Supreme Court Power of Judicial Review - Unconstitutional

That decision was made a century after the 14th Amendment was written. If you want to understand the 14th Amendment, the answers will be found in the 19th century, not the 20th century. Provide evidence from the right time period.

 

I want the system my framers set up, and as amended after the Civil War. Not one designed by spoiled brats who live in a bubble that shields them from the crises which prompted those framers. The framers obviously agreed with a judiciary with some power.

 

I am saying I don't believe government had anything to do with marriage in 1790 and it is my opinion that they should not have anything to say about it today. If at all it is a State or local issue not a Federal issue.

 

See my post above. It's much safer and effective to deal with an abusive state than it is to deal with an abusive nation. If the national government becomes abusive, where to Americans run to then?

 

I disagree

So you say.

I disagree.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees.

This is the crux of the OP.

You apparently believe that States can abuse their citizens without restriction and that Americans are not protected from abuse by the state- for example gun confiscation- I disagree.

When there is a disagreement between what a State can or can't do- do Americans have any recourse against a State other than running away?

- - - Updated - - -

The federal government had nothing to do with slavery in 1790.

Do you believe that Texas could legally legalize slavery?

 

Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln disagrees with you. The Dred Scott decision is a very important one to understand the abusive power of the Supreme Court. The slave powers were trying to subvert the Constitution and State's rights by using the Court to force the nationalization of slavery.

In his first inaugural address Abraham Lincoln stated,

 

the case I cited directly refutes your claim.

 

No! You lose the argument. In this case the "owners" the ones who make the rules are the Founders. The Supreme Court can't change the meaning of the Constitution any more than professional football referees can change the rules of football because NEITHER MAKE the rules. If they all DECIDE to do so, they are BREAKING the rules and laws which is my point, and where you lose the argument.

 

The crises which prompted the Founding Fathers was the terror and abuse of a national government. The powers the Founding Fathers wanted for the Supreme Court are listed in the Constitution. The Federal Court is supposed to decide on issues involving more than one state only, not issues contained within individual states.

- - - Updated - - -

The case you cited was written a century after the 14th Amendment was created and cites no historical evidence for its interpretation.

 

the federal court is supposed to decide constitutional issues.

it directly refutes your claim.

 

The Supreme Court is supposed to decide on laws passed by the Federal Government, not the States. That article does not address the issue at all. Nowhere does it prove that the the framers of the 14th Amendment meant for the Supreme Court to decide on the legality of State enacted laws not referring to slavery.

 

prove it.

 

Article III, Section 2:

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;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

 

No sorry I am afraid you do.

See- again using the analogy- all of us- the referees, the coaches, the players, the fans, the owners- we all agree that the rules say that a field goal is worth three points. You disagree.

In the same way, everyone who matters- the voters, the courts, Congress, the Electoral College, the Chief Justice- all agree that anyone born in the United States is a Natural born citizen. You disagree.

In both cases you think you are right and the rest of the world just refuses to concede to you.

Meanwhile, the scores continue to reflect 3 points per field goal, and President Barack Obama continues to be President.

 

Mute issue ,Constitutional or not, do you think The Courts will give this authority up and they hold all the cards? And a Constitutional Amendment would not likely succeed the only way to stop it.

 

There is a lot of effort put forth to educate the people on the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

Article V Project
Move to Amend
Tenth Amendment Center

 

IF you accept my analogy you lose the argument. The rules for this game were written by the Founders like Hasbro (or the game’s inventor) wrote the rules for the game Monopoly. If you want to change rules you have to follow the rules, or legally amend the Constitution. The original cited Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett stated "natural born" status of a child born to one non citizen parent was doubtful, but they had not done the research, or figured out how the Founders defined "natural born." The Supreme Court can't legally make stuff up. They have to legally try and find the original meaning. We do not write the rules unless those rules are in a legally ratified Constitutional Amendment. No such Amendment, not even the Fourteenth Amendment defined "natural born citizen," or one of the qualifications to be president.

 

Lets review more of what Lincoln said

I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration, in all parallel cases, by all other departments of the government.

And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice.

At the same time the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Nor is there, in this view, any assault upon the court, or the judges. It is a duty, from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs, if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

Nowhere in there is Lincoln saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to decide Constitutional issues.

At the end he even says it is the courts obligations to decide the matters brought before it

- - - Updated - - -

No sorry I am afraid you do.

See- again using the analogy- all of us- the referees, the coaches, the players, the fans, the owners- we all agree that the rules say that a field goal is worth three points. You disagree.

In the same way, everyone who matters- the voters, the courts, Congress, the Electoral College, the Chief Justice- all agree that anyone born in the United States is a Natural born citizen. You disagree.

In both cases you think you are right and the rest of the world just refuses to concede to you.

Meanwhile, the scores continue to reflect 3 points per field goal, and President Barack Obama continues to be President.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a lot of effort to convince people of some particular interpretations of the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The way I read it Lincoln did not believe that the Supreme Court had the legitimate authority to force individual States to either end slavery or accept it. Slavery was a State's rights issue. The Supreme Court only maintained their legitimate powers outlined in Article III.

 

I think it is pretty clear he did- that he didn't agree with the Supreme Court's decision- but recognized that it needed to be changed through the legislative process

I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration, in all parallel cases, by all other departments of the government.

 

Why do we have a Constitutional Amendment process? Those are the rules. We are not the "owners." We follow the Founder's rules in their game of "Life" just like we follow the official rules of Monopoly published and copy written by Hasbro. To change the Constitution without an amendment is illegal, the Progressive way as they have no other...

 

The Court never changes the Constitution. That is what the Constitutional Amendment process is for.

And the Supreme Court interprets any disputes over what the Supreme Court says.

 

You are misreading what he said. Lincoln clearly believed that only an amendment to the Constitution could either end slavery in the individual States or nationalize it. The Corwin Amendment or the 13th Amendment. Lincoln supported both of them. He first supported the Corwin amendment in order to avoid war and he supported the 13th amendment to free the slaves.

 

That is because the infamous(and wrong- yes the Supreme Court can get decisions wrong- but they are still legally in effect) Dredd Scott case made an amendment necessary.

Lincoln is not saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to make Constitutional decisions- but yes he is saying that the way to change a Supreme Court decision on the Constitution is to change the Constitution to make it clear what it should be.

 

they were not telling what their laws should be, only that the one law they passed was unconstitutional... which is the job of the Supreme Court as the highest court in the land