Supreme Court Power of Judicial Review - Unconstitutional

Well it is noteworthy because under the Art. III Congress has the power to establish and ordain lesser federal courts, so if they want federal judges to go by stare decisis that is within Constitutional power.

As to state courts, states have statutes setting up English common-law courts.

I have explained multiple times why the constitutionally of such laws has arisen, yet you have just said they are unconstitutional because of your own personal interpretation of the document, which does not hold much water.

I know you want everyone to agree that the common-law and the Constitution cannot co-exist, but they can. So would a judge have to choose precedent over what he personally felt? That is what Congress intended when they made the lower courts under Art. III of the Constitution. Would he be violating the Constitution by following precedent? Not to me, or the interpretations of many people.

 

No I am arguing that if the guys who wrote the Constitution, and lived throught the times when the Constitution was written thought it was Constitional and didn't think it was Tyranny that I agree with them- not the whacky interpretation of a few malcontents.

 

Is it within their constitutional power to constrain federal judges to abide by stare decisis at the expense of their oaths of office, yes or no?

Explanations from people who won't answer straightforward questions straight up are worthless, fyi.

Verbatim quote, please.

You have me confused with someone else.

Obviously you find the question I asked way too scary, so you're pretending I asked something else.

 

I see, so if an insufficient number of them realized the dangers we would be in several hundred years hence we are doomed to suffer for the rest of eternity under tyranny?

If the Founders did not all agree to abolish slavery then we should suffer with slavery for all of eternity?

Awesome doctrine. Would you then allow us to undo all of the harm caused our nation by the massive number of unconstitutional acts done by the likes of Woodrow Wilson, T. Roosevelt, FD Roosevelt and the monster Obama? Or do you believe that we have to be flexible and only do what you would agree to?

Still, your thinking is the reason we must have and win the Article V fight.

 

What has that got to do with the issue of the Supremacy of the Supreme Court- that issue has not changed in 200 years.

200 years ago the issue was decided. 200 years ago the men who wrote the Constitution, the men who voted for the Consitution and the men who were alive when the Constitution was ratified all were alive when the issue was resolved.

It is not an issue of original intent- otherwise they would have objected on grounds of "Hey thats not what we wanted".

The Supreme Court decides consitutionality- and thats how it should be

 

Thomas Jefferson and the anti-federalists objected vehemently and for good reason. Nine people in black robes in Washington D.C. are not smart enough to tell the rest of us how we should be living our lives. I wish they would have won.

 

Here is the federal doctrine on this issue, in a nutshell:

 

"I see, so if an insufficient number of them realized the dangers we would be in several hundred years hence we are doomed to suffer for the rest of eternity under tyranny?"

The argument I responded to is identical to the one you rewrote below.

The issue was not decided. Power not granted was usurped. There is no constitutional power for the court to decide the constitutionality of any issue.

Once again there was no issue to be decided. An unlawful court usurped power not given. I believe you are making exactly the same argument I addressed. If the founders did not recognize and respond to a problem because they did not see it as a problem are we then committed, against our will, to live in tyranny?

The court was seen as a very weak body and now they have become the most powerful body of all.

Nonsense. Usurpers usually have their heads cut off and handed back to them.

We have to win the Article V fight and amend the Constitution to provide balance to the courts. We can do this with term limits on all judges, with a means to overturn a court's decision by both the Congress and by the people through the actions of their state legislatures.

I would not object, solely for the lesson it would teach, to capital punishment for Robertss or to the of people who blackmailed him.

 

It was settled 200 years ago, fresh on the heel of the ratification of the Constitution.

I have no idea why you think there is any Constitutional rational for the execution of Roberts nor do I really care.

 

Settled? Apparently not. As the danger increases more people recognize the damage done to the Constitution and our freedoms.

Roberts and the people who blackmailed him are the worst form of traitors.

trai•tor (ˈtreɪ tər)

n.
1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.​

The traitors should be removed from office and receive the most severe punishment. Given the level of damage that Roberts and his blackmailers did to the nation I believe capital punishment is appropriate. It does not matter that much that you don't agree. I believe you would side with his blackmailers.

 

I am not sure about the details, but it is my understanding that President Abraham Lincoln, as chief enforcer of law, almost arrested Chief Justice Roger Taney.

As far as I am concerned all nine justices in Washington D.C. who claim to be superior to the rest of us should be ignored if not arrested for abuse of power.

 

Why do you believe our supreme court may have no say in any conflict arising from our supreme law of the land? Adjudicating the law is a function of that Body politic.

 

He never said that. His exact quote:

Where do you find in either the Constitution or any Article V amendment to the constitution the power of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws?

 

You may have missed the point and the concept.

Why do you believe our supreme court may have no say in any conflict arising from our supreme law of the land? Adjudicating the law is a function of that Body politic.

 

No one has been arguing against the proper role of the Supreme Court's enumerated powers specifically listed in Article III. The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court was denied the power to determine the constitutionality of laws written by the Legislature and signed into law by the President. That specific power, the power of judicial review, was given directly to the States and the people in the 10th amendment.

 

I see them as another avenue of our disenfranchisement, with the two-party oligarchical arrangement that appoints these judges in the first place being the primary avenue.

It's wrong, I think, to have winner-take-all elections in such a diverse, populous nation as this one. Too many of us are without voice and ruled tyrannically by a system established by a lot of power-seekers and masses of people who usefully support them in November, often over stupid, trivial issues.

Then those same power-seekers appoint the supreme court judges...

 

And the judges are appointed for life which means we are ruled by an appointed oligarchy instead of self governance. It undermines the foundational "consent of the governed" as declared in the Declaration of Independence.

 

Why do you believe that our supreme Law of the land is not a Law that must be adjudicated somewhere; and, that it should not be adjudicated by our supreme court of law and equity, for that purpose?

 

How many times do I have to point out that the States were given the power to determine the constitutionality of laws? The Supreme Court has never been given the power to rule over the people. They were only given the power to settle disputes.

 

And really, even the electoral college system is an appointment rather than a popular election at its core. It's an elitist system, but the way it's worked out today there are just two elitist parties dominating every election anyway, so the EC doesn't even have to go against the popular vote to maintain it.

 

LOL

I am assuming you are speaking of Chief Justice Roberts- but frankly you might be speaking of Mr. Roberts, because that would make as much sense in context.

The issue was settled 200 years ago. It doesn't matter what bizarre theories you have since nothing will come of them.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't matter how many times you state your opinion, it still will only be your opinion, which we disagree with.

 

What do believe is the task of adjudicating legal conflicts arising from our supreme law of the land and their State equivalents is?

 

You and yours provide plenty of reasons why it is important to have and win the Article V fight.

 

What Article V fight? Other than a few oddballs shouting "Article V" "Article V", there simply is nothing happening nor is there going to be.

How do you imagine you will be fighting anything?

 

I am delighted, actually, that you won't even see it coming.