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

[ShootSpeeders]

The power was usurped by the court under Marbury v. Madison.

Usurped is right. The constitution says only congress can write laws but in 1803, john marshall simply granted judges the authority to write and repeal laws!!! States need to stand up and say we will not honor laws except those written by congress. The constitution is on their side.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
You're truly retarded. Case law is not writing new laws. It's ruling on cases based on prior rulings.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

It's not law?? Then it's not binding on anyone is it.?? Make up your mind, moron.

You are truly insane. That's not what I said.

HAHAHA. The board notes that all you have is namecalling. Thanks for admitting i'm right.

 

[Faun]

[
You're truly retarded. Case law is not writing new laws. It's ruling on cases based on prior rulings.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

It's not law?? Then it's not binding on anyone is it.?? Make up your mind, moron.

You are truly insane. That's not what I said.

HAHAHA. The board notes that all you have is namecalling. Thanks for admitting i'm right.

Spits the forum retard who calls others names. Based on your standard, you already admitted I'm right.

 

[Skylar]

The power was usurped by the court under Marbury v. Madison.

Usurped is right. The constitution says only congress can write laws but in 1803, john marshall simply granted judges the authority to write and repeal laws!!! States need to stand up and say we will not honor laws except those written by congress. The constitution is on their side.

It really isn't. As the Federalist Papers make it ludicrously clear that the courts are empowered to put the constitution above any statute that violates it:

"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."


With the federalist papers explicitly contradicting your assumptions about Congress being the constitutional judges of their own powers:


"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents."


If any two laws conflict with each other the judiciary has the power and the obligation to determine which should be enacted in exclusion of the other. The constitution is fundamental law. And if congress passes a statute that conflicts with the constitution, the judiciary has the authority to duty to enact the constitution in exclusion of the statute.

That's all Judicial Review is. And its *exactly* what the founders intended it.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

It really isn't. As the Federalist Papers make it ludicrously clear that the courts are empowered to put the constitution above any statute that violates it:
.

The federalist papers are NOT part of the constitution, you fool. What is part of the C is what comes right after the preamble - "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states." So courts can't write laws. Nor can presidents or bureaucrats. But all three do it all the time.

 

[Skylar]

It really isn't. As the Federalist Papers make it ludicrously clear that the courts are empowered to put the constitution above any statute that violates it:
.

The federalist papers are NOT part of the constitution, you fool. What is part of the C is what comes right after the preamble - "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states." So courts can't write laws. Nor can presidents or bureaucrats. But all three do it all the time.

And when two statutes conflict, its the judiciary that determines which statute is enacted in exclusion of the other. If congress writes a statute that conflicts with the fundamental law of the constitution, its the judiciary's authority and duty to enact the constitution in exclusion of the statute.

Judicial review is *exactly* what the founders intended. As Federalist 78 makes ludicrously clear. You're literally ignoring the founders and insisting that you know better what the constitution is supposed to mean.

Um.....son? You don't.

There's a reason why judicial review has centuries long history and is recognized as authoritative in our system of law. And a reason why no one cites you as authoritative on anything.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And if congress passes a statute that conflicts with the constitution, the judiciary has the authority to duty to enact the constitution in exclusion of the statute.

.

So tell us where the state abortion statutes that the SC repealed in 1973 conflicted with the constitution.

Do the same with the state laws that banned illegal kids from schools. Where does the C say citizens of the states must provide free k-12 for people that aren't even allowed to be in the country!!!

 

[Skylar]

And if congress passes a statute that conflicts with the constitution, the judiciary has the authority to duty to enact the constitution in exclusion of the statute.

.

So tell us where the state abortion statutes that the SC repealed in 1973 conflicted with the constitution.

The same place the 'right to self defense with a firearm' came from.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

. If congress writes a statute that conflicts with the fundamental law of the constitution, its the judiciary's authority and duty to enact the constitution in exclusion of the statute.

That's repealing a law and that violates the plain wording of the constitution that says all legislative powers are vested in congress.

Your tiny brain can't see the difference between giving an opinion and repealing a law. Of course the court is free to say "we think this law is unconstitutional" and other judges and juries are free to give that opinion the value they think it's worth. But that must not mean the law is totally repealed and nullified. That's a legislative function and the C says only congress can do that. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

So tell us where the state abortion statutes that the SC repealed in 1973 conflicted with the constitution.

The same place the 'right to self defense with a firearm' came from.

What does that mean? It's clear you have no argument and so resort to gibberish. No wonder you're the board laughingstock.

 

[Skylar]

. If congress writes a statute that conflicts with the fundamental law of the constitution, its the judiciary's authority and duty to enact the constitution in exclusion of the statute.

That's repealing a law and that violates the plain wording of the constitution that says all legislative powers are vested in congress.

Says you. Per the founders, deciding which laws are enacted in exclusion of others is an explicit part of the Judicial Power.

You say differently, insisting that you know the constitution better than the founders.

Um.....so what? You don't.

Your tiny brain can't see the difference between giving an opinion and repealing a law. Of course the court is free to say "we think this law is unconstitutional" and other judges and juries are free to give that opinion the value they think it's worth. But that must not mean the law is totally repealed and nullified. That's a legislative function and the C says only congress can do that. THINK

Oh, I have thought. And the choice you've given us is obvious: Choose you citing yourself.....or choose the founders defining the Judicial Power in explicit contradiction of you.

I pick the founders. As would any rational person. Only an tiny brained idiot would pick you. Alas, you are that idiot.

 

[Skylar]

So tell us where the state abortion statutes that the SC repealed in 1973 conflicted with the constitution.

The same place the 'right to self defense with a firearm' came from.

What does that mean? It's clear you have no argument and so resort to gibberish. No wonder you're the board laughingstock.

You're not familiar with the 'right to self defense with a firearm'? Read Heller v. DC. And then come back to us after you've found that right explicitly articulated in the constitution.

It answers your question about 1973 quite elegantly.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

You're not familiar with the 'right to self defense with a firearm'? Read Heller v. DC. And then come back to us after you've found that right explicitly articulated in the constitution.

It answers your question about 1973 quite elegantly.

Explicitly???!!! You're gonna have to show the board where the phrase 'right to self defense with a firearm' is explicitly stated in the C.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Oh, I have thought. And the choice you've given us is obvious: Choose you citing yourself.....or choose the founders defining the Judicial Power in explicit contradiction of you.

I pick the founders. As would any rational person. Only an tiny brained idiot would pick you. Alas, you are that idiot.

So now you're saying the constitution gives judges authority to write laws and repeal laws?? You're gonna have to show that to the board cause all we see is "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". That settles it.

 

[Faun]

Oh, I have thought. And the choice you've given us is obvious: Choose you citing yourself.....or choose the founders defining the Judicial Power in explicit contradiction of you.

I pick the founders. As would any rational person. Only an tiny brained idiot would pick you. Alas, you are that idiot.

So now you're saying the constitution gives judges authority to write laws and repeal laws?? You're gonna have to show that to the board cause all we see is "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". That settles it.

Spits the forum racist who thinks the Congress can ban elections and there's nothing anyone can do about it but pray the Congress then deems their own legislation is unconstitutional.

 

[Skylar]

[

You're not familiar with the 'right to self defense with a firearm'? Read Heller v. DC. And then come back to us after you've found that right explicitly articulated in the constitution.

It answers your question about 1973 quite elegantly.

Explicitly???!!! You're gonna have to show the board where the phrase 'right to self defense with a firearm' is explicitly stated in the C.

I've never said it was. I've challenged you to find it explicitly.....as that is your standard for a ruling, is it not?

Either you find the right to self defense with a firearm explicitly articulated in the constitution.....or you apply your interpretation of the judiciary 'making law' to the Heller decision.

Its one or the other. Pick one.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I have thought. And the choice you've given us is obvious: Choose you citing yourself.....or choose the founders defining the Judicial Power in explicit contradiction of you.

I pick the founders. As would any rational person. Only an tiny brained idiot would pick you. Alas, you are that idiot.

So now you're saying the constitution gives judges authority to write laws and repeal laws??

That's what you say, citing yourself. And remember, you're the same idiot who insists that he knows what the constitution is supposed to mean better than the founders.

Any rational person would recognize that you're nobody. And that the founders are a far better source than you citing yourself. With the founders recognizing the role of the judiciary is to determine which law is enacted in exclusion of the other when two laws conflict.

And if statutory law conflicts with the fundamental law of the constitution.....the judiciary has the obligation to affirm constitutional law.

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.

You insist that the founders were wrong. That the federalist paper is wrong. And that you must be right.

Lagughing......um, no. You're still nobody.

 

[Tennyson]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

 

[Faun]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution grants them them the power to rule on all cases "arising under this Constitution."

 

[Tennyson]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution grants them them the power to rule on all cases "arising under this Constitution."

They have a limited jurisdiction. They tried that and after the ruling, within three days the congress was already crafting the Thirteenth Amendment to rein them in. Their jurisdiction was understood to be limited to Article I, Section 8 to prevent the states from interfering with their powers under Article I, Section 8.