Does The Supreme Court Have Final Say On Constitutionality?

[CuteOldGuy]

Not according to Thomas Jefferson.


"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

[LexusLover]

Thomas Jefferson is dead. Our Constitution is not, ...

...although our current "President" suspends it on a regular basis by simply ignoring it.

Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States of America

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, ...


Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, ........

[CuteOldGuy]

That says nothing about, nor does it grant authority for judicial review.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That says nothing about, nor does it grant authority for judicial review.

COG on Constitutional Law: The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction. The End.

200+ years of SCOTUS decisions out the window with the stroke of his keyboard! Brilliant. Thomas Jefferson will give you a "high five" when he sees you!

[Whirlaway]

You lawyers got the answer wrong. Final say on constitutionality rests with "WE the people."

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You lawyers got the answer wrong. Final say on constitutionality rests with "WE the people."

Naaaayyyy..... For the past 6 years it has been ..... "ME the emporer."

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Naaaayyyy..... For the past 6 years it has been ..... "ME the emporer."

We seem to have now established an exact timeline.

According to LLIdiot, the "ME the emperer" concept actually began on December 6, 2008.

Who was "the emperer" on that date and how long had that person been in power?

Question: Is there a difference between an "emperer" and a "emperor?"

Or are they one and the same?

[Jackie S]

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that SCOTUS has final say on the whether a law, order, or what ever is Constitutional.

But, dating back to Maubury vs Madison in the early 1800's, it is assumed that the Court has this jurisdiction, or that is the best I can ascertain through my very limited knowledge as nothing but a lay person that can read.

Through the years, SCOTUS has maintained this priveledge, if for no other reason because there really is no mechanism to challenge it.

Well, there is. President Lincoln more or less ignored the SCOTUS when their rulings got in the way of fighting the War, and President Roosevelt did the same when the Court finally said that many of his New Deal Policys were unconstitutional. Yeh,, sure. That work program was unconstitutional, so we have to tear Hoover Dam down.

The biggest problem is, if the President simply ignores what the Court says, what are they going to do. They can't arrest him.

Yes, the people have the power through elections, but as shown by the actions of the current President, he can do a lot of damage in four years, or eight as it may be.

But Congress does have the power, it's called Impeachment.

That ain't going to happen. It's only happenned three times, and none of the three ended up in a removal anyway.

Like it or not, the President has a lot of power, especially in a era where the real watchdog of all of this crap, the Press, is too busy sucking the President's dick to dare say anything that might offend him.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Question: Is there a difference between an "emperer" and a "emperor?"

Or are they one and the same?

Yes. This is an "emperer" ...

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that SCOTUS has final say on the whether a law, order, or what ever is Constitutional.

Those precise words are not in the U.S. Constitution.

Neither are "executive order"!

Have a nice day.

[CuteOldGuy]

Justice Marshall adopted judicial review to cover his own ass for his failure to deliver documents to Marbury. Marshall, if he had any integrity, would have recused himself from Marbury v Madison. Where, in any of our Founders documents, is judicial review considered a good thing?

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Those precise words are not in the U.S. Constitution.

Neither are "executive order"!

Have a nice day.

I think where a lot of people go wrong is they try to over complicate the entire system.

The President is the Executive Branch. Every body else employed by the Government that works for The Executive Branch, from the Secretary of State on down, serves at the President's pleasure.

As long as a President is in office, he can pretty well do what he wishes. The reason it has evolved this way is because the one mechanism that a Congress has to reign him in is a Political Process, that being Impeachment.

If Congress does not have the political will to bring Articles of Impeachment, and then the votes to remove, then they are more or less powerless.

Yes, they do control the purse strings. But it seems Congress rarely has the political will to even defund the President's efforts. Why, because the President enjoys overwhelming support in The Press, who should be the ones exposing his actions. Instead, they look the other way because after it is all said and done, they agree with him. They would rather put Party and Politics before the good of the Country.

We jokingly say...."President Obama is the President that Nixon wanted to be". But it is true, and the one reason it is so true is because the Main Stream Media has COMPLETLY shirked their "4th Estate" responsibilities. I doubt Nikita Khrushchev had Pravda in his back pocket more.

We also have another evolution that has taken place that allows a President to pretty much do as he wishes. The rise of the concept of "people who vote for a living". The Demagogue can always count on them. It's still the same old adage that says, " he who takes from Peter and gives it to Paul can always count on Paul's support"

Perhaps we have finally discovered the flaw in our system. But wasn't in Ben Franklin who warned us that a Democratic Republic will survive until the masses figure out that they can vote in those that will give them something for nothing, (or something to that affect).

The handle has been pulled. The water has swirled. And that big turd that used to be the the shining light on the hill for freedom and self determination is headed for the septic tank of failed Republics.

[LexusLover]

Many years ago in San Antonio the city council passed a "mandate" to the city municipal courts to prohibit the Judges from dismissing tickets in plea arrangements. At that time there were a number of attorneys in S.A. who were the "ticket attorneys" and would "handle" traffic tickets through a referral system. The "ticket attorneys" got together and agreed to request a jury trial on every citation they received to "handle." It was not too long afterwards that the "mandate" was rescinded by a unanimous vote (if I recall correctly). The Point.

Dry up the money.