Supreme Court Power of Judicial Review - Unconstitutional

Most people accept Supreme Court judicial review decisions as law. The supreme court justices were never given that power. It was denied to them upon the writing and ratification of the Constitution and there has not been any amendments to grant them that power. When the Supreme Court grabbed that power in Marbury v. Madison it fundamentally changed our nation. We are ruled by nine justices in black robes rather than self rule as in the original intent of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln warned,

The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

 

I think this issue is very important, but disagree that "Marbury v. Madison... fundamentally changed our nation" The Supreme Court is given power in the Constitution to decide or judge law.

Article III 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...

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;...​

The Supreme Court has the authority to judge laws under he Constitution. What if they judge a law to not adhere to the Constitution? What do they call it if not "unconstitutional?" What the Supreme Court does not have the authority to do is CHANGE the meaning of the Constitution, and ALLOW laws that are clearly unconstitutional, like Obamacare, or laws pertaining to the Democrat Welfare State. The federal government is to be one of limited and Enumerated Powers mostly found in Article 1, Section 8 and the Amendments. For the Supreme Court to allow things not listed in the Constitution, or things not directly related to actual powers again listed in the Constitution, is amending the Constitution by judicial review which is illegal and probably Treason!

 

I think you and I are basically on the same page with understanding. You stated it more clearly.

The second link I posted makes this statement,

 

The Supreme Court can only rule on law, or "Interpret" the Constitution, not make stuff up by judicial review illegally amending the Constitution.

in•ter•pret [in-tur-prit] Show IPA


verb (used with object)

1. to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate: to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Interpret?o=100084&qsrc=2894&l=dir​

The Supreme Court can only state the "meaning" of the Constitution which has been given of course by the Founders, or the ones who wrote and debated the Constitution.

I love the Supreme Court's comments in Minor v. Happersett 1875 regarding the Constitutional Definition of "Natural Born Citizen"

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
​

The ruling did not need to define what a "Natural Born Citizen" was for the case at hand. The Surname Court did say if a child was born in the US to two citizen parents there is no question. If a child was born in the US with one or more NON citizen parents there is a real question. The Supreme Court then stated they would have to research the issue more to see what the Founders considered to be "Natural Born," but that research was not relevant to the case before them. Now reviewing the Supreme Court comments in 1875 there was a REAL question to Obama's eligibility to be president because his father was not a US citizen regardless of where Obama was actually born...

 

The failure of the Supreme Court to correctly interpret the U.S. Constitution is evident in the fact that they reversed themselves so many times. The question becomes, "Were they right when they misinterpreted it, or were they right when they reversed themselves?" Maybe nine people wearing black robes shouldn't have that much power. They have caused a lot of havoc in our lives over the last 210 years.

 

Nobody is claiming that there should not be a Supreme Court. The original intent of the Constitution was subverted when the Supreme Court claimed power of judicial review. The United States of America was established as self rule not rule from the bench.

 

And what I'm saying is there's no good reason to give any credibility to internet scholars.

 

and that question was resolved in US v Wong kim ark

 

I disagree. When the truth is found and shared it matters not where it was found. The fact that the Supreme Court has reversed itself is proof enough that they misinterpret the Constitution. When were they right? When they interpreted it or when they reversed themselves?

A better understanding of the original intent of the general government is good for Americans no matter who promotes it.

 

So when Americans disagree what is good for Americans or the original intent of the general government who decides who is right?

Do you think that any law passed by Congress is automatically Constitutional?

If not- who would determine whether a law is constitutional or not?

I have heard this argument before- and my question always is this:

If not the Supreme Court- who?

 

I agree with Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. If you disagree, then an amendment to the Constitution is required to give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. No branch of a representative government should be able to simply assume power.

 

So you think that currently, any law passed by Congress is automatically Constitutional?

 

No. I like the original intent of the Constitution. Any law passed by Congress is subject to Constitutional review by the individual States. The States and the People are charged with deciding the Constitutionality of laws.

 

No it was not answered for "natural born citizen," just "citizen" as so stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. The "natural born" citizenship is a REQUIREMENT to be President, a requirement that Obama most likely has not meet.

- - - Updated - - -

Where does it say that?

 

Amendment X

The power of judicial review was not given to the Judicial, Executive, or Legislative branches of the general government so the Tenth Amendment applies.

 

Depends on how you define "judicial review."

Article III 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...

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;...​

The court can't change the meaning of the Constitution, but they can rule on laws and strike down laws that vioalte the Constitution.

 

nope. there are only 2 types of citizen in US law. citizen at birth(natural born citizen) and naturalized. wong kim ark settled the issue. and of course Obama met the requirement. he was born in Hawaii.

 

I understand that is the disagreement. However, it seems to me that is like letting the fox guard the hen house.

This guy makes a pretty strong case: The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

Judicial Review,

 

LOL....the voters,the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the United States all disagree with you.

 

Well lets take an example then.

Two examples actually.

a) The District of Columbia passed very restrictive gun laws. The Supreme Court in Heller struck them down as unconstitutional.

In your opinion what would have been the proper way to deal with the controversy?

b) In Loving v Virginia the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's ban on mixed race marriages was unconstitutional.

In you opinion what would have been the proper way to deal with the controversy?

 

The second Amendment is quite clear,

The founders intended for a free state. They understood quite clearly that a well trained Militia was necessary to the security of a free state. It is clear that the American people have the right to bear arms and form State Militias. Molon Labe

In the second question, the Constitution is silent on marriage. It is a State issue if marriage is any of governments business at all. Competing States create an even more free society. Utah, for example, allowed multiple wives. If a man wanted more than one wife move to Utah.

The Constitution is not all that hard to read and understand. The powers of the general government were enumerated and limited intentionally.

 

You didn't really answer the question. You agree with the court in Heller- but if it wasn't the Supreme Court that overruled the law, would you have had the law stand?

If not- who do you think should have over-ruled it?

a) The District of Columbia passed very restrictive gun laws. The Supreme Court in Heller struck them down as unconstitutional.

In your opinion what would have been the proper way to deal with the controversy?

b) In Loving v Virginia the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's ban on mixed race marriages was unconstitutional.

While the Constitution is silent on marriage it is not silent on how people should be treated under the Constitution.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

The Supreme Court had jurisdiction in the gun law case because it was D.C.
D.C. has to listen to the Supreme Court so whatever they say goes.

As far as Virginia marriage laws. Where in the U.S. Constitution was the Supreme Court granted the power to tell Virginia what their laws should be? In other words, where does the Supreme Court get jurisdiction over the laws of the State of Virginia?

 

The U.S. Constitution says that all citizens of the United States are entitled to equal protection- see below

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So where does the U.S. Constitution say that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over DC?

More importantly- in cases like Virginia v Loving- where we have a clear example of a State violating the Constitution- how does the United States enforce the U.S. Constitution if not through the Supreme Court?

 

Supremacy clause and the 14th amendment.