Where in the Constitution authorty granted to re (or mis) interpret words?

[presonorek]

Something wrong? Everybody quit talking.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

USSC is a creation of congress, and has greatly exceeded its due authority since Marbury, numbnutz.

Section. 1.​

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?

apologies, the braille edition is taken out of the library

and the audio books are all in American English (not your strong suit)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia

Has nothing to do with interpretation and meanings of words in a law. Marbury v Madison is about judicial review.

Then there is Hylton v. United States

Interpretation: Direct and Indirect Taxes | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Direct and Indirect Taxes by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

fyi: Lawyers in Courts arguing over interpretation and meanings of terms predates the US Constitution. See it in Common Law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Where in the Constitution authorty granted to re (or mis) interpret words?"

Lawyers in Courts arguing over interpretation and meanings of terms predates the US Constitution. Asking udges to decide who is right and who is wrong. We see it going back to Common Law.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I haven't been able to find it- can someone point it out to me?

The authority to interpret words is within Article 3, the judiciary.

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. "

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's a liberal thing.

Misinterpret words until they mean what you want them to mean...like "marriage".

I love how they say the second amendment did not apply to the "individual".

And after 96 years of existence...all of a sudden the 14th amendment means drop a baby on our soil & it's automatically a US citizen.

The 14th amendment didn't mean that for it's first 96 years...but then a liberal came along (you know the rest).

Or how about "pro-life" meaning, get this, not pro-life, but anti-abortion for humans.

The 2A technically doesn't apply to individuals. Any amendment of the US Constitution ONLY applies to the US government (and state governments now).

The 2A does not make a right to keep and bear arms. It merely PREVENTS the US federal govt (and now state govts) from doing things.

But, don't let your MISINTERPRETATION of the Bill of Rights smack you in the ass on the way out.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think the most egregious is Roberts calling a fine a tax-

Look up the term: precedent

Then look up what CJ Roberts actually wrote/said, not what you have been led to believe he wrote/said. It's a good habit to look into things before one regurgitates what others have put forth.

We have similarly held that exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress’s power to tax.

In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal licenses to sell liquor and lottery tickets—for which the licensee had to pay a fee—could be sustained as exercises of the taxing power. 5 Wall., at 471.

And in New York v. United States we upheld as a tax a “surcharge” on out-of state nuclear waste shipments, a portion of which was paid to the Federal Treasury. 505 U. S., at 171.

We thus ask whether the shared responsibility payment falls within Congress’s taxing power, “[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294 (1935);

cf. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, 310 (1992) (“[M]agic words or labels” should not “disable an otherwise constitutional levy” (internal quotation marks omitted));

Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U. S. 359, 363 (1941) (“In passing on the constitutionality of a tax law, we are concerned only with its practical operation,not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it” (internal quotation marks omitted));

United States v. Sotelo, 436 U. S. 268, 275 (1978) (“That the funds due are referred to as a ‘penalty’ . . . does not alter their essential character as taxes”). [7]

Our cases confirm this functional approach. For example, in Drexel Furniture, we focused on three practical characteristics of the so-called tax on employing child laborers that convinced us the “tax” was actually a penalty. First, the tax imposed an exceedingly heavy burden—10 percent of a company’s net income—on those who employed children, no matter how small their infraction.

Second, it imposed that exaction only on those who knowingly employed underage laborers. Such scienter requirements are typical of punitive statutes, because Congress often wishes to punish only those who intentionally break the law.

Third, this “tax” was enforced in part by the Department of Labor, an agency responsible for punishing violations of labor laws, not collecting revenue. 259 U. S., at 36–37; see also, e.g., Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S., at 780–782 (considering, inter alia, the amount of the exaction, and the fact that it was imposed for violation of a separate criminal law); Constantine, supra, at 295 (same).

The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty:

First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more. [8]

It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance, unlike the “prohibitory” financial punishment in Drexel Furniture. 259 U. S., at 37.

Second, the individual mandate contains no scienter requirement.

Third, the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation—except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution. See §5000A(g)(2).

The reasons the Court in Drexel Furniture held that what was called a “tax” there was a penalty support the conclusion that what is called a “penalty” here may be viewed as a tax. [9]



[7] Sotelo, in particular, would seem to refute the joint dissent’s contention that we have “never” treated an exaction as a tax if it was denominated a penalty. Post, at 20. We are not persuaded by the dissent’s attempt to distinguish Sotelo as a statutory construction case from the bankruptcy context. Post, at 17, n. 5. The dissent itself treats the question here as one of statutory interpretation, and indeed also relies on a statutory interpretation case from the bankruptcy context. Post, at 23 (citing United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996)).

[8] In 2016, for example, individuals making $35,000 a year are expected to owe the IRS about $60 for any month in which they do not have health insurance. Someone with an annual income of $100,000 a year would likely owe about $200. The price of a qualifying insurance policy is projected to be around $400 per month. See D. Newman, CRS Report for Congress, Individual Mandate and Related Information Requirements Under PPACA 7, and n. 25 (2011).

[9] We do not suggest that any exaction lacking a scienter requirement and enforced by the IRS is within the taxing power. See post, at 23–24 (joint opinion of SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting). Congress could not, for example, expand its authority to impose criminal fines by creating strict liability offenses enforced by the IRS rather than the FBI. But the fact the exaction here is paid like a tax, to the agency that collects taxes—rather than, for example, exacted by Department of Labor inspectors after ferreting out willful malfeasance—suggests that this exaction may be viewed as a tax.

Scienter

[Latin, Knowingly.] Guilty knowledge that is sufficient to charge a person with the consequences of his or her acts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think the most egregious is...a Declaration of War is now an authorization to use Military Force...

Q: A declaration of war is now an authorization to use Military Force?

A: No, it is not. We call lots of things war: War on poverty, war on drugs, war on crime. Use of military force is not war.

note:

Joint Resolution of November 7, 1973, Public Law 93-148, 87 STAT 555, Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President; 11/7/1973; NAID 7455197​

opinion: egregious (outstandingly bad; shocking)

War Powers Resolution of 1973 | Richard Nixon Museum and Library

www.nixonlibrary.gov

Congressional and Presidential War Powers under the US Constitution

While the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, the actual war powers are split between Congress and the President. This presentation looks at the roles of both Congress and the President in going to war and effectively waging it. This includes the President's commander-in-chief...

lawshelf.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's a liberal thing.

Misinterpret words until they mean what you want them to mean...like "marriage".

Wrong. The term marriage has not been re-interpreted. A marriage is a union between two people. What has evolved is what unions we agree to accept as marriages.

Now, in a legal framework: Marriage is the legal union of individuals. People can and people do, get married outside of the law. Demanding the law see a marriage as only between a man and a woman is what you are arguing -- and poorly so.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

USSC is a creation of congress, and has greatly exceeded its due authority since Marbury, numbnutz.

People reading Oddball must know: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

The Supreme Court did not create itself. The US Constitution created the Supreme Court.

 

[Oddball]

People reading Oddball must know: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

The Supreme Court did not create itself. The US Constitution created the Supreme Court.

Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant.


How it was created is irrelevant to them stepping out of their rightful box in the Marbury decision.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant.


How it was created is irrelevant to them stepping out of their rightful box in the Marbury decision.

Fact: You claimed the Supreme Court was created by the Congress, which is so obviously false it boggles the mind.

As far as exceeding it's authority - (due or not ), in Marbury v Madison, Marbury had precedent -Bayard v. Singleton, so what you yappin bout Willis?

Bayard v. Singleton - North Carolina History Project

Bayard v. Singleton is one of the most important early cases involving the exercise of judicial review by an American court. The controversial decision served as a precedent for the later and commonplace practice of judicial review.

northcarolinahistory.org

 

[Thunk]

Wrong. The term marriage has not been re-interpreted. A marriage is a union between two people.

Wrong. If a man "marries" a dead woman...is that "marriage"?

No...I don't thunk so!

WHY DO YOU HATE DEAD PEOPLE

I don't...I'll be one some day...but it's NOT MARRIAGE!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Wrong. If a man "marries" a dead woman...is that "marriage"?

No...I don't thunk so!

WHY DO YOU HATE DEAD PEOPLE

I don't...I'll be one some day...but it's NOT MARRIAGE!

Dead people cannot consent to a marriage. So go away.

and marriage is a legal contract.

 

[Thunk]

Dead people cannot consent to a marriage. So go away.

And kindergartners can't "consent" to be ass raped.

But democrats tell you otherwise!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And kindergartners can't "consent" to be ass raped.

But democrats tell you otherwise!

Your focus on rape and the body parts of children. Is seriously creepy. Please refrain from breathing.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

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

Shove off.

 

[HikerGuy83]

That says absolutely nothing about the question I asked-

The answer is that it is not specifically spelled out anywhere.

Most historians will tell you judicial review was already being practiced, but it was Marshall's decision in Marbury that effectively codified it.

As Marshall ruled that the Judical Act was unconstitutional, he said the SCOTUS could not produce the write he asked them to generate.

However, he did say that Jefferson should hand it over.

By not taking on Jefferson, he didn't give him the chance to ignore his decision (and thus make the court weaker). It is Robert Bork who actually praises Marshall's decision and said in his book "The Tempting of America" that Jefferson might have destroyed the Union had he been able to shackle the SCOTUS.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

USSC is a creation of congress