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

[Faun]

Who acts as a check on our unelected Supreme Court?

The people. First with the power of nullification and if that doesn't work, the last check is the 2nd amendment. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

HAHAHA. That's it.?? We have the power to shoot them??? Be nice if we could vote judges out like we do congressmen.

There is in fact no oversight of the Supreme Court. Those 9 UNELECTED judges have given themselves final say on every issue.!!!

Eflatminor is an idiot. He is right about the final say being with the people but a moron to think it's with nullification (non-existent at the Supreme Court level) or the 2nd Amendment (which doesn't overturn laws).

But the people can overturn a Supreme Court ruling by adding a Constitutional amendment; according to Section 3, article 5.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Article III is CLEAR as a BELL. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction in ALL cases involving the US Federal Government and any action between several States. That means the Supreme Court rules what is and is not legal in those cases.

But it doesn't say anything about jurisdiction, you liar. The phrase used is "judicial power". Article 3 says "The judicial power shall extend to all cases......."

Unfortunately for you writing and repealing laws is NOT a judicial power. It's a legislative power. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

They have the power to nullify laws, not write them.

Nullifying laws is the same as repealing laws. The constitution says only congress can do that. THINK

 

[Faun]

They have the power to nullify laws, not write them.

Nullifying laws is the same as repealing laws. The constitution says only congress can do that. THINK

No, it's not the same as repealing a law. Repealing a law means the law no longer exists. Nullifying a law means the law is not Constitutional. Also, Congress can always re-institute a repealed law, should they choose. They cannot enforce a law ruled unconstitutional.

 

[eflatminor]

Who acts as a check on our unelected Supreme Court?

The people. First with the power of nullification and if that doesn't work, the last check is the 2nd amendment. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

HAHAHA. That's it.?? We have the power to shoot them??? Be nice if we could vote judges out like we do congressmen.

There is in fact no oversight of the Supreme Court. Those 9 UNELECTED judges have given themselves final say on every issue.!!!

Well, no. The people can, and have, nullified laws found to be constitutional by the SC. So again, it's the people that have the final say.

 

[eflatminor]

Who acts as a check on our unelected Supreme Court?

The people. First with the power of nullification and if that doesn't work, the last check is the 2nd amendment. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

HAHAHA. That's it.?? We have the power to shoot them??? Be nice if we could vote judges out like we do congressmen.

There is in fact no oversight of the Supreme Court. Those 9 UNELECTED judges have given themselves final say on every issue.!!!

Eflatminor is an idiot. He is right about the final say being with the people but a moron to think it's with nullification (non-existent at the Supreme Court level) or the 2nd Amendment (which doesn't overturn laws).

But the people can overturn a Supreme Court ruling by adding a Constitutional amendment; according to Section 3, article 5.

Nice ad hominem. Just once I'd like to meet a Lefty who can conduct a conversation without logical fallacies. So far, no luck.

Anyway, you are correct, we can pass laws, be they constitutional amendments or not that effectively overturn a SC ruling (or course, those new laws must be deemed constitutional). However, when THAT fails, we have nullification. We've used it before at the state and local levels. So, you're wrong that we lack the ability to nullify laws that the SC has ruled upon. We've done it before. It's our right.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Nullifying laws is the same as repealing laws. The constitution says only congress can do that. THINK

No, it's not the same as repealing a law. Repealing a law means the law no longer exists. Nullifying a law means the law is not Constitutional.

Are you serious?. You're just playing with words. Nullify and repeal are the same.

Ever hear the abraham lincoln story about the 5-legged mule?

 

[eflatminor]

Nullify and repeal are the same.

Incorrect.

 

[Faun]

Who acts as a check on our unelected Supreme Court?

The people. First with the power of nullification and if that doesn't work, the last check is the 2nd amendment. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

HAHAHA. That's it.?? We have the power to shoot them??? Be nice if we could vote judges out like we do congressmen.

There is in fact no oversight of the Supreme Court. Those 9 UNELECTED judges have given themselves final say on every issue.!!!

Eflatminor is an idiot. He is right about the final say being with the people but a moron to think it's with nullification (non-existent at the Supreme Court level) or the 2nd Amendment (which doesn't overturn laws).

But the people can overturn a Supreme Court ruling by adding a Constitutional amendment; according to Section 3, article 5.

Nice ad hominem. Just once I'd like to meet a Lefty who can conduct a conversation without logical fallacies. So far, no luck.

Anyway, you are correct, we can pass laws, be they constitutional amendments or not that effectively overturn a SC ruling (or course, those new laws must be deemed constitutional). However, when THAT fails, we have nullification. We've used it before at the state and local levels. So, you're wrong that we lack the ability to nullify laws that the SC has ruled upon. We've done it before. It's our right.

Nullification does not overrule the U.S. Supreme court. It can only be used in jury cases and does not establish precedence. At most, it could effect the one case where it's utilized. It's also up to the few people on the jury, hardly "the people."

Constitutional Amendments do not have to be deemed Constitutional. Once ratified, they are Constitutional.

 

[Faun]

Nullifying laws is the same as repealing laws. The constitution says only congress can do that. THINK

No, it's not the same as repealing a law. Repealing a law means the law no longer exists. Nullifying a law means the law is not Constitutional.

Are you serious?. You're just playing with words. Nullify and repeal are the same.

Ever hear the abraham lincoln story about the 5-legged mule?

I can't help you lack the minimal brain requirement to comprehend the difference; but it's not word play. The two have different meanings as I explained in my last post to you.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Are you serious?. You're just playing with words. Nullify and repeal are the same.

Ever hear the abraham lincoln story about the 5-legged mule?

I can't help you lack the minimal brain requirement .

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

 

[eflatminor]

Who acts as a check on our unelected Supreme Court?

The people. First with the power of nullification and if that doesn't work, the last check is the 2nd amendment. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

HAHAHA. That's it.?? We have the power to shoot them??? Be nice if we could vote judges out like we do congressmen.

There is in fact no oversight of the Supreme Court. Those 9 UNELECTED judges have given themselves final say on every issue.!!!

Eflatminor is an idiot. He is right about the final say being with the people but a moron to think it's with nullification (non-existent at the Supreme Court level) or the 2nd Amendment (which doesn't overturn laws).

But the people can overturn a Supreme Court ruling by adding a Constitutional amendment; according to Section 3, article 5.

Nice ad hominem. Just once I'd like to meet a Lefty who can conduct a conversation without logical fallacies. So far, no luck.

Anyway, you are correct, we can pass laws, be they constitutional amendments or not that effectively overturn a SC ruling (or course, those new laws must be deemed constitutional). However, when THAT fails, we have nullification. We've used it before at the state and local levels. So, you're wrong that we lack the ability to nullify laws that the SC has ruled upon. We've done it before. It's our right.

Nullification does not overrule the U.S. Supreme court. It can only be used in jury cases and does not establish precedence. At most, it could effect the one case where it's utilized. It's also up to the few people on the jury, hardly "the people."

Constitutional Amendments do not have to be deemed Constitutional. Once ratified, they are Constitutional.

Using it in one case is all it takes...right up to an entire state refusing a SC directive (one of the things that precipitated the so called Civil War). And yes, people on a jury are the people. It need not be ALL the people. Lastly, there is nothing that prevents the courts from considering the constitutionality of any law.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

. Lastly, there is nothing that prevents the courts from considering the constitutionality of any law.

HAHAHA. You can't read. The constitution itself says courts cannot consider the constitutionality of a law!!! The constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states." That means judges have no authority to repeal laws and that's what they do when they declare a law unconstitutional.

 

[eflatminor]

. Lastly, there is nothing that prevents the courts from considering the constitutionality of any law.

HAHAHA. You can't read. The constitution itself says courts cannot consider the constitutionality of a law!!! The constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states." That means judges have no authority to repeal laws and that's what they do when they declare a law unconstitutional.

Ironic. I never said judges can "repeal" a law. You were saying something about reading comprehension?

Hey, that IS funny...and a little sad.

Lastly, "the courts cannot consider the constitutionality of a law"? Oh really? Man are you confused. Good lord, even Wiki got it right:

The power of the federal judiciary to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself, is an implied power derived in part from Clause 2 of Section 2

Best to stay out of it and let the grown ups talk...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP has been answered clearly and in the affirmative. Time to close this thread.

 

[Skylar]

Are you serious?. You're just playing with words. Nullify and repeal are the same.

Ever hear the abraham lincoln story about the 5-legged mule?

I can't help you lack the minimal brain requirement .

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

Except of course, you're not. See Federalist 78 for why.

 

[Faun]

Are you serious?. You're just playing with words. Nullify and repeal are the same.

Ever hear the abraham lincoln story about the 5-legged mule?

I can't help you lack the minimal brain requirement .

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

Aww, what a shame... the board already noted you're an idiot who failed to refute what I said and reduced you to whining about name calling.

 

[Skylar]

. Lastly, there is nothing that prevents the courts from considering the constitutionality of any law.

HAHAHA. You can't read. The constitution itself says courts cannot consider the constitutionality of a law!!!

The constitution says no such thing.

The constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states." That means judges have no authority to repeal laws and that's what they do when they declare a law unconstitutional.

Who says that the the judges have no authority to repeal laws? You're offering your interpretation....not what the constitution actually says.

And Federalist 78 is clear that the justices have the duty and power to place the constitution above a law that violates it as the Constitution is the Supreme Law.

Why would I ignore Federalist 78....and instead believe you citing you? As so far, the Constitution has said nothing you do.

 

[KokomoJojo]

. Lastly, there is nothing that prevents the courts from considering the constitutionality of any law.

HAHAHA. You can't read. The constitution itself says courts cannot consider the constitutionality of a law!!!

The constitution says no such thing.

The constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states." That means judges have no authority to repeal laws and that's what they do when they declare a law unconstitutional.

Who says that the the judges have no authority to repeal laws? You're offering your interpretation....not what the constitution actually says.

And Federalist 78 is clear that the justices have the duty and power to place the constitution above a law that violates it as the Constitution is the Supreme Law.

Why would I ignore Federalist 78....and instead believe you citing you? As so far, the Constitution has said nothing you do.

Not true is it, since the courts changed search and seizure based upon probable cause with a requirement of a court order to probable suspicion based on police hunch. They can stop you for any damn reason they want merely because you are suspected of wrong doing and stick their fingers up your ass to look for drugs and there aint a damn thing you can do about it in the land of the free for all gvmnt. We now have judge dredd law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is shootspeeders up to his old antics?

Yes, the courts can opine on the laws and tell which are constitutional and which are not.

shootspeeders' interp is just silliness.