NationStates Jolt Archive

Say that (for whatever reason) Congress passed a law taking away the power of Judicial Review from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says 'You can't do that.'

Congress says, "You can't tell us whether or not we can do that, because this law takse away that ability."

Who wins?

Say that (for whatever reason) Congress passed a law taking away the power of Judicial Review from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says 'You can't do that.'

Congress says, "You can't tell us whether or not we can do that, because this law takse away that ability."

Who wins?
The American people. *Patriotic music*

The Supreme Court, because their power is granted in the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of The Land. In order to strip the Supreme Court of Judicial Review, we'd need to ammend the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, because their power is granted in the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of The Land. In order to strip the Supreme Court of Judicial Review, we'd need to ammend the Constitution.

Really?

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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

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.


Where does that cover Judicial review?

Who makes up the supreme court you mind telling me? Cause last I checked we were a republic, which is why Congress passes laws based off a majority descision on thier part. Sense it requires thier ok to pass laws, it's obvious The Supreme Court has no say in the matter. They're just the biggest courtroom in America as far as i'm concerned.

The way liberals try to spin these "all powers are equal" thing strikes me as communist propaganda. Yeah, we're all equal up untill a liberal decides it's not convient anymore. Then suprisesuprise, such laws as seperation of church and state and gun restriction come into place.

You know, if the liberals want to start a civil war, they can go right ahead. I've been waiting my whole life for an excuse to kill, rape, and desecrate liberals and thier pathetic belief structure..

Popcorn sales would go up, as people watched as two pillars of government tied themselves silly. The Supreme Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review, and Congress hasn't done anything about it in 200 years or so.

I don't see it going away.

Who makes up the supreme court you mind telling me? Cause last I checked we were a republic, which is why Congress passes laws based off a majority descision on thier part. Sense it requires thier ok to pass laws, it's obvious The Supreme Court has no say in the matter. They're just the biggest courtroom in America as far as i'm concerned.

The way liberals try to spin these "all powers are equal" thing strikes me as communist propaganda. Yeah, we're all equal up untill a liberal decides it's not convient anymore. Then suprisesuprise, such laws as seperation of church and state and gun restriction come into place.

You know, if the liberals want to start a civil war, they can go right ahead. I've been waiting my whole life for an excuse to kill, rape, and desecrate liberals and thier pathetic belief structure..

The Supreme Court?

John G Roberts Jr.
John Paul Stevens
Antonin Scalia
Anthony M Kennedy
David Hackett Souter
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G Breyer
Samuel Anthony Alito Jr.

Now... I advise you to seek professional psychiatric assistance immediately.

Your post said this was an interesting question :(

The way liberals try to spin these "all powers are equal" thing strikes me as communist propaganda. Yeah, we're all equal up untill a liberal decides it's not convient anymore. Then suprisesuprise, such laws as seperation of church and state and gun restriction come into place.

You know, if the liberals want to start a civil war, they can go right ahead. I've been waiting my whole life for an excuse to kill, rape, and desecrate liberals and thier pathetic belief structure..
Care to rephrase that? With added kittens? :rolleyes:

Who makes up the supreme court you mind telling me? Cause last I checked we were a republic, which is why Congress passes laws based off a majority descision on thier part. Sense it requires thier ok to pass laws, it's obvious The Supreme Court has no say in the matter. They're just the biggest courtroom in America as far as i'm concerned.

The way liberals try to spin these "all powers are equal" thing strikes me as communist propaganda. Yeah, we're all equal up untill a liberal decides it's not convient anymore. Then suprisesuprise, such laws as seperation of church and state and gun restriction come into place.

You know, if the liberals want to start a civil war, they can go right ahead. I've been waiting my whole life for an excuse to kill, rape, and desecrate liberals and thier pathetic belief structure..
Dude, this is soooo last century. The distinction between liberal and conservative has been meaningless for years now. It's a smokescreen designed to obscure your view of the real debate, between the haves and have-nots. Welcome to the post-conservative/liberal world :rolleyes:

Who makes up the supreme court you mind telling me? Cause last I checked we were a republic, which is why Congress passes laws based off a majority descision on thier part. Sense it requires thier ok to pass laws, it's obvious The Supreme Court has no say in the matter. They're just the biggest courtroom in America as far as i'm concerned.

The way liberals try to spin these "all powers are equal" thing strikes me as communist propaganda. Yeah, we're all equal up untill a liberal decides it's not convient anymore. Then suprisesuprise, such laws as seperation of church and state and gun restriction come into place.

You know, if the liberals want to start a civil war, they can go right ahead. I've been waiting my whole life for an excuse to kill, rape, and desecrate liberals and thier pathetic belief structure..
All powers are equal were written by the framers of the Constitution, not Commmunist Liberals. And please explain why separation of Church and State restricts equality?

If you would like to come and kill, rape, or desecrate me or mt pathetic belief structure, you can find my IP.

I've been waiting my whole life for an excuse to kill, rape, and desecrate liberals and thier pathetic belief structure..

You've been waiting your entire life to commit acts of sexual violence against women?

... or men, if you swing that way?

Say that (for whatever reason) Congress passed a law taking away the power of Judicial Review from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says 'You can't do that.'

Congress says, "You can't tell us whether or not we can do that, because this law takse away that ability."

Who wins?
The USSC, since their purvue is to try any case (except those mentioned in the 11th amendment) arising under the Constitution, US laws, and treaties. Now clearly, if Congress passes a law that says "The USSC may not touch this", that violates the separation of powers. Only an amendment to the Constitution can alter what the USSC can hear. Grant, judicial review is not specifically stated in the Constitution, but the purvue granted implies such.

Say that (for whatever reason) Congress passed a law taking away the power of Judicial Review from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says 'You can't do that.'

Congress says, "You can't tell us whether or not we can do that, because this law takse away that ability."

Who wins?
Doesn't a bill have to pass the Supreme Court before it can be officially considered legislation?

*Ignorant of American Politics, but this seemed like the obvious first question to ask*

Really?



Where does that cover Judicial review?
Look down a bit ^.^


We had a thread over this already. The answer is roughly: It depends on how moody the supreme court is.

It depends on what right it is, and the extent to which the right is being infringed upon. For example, if congress passed a bill stripping the courts of hearing one habeas petition it would most likely be constitutional. However, if they stripped the courts from hearing all habeas petitions (without suspending habeas corpus) it would most likely be unconstitutional. Funny bit of law that.

The American people. *Patriotic music*

Amen to that.

Look down a bit ^.^


We had a thread over this already. The answer is roughly: It depends on how moody the supreme court is.

It depends on what right it is, and the extent to which the right is being infringed upon. For example, if congress passed a bill stripping the courts of hearing one habeas petition it would most likely be constitutional. However, if they stripped the courts from hearing all habeas petitions (without suspending habeas corpus) it would most likely be unconstitutional. Funny bit of law that.

Well here's the rest of Article Three...

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted


Still don't see any.

You know, if the liberals want to start a civil war, they can go right ahead. I've been waiting my whole life for an excuse to kill, rape, and desecrate liberals and thier pathetic belief structure..
Remove liberals and replace it with people and I might agree with that.

Doesn't a bill have to pass the Supreme Court before it can be officially considered legislation?

*Ignorant of American Politics, but this seemed like the obvious first question to ask*

No, it just has to pass Congress and get approved by the President. If someone challenges the law in the court system and the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, then they get involved, but only after the law has been passed.

Well here's the rest of Article Three...



Still don't see any.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


That bit. What you're attempting to do is to activate the last sentence, to strip the court of appellate jurisdiction. Your question is one regarding the interpretation of that last bit, and there really isn't a concrete answer besides what I said.

That bit. What you're attempting to do is to activate the last sentence, to strip the court of appellate jurisdiction. Your question is one regarding the interpretation of that last bit, and there really isn't a concrete answer besides what I said.

All cases involving Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction?

That just looks like the parts where the Supreme court gets first dibs.

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

I guess that's it...

This is a repeat, but it's more germane here:

Well, they claimed that power with their ruling in Marbury v. Madison. Small difference, but big in its implications. The court took the power of judicial review through its own volition. John Marshall was effective in making it stick.

Since the Supreme Court took on the power of being the final arbiter of constitutionality, who's going to tell them that said power itself is extra-constitutional?

All cases involving Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction?

That just looks like the parts where the Supreme court gets first dibs.

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

I guess that's it...
If they have jurisdiction as to law and fact, that means that they decide both as to what law is applicable here (in essence: what is legal and what the laws mean) and upon the merits of the case. That is where judicial review springs from. If a law is unconstitutional, should courts still enforce the law as if it were constitutional? That makes no sense - an unconstitutional law is not a law by definition, and as such it should not be enforced. It is the job of the court to decide which laws are applicable to the situation at hand in a case, and it is only proper then that they are able to disregard laws that are against the highest law in the land, the constitution.

Or, to quote:
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

I've been waiting my whole life for an excuse to kill, rape, and desecrate liberals and thier pathetic belief structure..

You know, this statement is just as bad as anything that liberal thought police and political correctness commandos have put forth. Condemn bad ideas and faulty logic to the dustbin, not those who hold them. Such thinking would make Stalin smile, even though you may be on the other end of the spectrum. If you dislike freedom so much that you would look for an excuse to kill those who disagree with you, then you are a very poor conservative, indeed. And if that was a joke (and I'd hope so, albeit not a very good one), you need to do a better job of communicating that.