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

[ShootSpeeders]

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

And the constitution says only congress can write laws. So judicial opinions are just that and are not "the law of the land" like the court claims.

 

[Skylar]

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

And the constitution says only congress can write laws. So judicial opinions are just that and are not "the law of the land" like the court claims.

Remember, you're merely 'calling' the court overturning an unconstitutional law 'writing laws'. You can call a ham sandwich a hippopotamus if you want to. What relevance does your claim actually have with judicial review?

 

[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."

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.

Oh? What about the 13th Amendment limits their jurisdiction? And where in the 13th Amendment does it abolish Article 3, Section 2, which establishes their jurisdiction to "all cases" arising under the Constitution?

My error. I meant the Eleventh Amendment. Sorry about that.

Thanks for the correction; but the 11th Amendment doesn't restrict the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to Article 1, Section 8, either. It limits their power to hear cases where citizens of one U.S. or foreign state sue the government of another U.S. state...

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

... though since then, the court has established the 11th Amendment also limits citizens from suing their own states.

But nothing ... absolutely nothing ... restricts the Supreme Court to cases only involving Article 1, Section 8.

 

[Faun]

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

And the constitution says only congress can write laws. So judicial opinions are just that and are not "the law of the land" like the court claims.

Which is why the courts don't write laws.

 

[dblack]

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

And the constitution says only congress can write laws. So judicial opinions are just that and are not "the law of the land" like the court claims.

Which is why the courts don't write laws.

They can't repeal them either. They can only nullify them if the step outside the Constitutionally authorized powers of Congress.

 

[Faun]

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

And the constitution says only congress can write laws. So judicial opinions are just that and are not "the law of the land" like the court claims.

Which is why the courts don't write laws.

They can't repeal them either. They can only nullify them if the step outside the Constitutionally authorized powers of Congress.

We've been over this already. Nullifying them is tantamount to repealing them. In both cases, the law no longer applies. And if anything, it's even stronger than repealing them.

If Congress were to repeal a law, they can always pass it again in the future. Not so once the U.S. Supreme Court rules a law is unconstitutional.

 

[dblack]

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

And the constitution says only congress can write laws. So judicial opinions are just that and are not "the law of the land" like the court claims.

Which is why the courts don't write laws.

They can't repeal them either. They can only nullify them if the step outside the Constitutionally authorized powers of Congress.

We've been over this already. Nullifying them is tantamount to repealing them.

Nope. They are completely different functions. Congress can repeal a law for any reason whatsoever. The Court can only nullify for one reason. One is proactive - one is reactive. They're not 'tantamount' to the same thing, they're diametrical opposites.

 

[Faun]

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

And the constitution says only congress can write laws. So judicial opinions are just that and are not "the law of the land" like the court claims.

Which is why the courts don't write laws.

They can't repeal them either. They can only nullify them if the step outside the Constitutionally authorized powers of Congress.

We've been over this already. Nullifying them is tantamount to repealing them.

Nope. They are completely different functions. Congress can repeal a law for any reason whatsoever. The Court can only nullify for one reason. One is proactive - one is reactive. They're not 'tantamount' to the same thing, they're diametrical opposites.

Now you're arguing why a law can be repealed. No one is arguing that. Whether Congress repeals a law or the SCOTUS rules a law is unconstitutional, the effect is the same -- the law no longer applies as originally passed.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

They can't repeal them either. They can only nullify them if the step outside the Constitutionally authorized powers of Congress.

HAHAHA. You're making a fool of yourself with that non-existent distinction between nullifying and repealing.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Which is why the courts don't write laws.

Really? So the courts ruling in roe v wade is not binding on anyone??

 

[Faun]

Which is why the courts don't write laws.

Really? So the courts ruling in roe v wade is not binding on anyone??

The court's ruling nullify laws making abortion a crime. It did not write any new laws.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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."

so abortion is where?
bigamy, (religion) is where?

 

[Skylar]

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."

so abortion is where?
bigamy, (religion) is where?

The right to self defense with a firearm is where?

 

[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."

so abortion is where?
bigamy, (religion) is where?

The right to self defense with a firearm is where?

The right to self defense predates the Constitution. Regarding the Second Amendment, it is in the operative clause.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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."

so abortion is where?
bigamy, (religion) is where?

In the Constitution’s case law – the Constitution exists solely in the context of that case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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."

so abortion is where?
bigamy, (religion) is where?

The right to self defense with a firearm is where?

The right to self defense predates the Constitution. Regarding the Second Amendment, it is in the operative clause.

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – the case law that acknowledges a right to self-defense and a right to privacy.

It was the original understanding and intent of the Framing Generation that the Supreme Court would determine what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and Articles III and VI of the Constitution – indeed, the Constitution in of itself is an acknowledgement and codification of the Court’s interpretive authority.

Consequently, there exists a right to self-defense and an individual right to possess a firearm – where the words ‘self-defense’ and ‘individual’ don’t need to be in the Second Amendment to in fact be true; likewise, the word ‘privacy’ doesn’t need to be in the Constitution for there to in fact exist a right to privacy, prohibiting the states from compelling a woman to give birth against her will.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The court's ruling nullify laws making abortion a crime. It did not write any new laws.

In the first place repealing laws is a legislative function, not a judicial one. In the second place, they did indeed write a law by arbitrarily specifying first trimester abortions be legal.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – the case law that acknowledges a right to self-defense and a right to privacy.

You called it "case law" so you are admitting judges write laws even though the constitution says they can't.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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

So where is education mentioned in the constitution? How did the court get authority in plyler v doe to mandate that states provide free k-12 for millions of illegal kids.?

 

[Skylar]

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – the case law that acknowledges a right to self-defense and a right to privacy.

You called it "case law" so you are admitting judges write laws even though the constitution says they can't.

Nope. The only one saying that judges can 'write law' is you. Citing yourself.

Which is legally and linguistically meaningless.