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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is simply amazing how these people do not know the function and power of a Court. The Constitution is crystal clear that the Supreme Court is the final Court for all matters involving the US and State Governments. A ruling has the force of the Constitution behind it.

You are wrong on this point as well. There is Federal Law and there is State Law. The federal Courts have zero power over those Laws exclusive to the States. For example, laws governing Marriage and Drivers licenses. They Laws not reserved to the Federal Government or the States are reserved for the People.

The Supreme Court has TOTAL Control over ANY case involving 2 States or more dumb ass.

Reread my post girlfriend. Key quote: There is Federal Law and there is State Law. The Federal Courts have zero power over those Laws exclusive to the States.

This concept is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Jesus dude this is basic Constitutional shit. WTF????


Tenth Amendment

And my statement is true, the Supreme Court rules all cases involving the States and that INCLUDES State laws that violate Federal laws.

My statement is true. There are many State Laws exclusive to the States where the Federal Government has no controlling interest. That was my point and I am correct.

You are not correct.

The States and local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws and the Federal courts.

The Federal courts have the authority to invalidate state and local laws which violate the Constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

 

[Joe Bruno]

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 court's power of judicial review was pronounced in Marbury vs Madison in 1803. The Supreme Court and it's inferior courts are tasked with enforcing the Constitution, which includes the power to declare as "unconstitutional" any law which violates it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The far right reactionaries with their radical anti-American agenda have never read Article III.

They forget we are a Republic not a Democracy.

O
M
G


O
M
G

Jake said we're a Republic. That's one for the ages

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are wrong on this point as well. There is Federal Law and there is State Law. The federal Courts have zero power over those Laws exclusive to the States. For example, laws governing Marriage and Drivers licenses. They Laws not reserved to the Federal Government or the States are reserved for the People.

The Supreme Court has TOTAL Control over ANY case involving 2 States or more dumb ass.

Reread my post girlfriend. Key quote: There is Federal Law and there is State Law. The Federal Courts have zero power over those Laws exclusive to the States.

This concept is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Jesus dude this is basic Constitutional shit. WTF????


Tenth Amendment

And my statement is true, the Supreme Court rules all cases involving the States and that INCLUDES State laws that violate Federal laws.

My statement is true. There are many State Laws exclusive to the States where the Federal Government has no controlling interest. That was my point and I am correct.

You are not correct.

The States and local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws and the Federal courts.

The Federal courts have the authority to invalidate state and local laws which violate the Constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

So why do some judges allow gun control laws that infringe on the second amendment rights of citizens to stand? And let's not forget the 14th amendment that states every citizens have equal rights to other citizens in all the states?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The far right reactionaries with their radical anti-American agenda have never read Article III.

They forget we are a Republic not a Democracy.

You're right Jakey I ama reactionary. I react to leftist criminal actions so don't whine when I react to criminal actions of the left and they get laid 6 feet under because they acted criminally

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The far right reactionaries with their radical anti-American agenda have never read Article III.

They forget we are a Republic not a Democracy.

Has anyone else told you what a jerk you are?

It's common knowledge around here.
Jake called me out one day years ago wanted to meet at the four seasons in Greensboro HE WAS A NO SHOW.

 

[Picaro]

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!

After the Civil War Lincoln's corrupt Chase Court started a trend that lasted through to the early 1900's, mainly pandering to big corporations and their 'Social Darwinist' owners, who favored lots of welfare for the rich and connected.

Judicial activism was rampant from the death of Chief Justice Tainey in 1864 to the Progressive Era. 'Conservatives' and the right wingers loved it when it socialized costs while privatizing profits, same as they like it now; they just whine about little stuff these days, since mot of them would starve to death under a real laissez faire system they claim they want but never get around to implementing. So, we now have all kinds of contradictory 'precedents' in law wherein any body can justify anything, and the only guiding principle is which ideology gets to appoint SC and other Federal Court Judges. Forget that 'Constitution;' crap; it disappeared in 1864, and only gets trotted out by the clueless as 'talking points'.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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 court's power of judicial review was pronounced in Marbury vs Madison in 1803. The Supreme Court and it's inferior courts are tasked with enforcing the Constitution, which includes the power to declare as "unconstitutional" any law which violates it.

So then the court USURPED the power with no foundation in the Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall simply declared himself the arbiter of the Constitution?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Supreme Court has TOTAL Control over ANY case involving 2 States or more dumb ass.

Reread my post girlfriend. Key quote: There is Federal Law and there is State Law. The Federal Courts have zero power over those Laws exclusive to the States.

This concept is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Jesus dude this is basic Constitutional shit. WTF????


Tenth Amendment

And my statement is true, the Supreme Court rules all cases involving the States and that INCLUDES State laws that violate Federal laws.

My statement is true. There are many State Laws exclusive to the States where the Federal Government has no controlling interest. That was my point and I am correct.

You are not correct.

The States and local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws and the Federal courts.

The Federal courts have the authority to invalidate state and local laws which violate the Constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

So why do some judges allow gun control laws that infringe on the second amendment rights of citizens to stand? And let's not forget the 14th amendment that states every citizens have equal rights to other citizens in all the states?

The Equal Justice clause of the 14th is dead. We all know that democrats above a certain rank are immune from all laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Supreme Court has TOTAL Control over ANY case involving 2 States or more dumb ass.

Reread my post girlfriend. Key quote: There is Federal Law and there is State Law. The Federal Courts have zero power over those Laws exclusive to the States.

This concept is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Jesus dude this is basic Constitutional shit. WTF????


Tenth Amendment

And my statement is true, the Supreme Court rules all cases involving the States and that INCLUDES State laws that violate Federal laws.

My statement is true. There are many State Laws exclusive to the States where the Federal Government has no controlling interest. That was my point and I am correct.

You are not correct.

The States and local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws and the Federal courts.

The Federal courts have the authority to invalidate state and local laws which violate the Constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

So why do some judges allow gun control laws that infringe on the second amendment rights of citizens to stand? And let's not forget the 14th amendment that states every citizens have equal rights to other citizens in all the states?

Dear bigrebnc1775
Because laws, and what we perceive to be lawful or unlawful, depends on
"consent of the governed."

If we all AGREE, then there is no dispute, we all consent to such laws.
Such as letting laws slide by that mixed church marriage with state governments.
Or letting schools involve prayers and God etc where nobody dissented in the past.

But when people no longer consent, that's when dissidents lobby for reforms.

If we AGREED on the reforms, then again, there'd be no problem.

[NOTE: if you look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service for example (public law 96-303)
those articles were WELL WRITTEN and passed by Congress UNANIMOUSLY. that's the standard we ought to be pursuing, if we had faith the right solutions would include all sides)

Where we run into political messes is when neither the EXISTING law bears the consent of all the public, or the proposed REFORMS either, so anything goes - both sides push to represent their interests and consent.

The liberals especially just push whatever proposed reform they can get away with through legislative or judicial process, then wait for it to get challenged or changed "after they pass it first." so this "process" takes so long, in the interim, you get stuck with imperfect laws such as ACA that were passed to FORCE things to change, knowing it would be contested.

And when consent get compromised, we end up with Frankensteinish horrow-show results, where nobody gets what they want. We end up with ACA/Obamacare
or really FU compromises on defense bills, health care, wall or immigration, etc.
because people are too busy fighting to block each other, they aren't focused on WRITING GOOD LAWS THAT REFLECT THE CONSENT OF THE PUBLIC.

So that's where you get COMPROMISES to APPEASE political forces.
You get a mish/mash "potluck" approach, and whatever comes out of the fray.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reread my post girlfriend. Key quote: There is Federal Law and there is State Law. The Federal Courts have zero power over those Laws exclusive to the States.

This concept is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Jesus dude this is basic Constitutional shit. WTF????


Tenth Amendment

And my statement is true, the Supreme Court rules all cases involving the States and that INCLUDES State laws that violate Federal laws.

My statement is true. There are many State Laws exclusive to the States where the Federal Government has no controlling interest. That was my point and I am correct.

You are not correct.

The States and local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws and the Federal courts.

The Federal courts have the authority to invalidate state and local laws which violate the Constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

So why do some judges allow gun control laws that infringe on the second amendment rights of citizens to stand? And let's not forget the 14th amendment that states every citizens have equal rights to other citizens in all the states?

Dear bigrebnc1775
Because laws, and what we perceive to be lawful or unlawful, depends on
"consent of the governed."

If we all AGREE, then there is no dispute, we all consent to such laws.
Such as letting laws slide by that mixed church marriage with state governments.
Or letting schools involve prayers and God etc where nobody dissented in the past.

But when people no longer consent, that's when dissidents lobby for reforms.

If we AGREED on the reforms, then again, there'd be no problem.

[NOTE: if you look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service for example (public law 96-303)
those articles were WELL WRITTEN and passed by Congress UNANIMOUSLY. that's the standard we ought to be pursuing, if we had faith the right solutions would include all sides)

Where we run into political messes is when neither the EXISTING law bears the consent of all the public, or the proposed REFORMS either, so anything goes - both sides push to represent their interests and consent.

The liberals especially just push whatever proposed reform they can get away with through legislative or judicial process, then wait for it to get challenged or changed "after they pass it first." so this "process" takes so long, in the interim, you get stuck with imperfect laws such as ACA that were passed to FORCE things to change, knowing it would be contested.

And when consent get compromised, we end up with Frankensteinish horrow-show results, where nobody gets what they want. We end up with ACA/Obamacare
or really FU compromises on defense bills, health care, wall or immigration, etc.
because people are too busy fighting to block each other, they aren't focused on WRITING GOOD LAWS THAT REFLECT THE CONSENT OF THE PUBLIC.

So that's where you get COMPROMISES to APPEASE political forces.
You get a mish/mash "potluck" approach, and whatever comes out of the fray.

It's not about agreeing it's about rights that pre-date the Constitution.

 

[bruzz]

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 doesn't expressly give the judicial branch the power to repeal laws, that stems from the Marbury v. Madison case as we've had a continually running constitutional convention. How do you stop this abuse of power? Look into the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.