated (prohibited) by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), regardless of California state law which allowed (with supervision) such activity. If you don’t like the decision, the majority suggested, get the votes and attempt to change the federal drug laws.

There are many problems with the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens. The most obvious is the continued acceptance of the logic of Wickard. As Justice Thomas argues in his brilliant dissent, if growing 6 marijuana plants on your own property for your own consumption is “economic activity” that can “affect” interstate commerce, then there is absolutely nothing under the economic sun (including pot luck dinners) that cannot be regulated by the federal congress. But, clearly, that was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution.



The courts have long destroyed the constitution in the name of commercialized CORPORATE statism the true american religion and exemplifies the inherent problem when any country under any name as a supreme king or a supreme court and demonstrates their hypocrisy when they take actions against the people, and the people can do nothing about it as they are bombarded with these types of rulings on a near daily basis.

First the legislature does not consider themselves under any obligation to produce law in 'strict' conformance with the constitution.

They have staff attorneys that decide if any law they want to pass can somehow be constructed to get it through the courts, the true king ruler of this country.

It takes one quick court case for them to misconstrue, misrepresent, or otherwise violate the contract and its PAID IN FULL with PUBLIC MONEY and the ONLY way to change or correct it it is though an act of congress, and there are no provisions provided to the people to even get it up for a vote where it falls right back in their laps to violate it again.

Worse anyone who disagrees is forced to PAY OUT OF POCKET with PRIVATE FUNDS.

The whole fucking arrangement is government by RICO and designed to prejudice any dissent from the people.

sad state of affairs

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you are one of the strange breed that believes a Constitutional interpretation must be originalist or contextualist, Nonsense.

 

[KokomoJojo]

So you are one of the strange breed that believes a Constitutional interpretation must be originalist or contextualist, Nonsense.

No I fully support your 'modern' understanding of law jake!













it fits well in todays society

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[KokomoJojo]

the last thing anyone would ever want to do is take anything 'in context', especially law and the constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A constitutional expert you are not.

 

[Skylar]

If a judge is faced with two contradictory laws, the judge must decide which is supreme over the other.

the creamiest supremiest law of them all eh.....
Can we at least step up to the academic level of a high school debate?

That's neither a rational reply nor retort to my post.

Try again.

If a judge is faced with two contradictory laws, the judge must decide which is supreme over the other. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a statutory law contradicts the law of the constitution.....the judge goes with the Supreme law.. With the Supremacy clause mandating that it be the constitution.

If you have nothing relevant to add, just say so.