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

[KokomoJojo]

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

uh.. ok.

You have to cut jake a lot of slack, he is still at the adolescent stage of development but he is coming along, maybe in another 100 years or so he will contribute something productive to the adult world.


“The Chief Justice misdirected the jury, in saying they had no right to judge of the intent and of the law. In criminal cases, the defendant does not spread upon the record the merits of the defence, but consolidates the whole in the plea of not guilty.

This plea embraces the whole matter of law and fact involved in the charge, and the jury have an undoubted right to give a general verdict, which decides both law and fact . . . All the cases agree that the jury have the power to decide the law as well as the fact; and if the law gives them the power, it gives them the right also. Power and right are convertible terms, when the law authorizes the doing of an act which shall be fnal, and for the doing of which the agent is not responsible.

“It is admitted to be the duty of the court to direct the jury as to the law, and it is advisable for the jury in most cases, to receive the law from the court; and in all cases, they ought to pay respectful attention to the opinion of the court. But, it is also their duty to exercise their judgments upon the law, as well as the fact; and if they have a clear conviction that the law is different from what is stated to be by the court, the jury are bound, in such cases, by the superior obligations of conscience, to follow their own convictions. It is essential to the security of personal rights and public liberty, that the jury should have and exercise the power to judge both of the law and of the criminal intent.

“The jury ought, undoubtedly, to pay every respectful regard to the opinion of the court; but suppose a trial in a capital case, and the jury are satisfed from the arguments of counsel, the law authorities that are read, and their own judgment, upon the application of the law to the facts, (for the criminal law consists in general of plain principles,) that the law arising in the case is different from that which the court advances, are they not bound by their oaths, by their duty to their creator and themselves, to pronounce according to their convictions? To oblige them, in such a case, to follow implicitly the direction of the court, is to make them commit perjury, and homicide, under the forms of law. The victim is sacrifced; he is executed; he perishes without redress.

“n the general distribution of power, in any system of jurisprudence, the cognizance of law belongs to the court, of fact to the jury; that as often as they are not blended, the power of the court is absolute and exclusive. That, in civil cases, it is always so, and may rightfully be so exerted. That, in criminal cases, the law and fact being always blended, the jury, for reasons of a political and peculiar nature, for the security of life and liberty, are intrusted with the power of deciding both law and fact.

“That this distinction results, 1. From the ancient forms of pleading, in civil cases; none but special pleas being allowed in matters of law; in criminal, none but the general issue. 2. From the liability of the jury to attaint, in civil cases, and the general power of the court, as its substitute, in granting new trials, and from the exemption of the jury from attaint, in criminal cases, and the defect of power to control their verdicts by new trials; the test of every legal power being its capacity to produce a defnitive effect, liable neither to punishment nor control.

“That, in criminal cases, nevertheless, the court are the constitutional advisers of the jury, in matters of law who may compromit their consciences by lightly or rashly disregarding that advice; but may still more compromit their consciences by following it, if, exercising their judgments with discretion and honesty, they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.”
Alexander Hamilton, from his argument in People v. Croswell, 3 Johns. Cas. 336 (1804).


So anyone need this dumbed down?




.

 

[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.

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.

I have gone the extra mile and even proved it, but its outside his ability to comprehend.

 

[Stephanie]

If the people don't speak and stand up to these abuses of Power by Governments and these black robed activists, then they'll continue being the tyrant/dictators.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We don't live in 1804. The Founders are dead. The world has changed. We don't have slavery, women can vote, blacks and Native Americans and Tejanos and Californios and Asians are citizens.

koko is a clown, period.

 

[KokomoJojo]

If the people don't speak and stand up to these abuses of Power by Governments and these black robed activists, then they'll continue being the tyrant/dictators.

Unfortunately the abuses are inbred (as can be seen in the post immediately above) and for the uninformed have become accepted as SOP american tradition!

 

[KokomoJojo]

We don't live in 1804. The Founders are dead. The world has changed. We don't have slavery, women can vote, blacks and Native Americans and Tejanos and Californios and Asians are citizens.

koko is a clown, period.

we dont live in 1776 either, so using your idiotic [IL]logic the united states of america doesnt exist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We don't live in 1804. The Founders are dead. The world has changed. We don't have slavery, women can vote, blacks and Native Americans and Tejanos and Californios and Asians are citizens.

koko is a clown, period.

we dont live in 1776 either, so using your idiotic [IL]logic the united states of america doesnt exist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

koko not know logic, him

The fact is that if in 1776 I shoot someone who is threatening my life does not mean I get to shoot someone in 1804 for kicks.

I follow koko's argument and the fact is that very, very few educated and intelligent Americans agree with kokoism.

 

[KokomoJojo]

koko not know logic, him

The fact is that if in 1776 I shoot someone who is threatening my life does not mean I get to shoot someone in 1804 for kicks.

I follow koko's argument and the fact is that very, very few educated and intelligent Americans agree with kokoism.

Nice to see you just totally demolished your own position, OMG how hilarious is that.

carry on, your doing great!

 

[JakeStarkey]

koko not know logic, him

The fact is that if in 1776 I shoot someone who is threatening my life does not mean I get to shoot someone in 1804 for kicks.

I follow koko's argument and the fact is that very, very few educated and intelligent Americans agree with kokoism.

Nice to see you just totally demolished your own position, OMG how hilarious is that. carry on, your doing great!

You are so easy to toy with.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article III section 2 is clear as a bell the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator on what is and is not legal in regards the laws of the US.

 

[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.

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.

If you have an argument to make about the supremacy clause, make it. But you can't. You can only insinuate an argument you can't support....just like you're insinuating a rational retort to my argument that you've never been able to make.

And my point remains, unchallenged and unrefuted....

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 not for excuses why you're running....your posts would be little more than punctuation.

 

[dblack]

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.

If you have an argument to make about the supremacy clause, make it. But you can't. You can only insinuate an argument you can't support....just like you're insinuating a rational retort to my argument that you've never been able to make.

And my point remains, unchallenged and unrefuted....

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.

Exactly. And the notion that the Court making these decisions amounts to 'legislating from the bench' is bogus. The primary role of the judicial branch remains judging defendants. When faced with a challenge to a law, they're dealing with someone who has broken the law and they have to decide their guilt or innocence. When they find a law to be outside the bounds of the Constitution, they're not rewriting it, nor repealing it. They're just saying it isn't enforceable because it isn't a valid use of state power.

 

[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.

If you have an argument to make about the supremacy clause, make it. But you can't. You can only insinuate an argument you can't support....just like you're insinuating a rational retort to my argument that you've never been able to make.

And my point remains, unchallenged and unrefuted....

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.

Exactly. And the notion that the Court making these decisions amounts to 'legislating from the bench' is bogus. The primary role of the judicial branch remains judging defendants. When faced with a challenge to a law, they're dealing with someone who has broken the law and they have to decide their guilt or innocence. When they find a law to be outside the bounds of the Constitution, they're not rewriting it, nor repealing it. They're just saying it isn't enforceable because it isn't a valid use of state power.

Thats a ridiculous contradiction in terms.

If a judge can nullify the enforcement of legislation he is in fact legislating from the bench. That and you dont seem to know the difference between criminal and civil and the trier of fact and applicator of law. This is like trying to debate college physics with a bunch of highschool kids

 

[dblack]

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.

If you have an argument to make about the supremacy clause, make it. But you can't. You can only insinuate an argument you can't support....just like you're insinuating a rational retort to my argument that you've never been able to make.

And my point remains, unchallenged and unrefuted....

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.

Exactly. And the notion that the Court making these decisions amounts to 'legislating from the bench' is bogus. The primary role of the judicial branch remains judging defendants. When faced with a challenge to a law, they're dealing with someone who has broken the law and they have to decide their guilt or innocence. When they find a law to be outside the bounds of the Constitution, they're not rewriting it, nor repealing it. They're just saying it isn't enforceable because it isn't a valid use of state power.

Thats a ridiculous contradiction in terms.

If a judge can nullify the enforcement of legislation he is in fact legislating from the bench. That and you dont seem to know the difference between criminal and civil and the trier of fact and applicator of law. This is like trying to debate college physics with a bunch of highschool kids

Still sore that the highschool kids kicked your ass?

 

[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.

If you have an argument to make about the supremacy clause, make it. But you can't. You can only insinuate an argument you can't support....just like you're insinuating a rational retort to my argument that you've never been able to make.

And my point remains, unchallenged and unrefuted....

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 not for excuses why you're running....your posts would be little more than punctuation.

No your point is absurd and you look and sound like a fool and since you insist I may as well help you.
First a judge does not decide anything, the court does.
Second, if you have 2 contradictory laws neither are constitutional.
Third the court does not decide if a law is more or less supreme, that is again preschool language, the court decides if a law has standing and what grounds the law has standing.
Forth, the court does not go with the 'supreme' law as you put it, case in point they violated the religious rights [you know the ones in the 1st amendment] of the kliens forcing them to obey US commercial law.
You insinuate the supremacy clause applies to your argument yet fail time and time again to support it and we are supposed to take the word of someone who does not even know how the judicial system is set up to work. In other words you are in over yiur head.
But dont let that give you pause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kokomojo above clearly reveals he does not understand the purpose of Article III of the Constitution. The statements immediately above are tortured and labored nonsense.

 

[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.

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.

If you have an argument to make about the supremacy clause, make it. But you can't. You can only insinuate an argument you can't support....just like you're insinuating a rational retort to my argument that you've never been able to make.

And my point remains, unchallenged and unrefuted....

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 not for excuses why you're running....your posts would be little more than punctuation.

No your point is absurd and you look and sound like a fool and since you insist I may as well help you.
First a judge does not decide anything, the court does.

Second, if you have 2 contradictory laws neither are constitutional.

How do two laws being in conflict mean that neither are constitutional. For example, if a statutory law contradicts the supreme law of the constitution......how is the constitution not 'constitutional'?

With evidence please. You're apparently in love with the Begging the Question fallacy.

Third the court does not decide if a law is more or less supreme, that is again preschool language, the court decides if a law has standing and what grounds the law has standing.

Those are some criteria that a court uses to determine which law shall be followed. Among many, many others. If a statutory law conflicts with a constitutional law, the constitution always has standing. Making your entire argument moot.

Forth, the court does not go with the 'supreme' law as you put it, case in point they violated the religious rights [you know the ones in the 1st amendment] of the kliens forcing them to obey US commercial law.

Violated the religious rights....according to who? You arbitrarily declaring that someone's religious rights have been violated doesn't make it so. And two Begging the Question fallacies in one post.

Impressive. Can you go for three?

You insinuate the supremacy clause applies to your argument yet fail time and time again to support it and we are supposed to take the word of someone who does not even know how the judicial system is set up to work. In other words you are in over yiur head.

That's not a rebuttal of my use of the Supremacy clause. That's an awkward attempt at an insult as excuse for having no rational rebuttal.

Try again. Demonstrate factually that the Supremacy clause is not used in the manner I described.

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.

Remembering of course that you citing you is 'factually'.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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

let me simplify this for you skylar, provide me with documentation where the court has decided between 2 laws which is the most creamiest supremiest. prove it up.

 

[Skylar]

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

let me simplify this for you skylar, provide me with documentation where the court has decided between 2 laws which is the most creamiest supremiest. prove it up.

Wow. You just completely abandoned all your 'both laws are unconstitutional' horseshit, didn't you? It doesn't take much to send you running from your own claims. You won't even touch your 'violated 1st amendment rights' nonsense if challenged. And your demonstration that my comments about the Supremacy clause were invalid was rather.......underwhelming.

That was easy.

As for my source on the the judiciary weighing laws, one against another....I offer you the Federalist Papers.

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....

.....This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other.

The Federalist #78

I eagerly await your next load of pseudo-legal horseshit.....so I can watch you abandon it as quickly as you did the last steaming pile.