Supreme Court Power of Judicial Review - Unconstitutional

Very well.

Because the 14th Amendment wasn't originally designed to change the nature of the original Amendments?

Is this another Supreme Court ruling from the 20th century? It's a comfort to know that the interpretation of a historical document has been taken out of the hands of historians and political theorists and into the hands of politicians.

So you're saying that the Supreme Court couldn't figure out how to interpret the law until two centuries later. Doesn't it make more sense that because it is a later interpretation that it wasn't the original one? That's the position a historian would take, anyway.

 

Here is something that explains the rationale:

 

Correct. Why do you think this is a problem?

 

The U.S. Constitution designed limited representative republics for self-rule. The powers of government were specifically enumerated to each branch of government. Only by amendment to the constitution could those powers expand.

The Supreme Court had specific duties they were to perform as presented in Article III. They were given enumerated powers listed in Article III just like the Legislative branch in Article I and the Executive branch in Article II.

As Thomas Jefferson stated, the Supreme Court was to be the weakest branch of government therefore judges were appointed for life. Judges are not elected representatives.

Abraham Lincoln warned in his first inaugural address,

That's it. That is the extent of power given to the Supreme Court. Nowhere does Article III specifically state that the Supreme Court should determine the constitutionality of law.

 

because it may result to an appeal to the sword instead of justice.

 

It is not up to the Supreme Court. States were denied that power in the Constitution.

 

But it doesn't say their decisions have any legal or binding authority over anyone in the country. They are just supposed to make a constitutionally correct ruling on a given case. That ruling is not binding or law, though. Only the constitution is technically the "law" and the only thing the supreme court can do is to uphold it in their rulings.

 

I guess you're new to this whole internet forum thing where anyone can give their opinion and back it up with evidence.

 

Because it's in plain contravention of the A3 judicial power clause and the ex post facto clause of A1S10.

 

Actually, they did not.

The part that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court is called "Section Three," which prevented the federal government from recognizing any marriages between gay or lesbian couples for the purpose of federal laws or programs, even if those couples are considered legally married by their home state. The other significant part of DOMA makes it so that individual states do not legally have to acknowledge the relationships of gay and lesbian couples who were married in another state. Only the section that dealt with federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

The State Marriage contract is just that, a contract devised by the State to recognize certain legal aspects and protections of marriage. When you get a marriage license, you are entering into contract with the State so you can use the State law to enforce certain protections during and after the end of a marriage. As with all contracts, no contract is a right but you have the right to enter into contract. If the contract does not allow same sex marriage then you have no contract available to enter if you want to marry a same sex partner.

 

Obviously, but what the hell good is that if a federal court can't rule accordingly?

 

Federal recognition implies recourse to Article 4, Section 2.

 

Nobody has to rule on that. It is written plainly. It is the duty of the President to enforce it.

 

The Supreme court was set up to provide protections against unconstitutional law. The real danger is when they stray from the constitution into judicial activism and create law from the bench. The only way a case can reach the Supreme Court is if it has standing and those cases are judged based on constitutionality.

 

Kind of loses it's context if you dont include the sentence before the one you quoted.

But I suspect you knew that. Noticed that from the sentence you did quote, you felt the need to edit out the first part of the sentence, "At the same time," and then capitalized "The" to make it appear as if your quote contained the beginning of the sentence.

 

Doesn't matter how plainly it's written, because somebody still has to verify that the law being contested is in fact an ex post facto law; so what else do you think the judicial power is for but to make such determinations?

And it is also, by your reasoning, his duty to exercise judicial power to justify that enforcement. Have I got that about right?

 

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; "

A state citizen alleging a violation of his constitutional rights by operation of state law, would be a case "arising under this Constitution". Sooo not sure of your point.

 

The constitution specifically says that the supreme court's judicial power extends to the cases arising under the constitution. That means what it says it means. Their jurisdiction extends only to that specific case when it is before their court and no more. There is NOTHING which says their ruling is necessarily legally binding or even enforceable, and the truth of this is evinced by the utter lack of a constitutional enforcement mechanism availed to the Supreme Court. Only the legislature and the executive have the actual ability, as granted by law, to put into effect a given ruling, statute, or code. Obviously, then, if the supreme court is constitutionally incapable of compelling compliance with its rulings, its rulings cannot be intended to have any force of law. The only power they have is to decide a particular case at a particular time, and that decision is restricted by the text and original intent of the constitution itself. The only ruling they may make is one that is in accordance with the principles and organic law upon which the constitution is based, and even then, their ruling is nothing more than a simple recognition of what was already true. It has no binding legal authority over anyone.

 

It is a Tenth amendment issue. The People and the States determine the Constitutionality of laws.

No, you do not have that right. The President does not use judicial power. The job of the President is to enforce the law.

 

A Supreme Court decision isn't the law of the land, it's the law of the case. It's the job of the executive branch to execute laws and the legislative branch to overturn or creat new laws.

 

I left it out because Lincoln was not one of the people who assumed that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court. He made that clear throughout his speeches and actions all his life.

Again Abraham Lincoln made it clear his belief that the Supreme Court has assumed power they did not possess.

 

No, it wouldn't. "Arising under the Constituion" is referring to cases specifically involving something in the Constitution, otherwise it makes the rest of the statement redundant. Are you suggesting that the statement asserts that "Laws of the United States" do not "arise under the Constitution" according to your definition?

 

Yeah, like the prohibition of Ex post facto law or any other constitutional provision in the Constitution. If a citizen of a state alleges the state created and ex post facto law and criminally prosecuted him under that law, thereby violating his Constitutional rights, his case would be one "arising under this Constitution". So not sure of your point.

 

Not in the least, as that amendment clearly affirms that certain powers are delegated to the federal government, among them being the A3 judicial power.

No, the People, as represented by 3/4 of the states, are the lawgivers, and they have delegated the task of determining how the law they've given applies in specific cases to the Judiciary.

Actually I'm afraid I do.

But what you're advocating is that he should.

Not a syllable of this contravenes anything I said, and neither does it support your original contention in the slightest.

 

The Supreme Court was given enumerated judicial power as stated in Article III. Power =/= Review.