Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.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.
Holyfuckingshit!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.
Holyfuckingshit!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.
.... what do you think the implication is upon others who defy a law deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?
You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.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.
Which nullifies the law. Which is tantamount to repealing it.Holyfuckingshit!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.
.... what do you think the implication is upon others who defy a law deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?
It renders the law unenforceable. That's the point.
All laws are Constitutional when passed and if you break one, you face the consequences of that law, regardless of how unconstitutional you may believe such a law is. You may avoid any consequences should a court rule that law is unconstitutional, at which point the law is no longer recognized as Constitutional. But until that time, it is very much Constitutional.You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.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.
That's an odd way to look at it (though typically authoritarian). If a law is an invalid application of state power under the Constitution it is unconstitutional, and always was. It's nature doesn't change between the time it was passed and the Court rules on it.
All laws are Constitutional when passed and if you break one, you face the consequences of that law, regardless of how unconstitutional you may believe such a law is. You may avoid any consequences should a court rule that law is unconstitutional, at which point the law is no longer recognized as Constitutional. But until that time, it is very much Constitutional.You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.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.
That's an odd way to look at it (though typically authoritarian). If a law is an invalid application of state power under the Constitution it is unconstitutional, and always was. It's nature doesn't change between the time it was passed and the Court rules on it.
Which nullifies the law. Which is tantamount to repealing it.Holyfuckingshit!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.
.... what do you think the implication is upon others who defy a law deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?
It renders the law unenforceable. That's the point.
In either case, no one is bound by such a law.Which nullifies the law. Which is tantamount to repealing it.Holyfuckingshit!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.
.... what do you think the implication is upon others who defy a law deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?
It renders the law unenforceable. That's the point.
It may be 'tantamount', but it's not the same thing. Congress can repeal a law for any reason. The Court can only nullify it for very specific reasons.
In either case, no one is bound by such a law.Which nullifies the law. Which is tantamount to repealing it.Holyfuckingshit!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.
.... what do you think the implication is upon others who defy a law deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?
It renders the law unenforceable. That's the point.
It may be 'tantamount', but it's not the same thing. Congress can repeal a law for any reason. The Court can only nullify it for very specific reasons.
I guess we're just debating semantics. I don't disagree with your assessment of the practical implications. Just the conceptual assertion that everything passed by Congress is, by default, "Constitutional". It's perfectly valid for a citizen to believe that a law is unconstitutional and act on that belief. Obviously, that's a gamble. They're still going to be prosecuted, and if they Court doesn't agree with them, they're screwed.
I guess I'm just responding to your statement as a common retort from statists, when someone claims a law is unconstitutional. They're basically just saying "sit down and shut up", and I don't brook that. If you think government is out of line, it's your responsibility as a citizen to call bullshit on it and challenge it, in court, on message boards, or wherever. Maybe not on Facebook or family meals. But....
But it's not valid to call that 'legislating from the bench'. The Court can change legislation wily nily. They can't make new laws this way, and they can't nullify laws unless they can at least claim they are unconstitutional.
You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.
But it's not valid to call that 'legislating from the bench'. The Court can change legislation wily nily. They can't make new laws this way, and they can't nullify laws unless they can at least claim they are unconstitutional.
That doesn't work. Letting courts nullify laws on constitutional grounds means they can nullify any law they wish.
It may be 'tantamount', but it's not the same thing. Congress can repeal a law for any reason. The Court can only nullify it for very specific reasons.
You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.
Really? Where does the constitution say judges have authority to nullify laws? Fact is the constitution says judges do NOT have such authority. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". Only congress can write laws or repeal them. THINK
That doesn't work. Letting courts nullify laws on constitutional grounds means they can nullify any law they wish.
It works fine. They can only nullify laws if they can justify it on Constitutional grounds.
That doesn't work. Letting courts nullify laws on constitutional grounds means they can nullify any law they wish.
It works fine. They can only nullify laws if they can justify it on Constitutional grounds.
Which means they can nullify any law they wish.
That's inherent within judicial powers.You must be a conservative to believe such idiocy. Rightard... ALL legislation passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law (or ignored for more than 10 days) by the president -- is Constitutional. And remains Constitutional unless the Judiciary rules otherwise.
Really? Where does the constitution say judges have authority to nullify laws? Fact is the constitution says judges do NOT have such authority. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". Only congress can write laws or repeal them. THINK
