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

[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.

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.

PLONK!

As I suspected, nowhere in that document does it support your claim that a judge determines 'the creamiest supremiest' and in fact it does claim what I said, that the court determines 'standing'.

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.

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. 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.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

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 rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference.

But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.



It has nothing to do with which of 2 statutes is supreme, neither are, and everything to do with standing, precedence, time enacted, intent, and a host of other considerations.

As I expected that your language would not to be found in any legal texts.

On the other hand I agree that all legislative acts and judicial opinions must have standing and in order to have standing they subject to the constitution.

However when you use unrecognizable language to argue legal matters its impossible to know what you are talking about. Had you posted your source right off the bat this argument would not have taken place and while the constitution is the 'supreme law of the land' the courts reference as far back as the magna charta in their decisions which is 600 years before the constitution, to validate the constitution.



The second matter, the supremacy clause was added to insure the states had a discreet authority they would all acknowledge without going to war amongst themselves.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

US Constitution Article III settles the right and power of the Supreme Court to judge in a legal manner what is and is not legal and binding in regards the Federal Government. Pretty simple concept and pretty straight forward as well.

 

[Skylar]

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. 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.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

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 rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference.

But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

PLONK!

And nothing you've posted contradicts a word I've said. But instead affirms every point I've raised. Establishing that the constitution is the supreme law that all other law should be given deference to by the judiciary.

Exactly as I said.

That when two statutes conflict, it is the judiciary that settles which is supreme over the other, which is enacted in exclusion of the other.

Exactly as I said.

Any other points I've made you want to agree with me on?

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.

However when you use unrecognizable language to argue legal matters its impossible to know what you are talking about. Had you posted your source right off the bat this argument would not have taken place and while the constitution is the 'supreme law of the land' the courts reference as far back as the magna charta in their decisions which is 600 years before the constitution, to validate the constitution.

Keep backpedalling. Your pseudo-legal gibberish that 'if you have 2 contradictory laws neither are constitutional'....gone. Abandoned like the garbage it is.

Your pseudo-legal gibberish that a court merely 'decides if a law has standing and what grounds the law has standing'...gone. You've already admitted to a litany of criteria. Exactly as I told you. And its the judiciary making these judgments. Exactly as I told you. Both between two statutes and between statutes and the constitution. Exactly as I told you.

Your gibberish about the violation of the 1st amendment....gone. Abandoned utterly. As you know that you citing yourself is meaningless nonsense. That it is the court that decides what the constitution means, as they are the body granted the authority to interpret the constitution. Not you, Koko.

Its been 5 posts over hours and hours.....and all you've managed to do is tell me why I'm right. Which everyone here already knew before you started babbling.

 

[KokomoJojo]

US Constitution Article III settles the right and power of the Supreme Court to judge in a legal manner what is and is not legal and binding in regards the Federal Government. Pretty simple concept and pretty straight forward as well.

Damn I sure wish had the right to make a contract then also be the judge of the contract I made.

Of course you do not see a teenie lil ole conflict in interest in that do you?

 

[Skylar]

US Constitution Article III settles the right and power of the Supreme Court to judge in a legal manner what is and is not legal and binding in regards the Federal Government. Pretty simple concept and pretty straight forward as well.

Yup.

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.

As I said, one would think this is obvious.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Its been 5 posts over hours and hours.....and all you've managed to do is tell me why I'm right. Which everyone here already knew before you started babbling.

on the contrary I proved you wrong. The supreme law is already well known and it is the constitution. They do not judge what statutes are more supreme, thats idiotic talk. They judge standing, as in standing under the constitution. The terminology in your argument is incomprehensible gibberish and could apply to many things in many contexts all at the same time, and it will never be found in any legal texts yet you think you can effectively communicate. NOT

 

[Skylar]

US Constitution Article III settles the right and power of the Supreme Court to judge in a legal manner what is and is not legal and binding in regards the Federal Government. Pretty simple concept and pretty straight forward as well.

Damn I sure wish had the right to make a contract then also be the judge of the contract I made.

Of course you do not see a teenie lil ole conflict in interest in that do you?

The judiciary is an intermediary body by design, standing between the legislature and the people to keep the former within its assigned powers.

The federal judiciary didn't 'make the contract'. It was the People of the Several States that created it....and created the judiciary to interprets the meaning of the constitution.

 

[KokomoJojo]

US Constitution Article III settles the right and power of the Supreme Court to judge in a legal manner what is and is not legal and binding in regards the Federal Government. Pretty simple concept and pretty straight forward as well.

Damn I sure wish had the right to make a contract then also be the judge of the contract I made.

Of course you do not see a teenie lil ole conflict in interest in that do you?

The judiciary is an intermediary body by design, standing between the legislature and the people to keep the former within its assigned powers.

The federal judiciary didn't 'make the contract'. It was the People of the Several States that created it....and created the judiciary to interprets the meaning of the constitution.

The gubmint made the contract and last time I checked,........yep I am right the judiciary is part of the gubmint.

Really? Lets see copies of the referendums, I hear jeopardy music again LOL

Oh and which people are "The People" again?

Clarify that for me while we are on the subject.

 

[Skylar]

Its been 5 posts over hours and hours.....and all you've managed to do is tell me why I'm right. Which everyone here already knew before you started babbling.

on the contrary I proved you wrong.

Nope, you've proven me right, quoting many of the exact same passages I did. You've capitulated every point.

That its the judiciary that decides which law is supreme if two statutes contradict each other. You've even quoted Federalist 78 going into elaborate detail HOW the judiciary does this. You've capitulated on the constitution being the supreme law of land. You've even quoted Federalist 78 acknowledging that in a contest between a statute and the fundamental law of the constitution....deference should be given to the constitution.

Any other points I've raised that you'd like to agree with? I think you've meekly submitted to every point I could fit into these 4 sentences.

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.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Its been 5 posts over hours and hours.....and all you've managed to do is tell me why I'm right. Which everyone here already knew before you started babbling.

on the contrary I proved you wrong.

Nope, you've proven me right, quoting many of the exact same passages I did. You've capitulated every point.

That its the judiciary that decides which law is supreme if two statutes contradict each other. You've even quoted Federalist 78 going into elaborate detail HOW the judiciary does this. You've capitulated on the constitution being the supreme law of land. You've even quoted Federalist 78 acknowledging that in a contest between a statute and the fundamental law of the constitution....deference should be given to the constitution.

Any other points I've raised that you'd like to agree with? I think you've meekly submitted to every point I could fit into these 4 sentences.

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.

Sorry not my problem if you cant comprehend the meaning of why I posted the same thing. Go back and read the crystal clear explanation I gave you a few times and maybe you will get it at some point.

 

[Skylar]

US Constitution Article III settles the right and power of the Supreme Court to judge in a legal manner what is and is not legal and binding in regards the Federal Government. Pretty simple concept and pretty straight forward as well.

Damn I sure wish had the right to make a contract then also be the judge of the contract I made.

Of course you do not see a teenie lil ole conflict in interest in that do you?

The judiciary is an intermediary body by design, standing between the legislature and the people to keep the former within its assigned powers.

The federal judiciary didn't 'make the contract'. It was the People of the Several States that created it....and created the judiciary to interprets the meaning of the constitution.

The gubmint made the contract and last time I checked,........yep I am right the judiciary is part of the gubmint.

You might want to make a quick check on the preamble of Constitution. It wasn't 'We the Gubmint' as you've amusingly imagined. It was 'We the People of the United States'.

That's who created the constitution using the Several States as their agents. That's who created the judiciary. And its the judiciary that interprets the constitution.

With the judiciary acting as an intermediary body between the legislature and the people. If you need to see the 'documents', look at Federalist 78 yet again. It lays out the judiciary's role as *exactly* this intermediary. And its role as interpreter of the constitution.

So much for your 'conflict of interest'.

 

[Skylar]

Its been 5 posts over hours and hours.....and all you've managed to do is tell me why I'm right. Which everyone here already knew before you started babbling.

on the contrary I proved you wrong.

Nope, you've proven me right, quoting many of the exact same passages I did. You've capitulated every point.

That its the judiciary that decides which law is supreme if two statutes contradict each other. You've even quoted Federalist 78 going into elaborate detail HOW the judiciary does this. You've capitulated on the constitution being the supreme law of land. You've even quoted Federalist 78 acknowledging that in a contest between a statute and the fundamental law of the constitution....deference should be given to the constitution.

Any other points I've raised that you'd like to agree with? I think you've meekly submitted to every point I could fit into these 4 sentences.

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.

Sorry not my problem if you cant comprehend the meaning of why I posted the same thing. Go back and read the crystal clear explanation I gave you a few times and maybe you will get it at some point.

Laughing......its Federalist 78 that obliterated your pseudo-legal horseshit. Not me. I'm merely the messenger. But keep backpedealling.

It makes me smile.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Its been 5 posts over hours and hours.....and all you've managed to do is tell me why I'm right. Which everyone here already knew before you started babbling.

on the contrary I proved you wrong.

Nope, you've proven me right, quoting many of the exact same passages I did. You've capitulated every point.

That its the judiciary that decides which law is supreme if two statutes contradict each other. You've even quoted Federalist 78 going into elaborate detail HOW the judiciary does this. You've capitulated on the constitution being the supreme law of land. You've even quoted Federalist 78 acknowledging that in a contest between a statute and the fundamental law of the constitution....deference should be given to the constitution.

Any other points I've raised that you'd like to agree with? I think you've meekly submitted to every point I could fit into these 4 sentences.

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.

Sorry not my problem if you cant comprehend the meaning of why I posted the same thing. Go back and read the crystal clear explanation I gave you a few times and maybe you will get it at some point.

Laughing......its Federalist 78 that obliterated your pseudo-legal horseshit. Not me. I'm merely the messenger. But keep backpedealling.

It makes me smile.

little case of denial I see. Well have fun with that.

 

[KokomoJojo]

US Constitution Article III settles the right and power of the Supreme Court to judge in a legal manner what is and is not legal and binding in regards the Federal Government. Pretty simple concept and pretty straight forward as well.

Damn I sure wish had the right to make a contract then also be the judge of the contract I made.

Of course you do not see a teenie lil ole conflict in interest in that do you?

The judiciary is an intermediary body by design, standing between the legislature and the people to keep the former within its assigned powers.

The federal judiciary didn't 'make the contract'. It was the People of the Several States that created it....and created the judiciary to interprets the meaning of the constitution.

I am still waiting....................


The gubmint made the contract and last time I checked,........yep I am right the judiciary is part of the gubmint.

Really? Lets see copies of the referendums, I hear jeopardy music again LOL

Oh and which people are "The People" again?

Clarify that for me while we are on the subject.

 

[Skylar]

Its been 5 posts over hours and hours.....and all you've managed to do is tell me why I'm right. Which everyone here already knew before you started babbling.

on the contrary I proved you wrong.

Nope, you've proven me right, quoting many of the exact same passages I did. You've capitulated every point.

That its the judiciary that decides which law is supreme if two statutes contradict each other. You've even quoted Federalist 78 going into elaborate detail HOW the judiciary does this. You've capitulated on the constitution being the supreme law of land. You've even quoted Federalist 78 acknowledging that in a contest between a statute and the fundamental law of the constitution....deference should be given to the constitution.

Any other points I've raised that you'd like to agree with? I think you've meekly submitted to every point I could fit into these 4 sentences.

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.

Sorry not my problem if you cant comprehend the meaning of why I posted the same thing. Go back and read the crystal clear explanation I gave you a few times and maybe you will get it at some point.

Laughing......its Federalist 78 that obliterated your pseudo-legal horseshit. Not me. I'm merely the messenger. But keep backpedealling.

It makes me smile.

little case of denial I see. Well have fun with that.

You really don't see at all. If you had bothered to read Federalist 78, you'd have seen it affirming my every point. Here's my argument, which you've painstakingly affirmed in its every point:

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.

And here's Federalist 78 affirming the same:

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.

Laughing.....the funny part? Anyone can just read the citations of Federalist 78 and learn what you did: that I'm right. Making your denials all the more delicious.

 

[KokomoJojo]

on the contrary I proved you wrong.

Nope, you've proven me right, quoting many of the exact same passages I did. You've capitulated every point.

That its the judiciary that decides which law is supreme if two statutes contradict each other. You've even quoted Federalist 78 going into elaborate detail HOW the judiciary does this. You've capitulated on the constitution being the supreme law of land. You've even quoted Federalist 78 acknowledging that in a contest between a statute and the fundamental law of the constitution....deference should be given to the constitution.

Any other points I've raised that you'd like to agree with? I think you've meekly submitted to every point I could fit into these 4 sentences.

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.

Sorry not my problem if you cant comprehend the meaning of why I posted the same thing. Go back and read the crystal clear explanation I gave you a few times and maybe you will get it at some point.

Laughing......its Federalist 78 that obliterated your pseudo-legal horseshit. Not me. I'm merely the messenger. But keep backpedealling.

It makes me smile.

little case of denial I see. Well have fun with that.

You really don't see at all. If you had bothered to read Federalist 78, you'd have seen it affirming my every point. Here's my argument, which you've painstakingly affirmed in its every point:

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.

And here's Federalist 78 affirming the same:

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.

Laughing.....the funny part? Anyone can just read the citations of Federalist 78 and learn what you did: that I'm right. Making your denials all the more delicious.

still waiting, cough up what I asked.

 

[Skylar]

US Constitution Article III settles the right and power of the Supreme Court to judge in a legal manner what is and is not legal and binding in regards the Federal Government. Pretty simple concept and pretty straight forward as well.

Damn I sure wish had the right to make a contract then also be the judge of the contract I made.

Of course you do not see a teenie lil ole conflict in interest in that do you?

The judiciary is an intermediary body by design, standing between the legislature and the people to keep the former within its assigned powers.

The federal judiciary didn't 'make the contract'. It was the People of the Several States that created it....and created the judiciary to interprets the meaning of the constitution.

I am still waiting....................


The gubmint made the contract and last time I checked,........yep I am right the judiciary is part of the gubmint.

Really? Lets see copies of the referendums, I hear jeopardy music again LOL

Oh and which people are "The People" again?

Clarify that for me while we are on the subject.

Same problem as last time. The 'gubmint' didn't make the contract. Your foundation fallacy renders all the fallacies that follow it meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

'We the People of the United States' made the contract.....using the Several States as our agent. And made the federal judiciary at the exact same time as we made the federal government.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't change history of the preamble. All it does is affirm you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Nope, you've proven me right, quoting many of the exact same passages I did. You've capitulated every point.

That its the judiciary that decides which law is supreme if two statutes contradict each other. You've even quoted Federalist 78 going into elaborate detail HOW the judiciary does this. You've capitulated on the constitution being the supreme law of land. You've even quoted Federalist 78 acknowledging that in a contest between a statute and the fundamental law of the constitution....deference should be given to the constitution.

Any other points I've raised that you'd like to agree with? I think you've meekly submitted to every point I could fit into these 4 sentences.

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.

Sorry not my problem if you cant comprehend the meaning of why I posted the same thing. Go back and read the crystal clear explanation I gave you a few times and maybe you will get it at some point.

Laughing......its Federalist 78 that obliterated your pseudo-legal horseshit. Not me. I'm merely the messenger. But keep backpedealling.

It makes me smile.

little case of denial I see. Well have fun with that.

You really don't see at all. If you had bothered to read Federalist 78, you'd have seen it affirming my every point. Here's my argument, which you've painstakingly affirmed in its every point:

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.

And here's Federalist 78 affirming the same:

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.

Laughing.....the funny part? Anyone can just read the citations of Federalist 78 and learn what you did: that I'm right. Making your denials all the more delicious.

still waiting, cough up what I asked.

I already did. And anyone can read the citations of Federalist 78 affirming my argument. And demonstrating your desperate, willful ignorance.

Keep those eyes screwed shut. It won't matter either way.

 

[KokomoJojo]

US Constitution Article III settles the right and power of the Supreme Court to judge in a legal manner what is and is not legal and binding in regards the Federal Government. Pretty simple concept and pretty straight forward as well.

Damn I sure wish had the right to make a contract then also be the judge of the contract I made.

Of course you do not see a teenie lil ole conflict in interest in that do you?

The judiciary is an intermediary body by design, standing between the legislature and the people to keep the former within its assigned powers.

The federal judiciary didn't 'make the contract'. It was the People of the Several States that created it....and created the judiciary to interprets the meaning of the constitution.

I am still waiting....................


The gubmint made the contract and last time I checked,........yep I am right the judiciary is part of the gubmint.

Really? Lets see copies of the referendums, I hear jeopardy music again LOL

Oh and which people are "The People" again?

Clarify that for me while we are on the subject.

Same problem as last time. The 'gubmint' didn't make the contract. Your foundation fallacy renders all the fallacies that follow it meaningless psuedo-legal gibberish.

'We the People of the United States' made the contract.....using the Several States as our agent. And made the federal judiciary at the exact same time as we made the government.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't change history ofr the preamble. All it does is affirm you simply don't know what you're talking about.

awesome now cough up the referendums, you know they use them when 'The People' vote for stuff, or maybe you think it appeared out of thin air?

 

[Skylar]

US Constitution Article III settles the right and power of the Supreme Court to judge in a legal manner what is and is not legal and binding in regards the Federal Government. Pretty simple concept and pretty straight forward as well.

Damn I sure wish had the right to make a contract then also be the judge of the contract I made.

Of course you do not see a teenie lil ole conflict in interest in that do you?

The judiciary is an intermediary body by design, standing between the legislature and the people to keep the former within its assigned powers.

The federal judiciary didn't 'make the contract'. It was the People of the Several States that created it....and created the judiciary to interprets the meaning of the constitution.

I am still waiting....................


The gubmint made the contract and last time I checked,........yep I am right the judiciary is part of the gubmint.

Really? Lets see copies of the referendums, I hear jeopardy music again LOL

Oh and which people are "The People" again?

Clarify that for me while we are on the subject.

Same problem as last time. The 'gubmint' didn't make the contract. Your foundation fallacy renders all the fallacies that follow it meaningless psuedo-legal gibberish.

'We the People of the United States' made the contract.....using the Several States as our agent. And made the federal judiciary at the exact same time as we made the government.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't change history ofr the preamble. All it does is affirm you simply don't know what you're talking about.

awesome now cough up the referendums, you know they use them when 'The People' vote for stuff, or maybe you think it appeared out of thin air?

'We the People' created agents: the Several States. The Several States acting as our agents created the Federal Government.

If this simple, two step process confounds you, study up. But the judiciary didn't create the Federal government. Nor did the federal government create itself.

Rendering your entire critique meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.