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

[JakeStarkey]

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.

koko is a derp who simply despises the Constitution, its jurisprudence's history, and the concept of republican government.

 

[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?

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.

sure it is anyone can digress to grade school level argument though I admit I had to put 99.999% of my brain on hold so I could reply in terms you would understand.

Oh btw you have no fucking clue why the supremacy clause exists. crack a book sometime get back to me if you can figger it out.

 

[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?

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.

koko is a derp who simply despises the Constitution, its jurisprudence's history, and the concept of republican government.

more made up shit and stupidity from you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article III section 2

Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The SUPREME COURT has jurisdiction in all cases involving the States be it against other States or the Federal Government. Further it has jurisdiction in all cases of individuals against the US Federal Government. That means that when a person or State disagrees with laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President the Supreme Court decides the facts and legality of said laws. They in fact decide if they are Constitutional. A verdict against the federal Law means that depending on what the verdict says it may invalidate the law. This power is expressly given to the Supreme Court and Federal Courts by Article III of said Constitution.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Article III section 2

Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The SUPREME COURT has jurisdiction in all cases involving the States be it against other States or the Federal Government. Further it has jurisdiction in all cases of individuals against the US Federal Government. That means that when a person or State disagrees with laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President the Supreme Court decides the facts and legality of said laws. They in fact decide if they are Constitutional. A verdict against the federal Law means that depending on what the verdict says it may invalidate the law. This power is expressly given to the Supreme Court and Federal Courts by Article III of said Constitution.

oh, you mean the SUPREME COURT?

The REALLY BIG one right?

So what kinds of cases do they NOT have jurisdiction over can you tell me that?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The far right reactionaries with their radical anti-American agenda have never read Article III.

They forget we are a Republic not a Democracy.

Prime real estate and no ty's or anything of the like. Guess your schtick gets no traction.

 

[dblack]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

The Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The far right reactionaries with their radical anti-American agenda have never read Article III.

They forget we are a Republic not a Democracy.

Prime real estate and no ty's or anything of the like. Guess your schtick gets no traction.

these guys say some of the craziest shit, they dont comprehend what some of the most simple words mean or how to apply them.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The far right reactionaries with their radical anti-American agenda have never read Article III.

They forget we are a Republic not a Democracy.

Has anyone else told you what a jerk you are?

I think of him more as a tool. He doesn't have the power to jerk me around, tbh.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

The Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

But would still be locked up if all three branches of govt decide that those laws are valid

 

[IsaacNewton]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

Declaring a law unconstitutional is the same as 'repealing' it. It renders the law null and void and is telling the legislative branch, 'you f'd up, redo it so it meets the standard of the Constitution or drop it'.

This bullshit meme of 'activist judges' and 'rewriting legislation or rewriting laws' is a false construction of conservative media.

The courts DO get to strike down laws.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

Declaring a law unconstitutional is the same as 'repealing' it. It renders the law null and void and is telling the legislative branch, 'you f'd up, redo it so it meets the standard of the Constitution or drop it'.

This bullshit meme of 'activist judges' and 'rewriting legislation or rewriting laws' is a false construction of conservative media.

The courts DO get to strike down laws.

But then knowing what you're talking about isn't exactly what the right do a lot, is it? They want things their way, and they'll protest it, even if their protest is contradictory to the last protest they spouted off. Not just the preserve of the right either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right reactionary weirdies and their 'constitutional' theories make for frivolous reading.

 

[dblack]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

The Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

But would still be locked up if all three branches of govt decide that those laws are valid

No, that's the point. The judicial branch of government determines guilt or innocence. That's where their power comes into play. They can't repeal, or rewrite, laws, but if they agree with a citizen who claims that a law didn't abide by the Constitution, they can refuse to punish them for defying it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

The Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

But would still be locked up if all three branches of govt decide that those laws are valid

No, that's the point. The judicial branch of government determines guilt or innocence. That's where their power comes into play. They can't repeal, or rewrite, laws, but if they agree with a citizen who claims that a law didn't abide by the Constitution, they can refuse to punish them for defying it.

SCOTUS determines the constitutionality of both civil as well as criminal law.

 

[dblack]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

The Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

But would still be locked up if all three branches of govt decide that those laws are valid

No, that's the point. The judicial branch of government determines guilt or innocence. That's where their power comes into play. They can't repeal, or rewrite, laws, but if they agree with a citizen who claims that a law didn't abide by the Constitution, they can refuse to punish them for defying it.

SCOTUS determines the constitutionality of both civil as well as criminal law.

uh.. ok.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

The Constitution grants Congress limited powers. If they write laws that step outside those powers, they aren't valid laws, and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

But would still be locked up if all three branches of govt decide that those laws are valid

No, that's the point. The judicial branch of government determines guilt or innocence. That's where their power comes into play. They can't repeal, or rewrite, laws, but if they agree with a citizen who claims that a law didn't abide by the Constitution, they can refuse to punish them for defying it.

Yes they can, of course.

The point I was making was that things only work if sides have differing views on what their power means.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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

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

A constitutional expert you are not.

Yeh to fuck with context, OMG never thought I would see such over the top ignorance posted in any constitutional discussion.

 

[KokomoJojo]

No, that's the point. The judicial branch of government determines guilt or innocence. That's where their power comes into play. They can't repeal, or rewrite, laws, but if they agree with a citizen who claims that a law didn't abide by the Constitution, they can refuse to punish them for defying it.

How do they do that when 'by law' they are required to follow precedent?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

A constitutional expert you are not.

Yeh to fuck with context, OMG never thought I would see such over the top ignorance posted in any constitutional discussion.

The ignorance remains all yours.