Constitution: Congress can pass laws that limit powers and behavior of Supreme Court" --

[defendandprotect]

QUOTE --

“Congress can pass laws that limit the powers and behavior of the Supreme Court. The Constitution, in Section Two of Article Three which establishes the Judiciary, does give Congress the power to define and limit what the Supreme Court can and can't do. Here's the exact language, "The Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

UNQUOTE


Yes, that's what the Constitution says - in plain black and white. If Congress disagrees with - for example - the Citizens United decision ........ they can simply pass a law that says that the Supreme Court has overstepped its authority and that's the end of that.” -

Michael @ Economic Collapse Blog



......If this is true, why would Bernie Sanders suggest a Constitutional "Amendment"?

Can someone with a legal background answer this?


The above is a pick up from comments at Common Dreams website --



I'd also like to bring to DU'ers attention, additionally --


as to the farce of "Signing Statements" --- and "Trade Agreements" --



PLEASE NOTE --



Quote --

"Congress has the responsibility to ensure that whatever legislation they pass is carried out

with the intent and spirit with which it was passed by Congress" ---


FURTHER --



The trade agreements that have been passed are actually TREATIES and as such should have required


2/3rd vote by the Senate.



This is wholesale game playing by the Congress in their alliance and allegiance with

corporatise/fascists!

[Firebrand Gary]

1. Sanders is correct, the concept of stare decisis must be upheld.

Our foundation of government is designed to place checks on each EQUAL branch of government. It was not designed constantly overrule one another.

[defendandprotect]

3. The question is, what does the Constitution say -- and what does our common sense say ---

We've had very political decisions coming from a Supreme Court which we don't

get to elect or unelect --

Only those who want rule by oligarchy would vouch for something like that --

and there are two cases in just a few years which show that extremism -- the first

being the 2000 decision which stopped the vote counting mandated by the Florida

State Supreme Court and which put W in the White House --

and the other being Citizens United and any concept at any time of corporations as

"persons."


The Congress is to represent the will of the people -- and we insure that thru

elections.

The government attains its power from the people -- not from corporations.

When our Constitution says that this is a government of corporations, by corporations

and for corporations -- then COMMON SENSE MUST STILL PREVAIL -- and no one of common

sense is going to put corporations over the people.

[Pab Sungenis]

18. I already told you what the Constitution says.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." - Article 3 Section 2.

The Supreme Court has the responsibility of deciding the Constitutionality of laws.

Congress can regulate the Court by changing its composition and size, by impeachment, and by failure to confirm a nominee (in the case of the Senate). Congress MAY be able to impose an ethics law or code of conduct on the Supreme Court, but Congress CANNOT overrule the Court.

[defendandprotect]

26. "...with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the CONGRESS shall make" ...!!!

“Congress can pass laws that limit the powers and behavior of the Supreme Court. The Constitution, in Section Two of Article Three which establishes the Judiciary, does give Congress the power to define and limit what the Supreme Court can and can't do. Here's the exact language, "The Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Everything is in the control of the Congress re the Supreme Court --

as it should be --


Again --

Appellate Jurisdiction Law & Legal Definition
Appellate jurisdiction refers to the power of a higher court to review and revise a lower court's decision. Most appellate courts simply review the lower court’s ...
definitions.uslegal.com/a/appellate-jurisdiction - Cached

Supreme Court has the right to review and revise LOWER court's decisions --

not decisions made by Congress --

On the contrary, Supreme Court is subject to .... "with such exceptions, and under such

regulations as the Congress shall make" --

[Pab Sungenis]

31. Laws passed by Congress only come before the Supreme Court under two situations:

(1) a lower court makes a ruling about whether a law is valid or not. The law can then be appealed. Eventually it MAY reach the Supreme Court (see below), which MAY decide to hear the appeal. Their decision is final.

(2) the Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction, under the Constitution, in two areas: suits against or between states or those involving ambassadors, and those cases can be heard by the Court without coming up through the appeals process.

The Supreme Court can hear appeals only when there is a Federal question (whether a Federal law, passed by Congress, is Constitutional or not), if the two parties in a suit are from different states or one of them is a foreign citizen, or if the Federal Government is one of the parties. They cannot intervene in purely state matters and do not do so.

The Supreme Court does not arbitrarily rule Federal laws unconstitutional on its own, it sets precedent by hearing appeals on controversial matters and deciding them.

And nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the right to overrule a Supreme Court decision. Which is a good thing, believe it or not. Otherwise Brown, Roe, Miranda, Lawrence, Loving, and dozens (or hundreds) of controversial but good rulings would have been struck down by the tyranny of the majority a long time ago.

[Pab Sungenis]

2. This was declared moot early on.

Marbury v. Madison put the Supreme Court over Congress in deciding issues of Constitutionality.

Besides, an Amendment would be harder to repeal later on.

[defendandprotect]

4. So the Supreme Court overturned the Constitution ... ?

In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its power to review acts of Congress and invalidate those that conflict with the Constitution


:rofl:


And not only is an amendment harder to repeal, it will also be very hard to secure.

[Pab Sungenis]

6. The Court set itself up as the arbiter of Constitutionality.

And it has worked for 208 years.

[defendandprotect]

7. Key words: The Supreme Court set itself up as the arbiter of Constitutionality

And you think it worked?

Again, in this decision, the Court overrode the Constitutional right of Congress

to limit the Supreme Court's behavior --

not the other way around which is the way the SC would like to have it!


I don't think that Plessy vs Ferguson -- "separate but equal" -- ?

Or 2000 decision re W -- ?

or Citizens United -- ?


All courts will deliver pro-elite/corporate decisions when they are corrupted which

is what we've seen in these decisions --


The liberal influence on the court, granted, brought us Brown vs Board of Education --

and Civil Rights decisions -- decisions for the people, for women, for freedom and

for democracy.


The difference between the SC and our Congress is that political decisions must be in the

hands of those we can elect and unelect. That's true of Congress, though money has

corrupted that body, as well. But it is not true of the SC.

[Pab Sungenis]

12. The logic behind the decision in Marbury

is the first sentence of Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"

The Supreme Court has the authority to decide Constitutionality.

Political decisions need to be in the hands of the elected but the greater issues need to be in the hands of those who are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. Civil rights should never be subject to a popular vote.

And for every "Plessy," "Bush," or "Citizen's United" there are dozens of other cases that justify the Independence of the Supreme Court. "Brown v. Board of Ed," "Griswold v. Connecticut," "Lawrence v. Texas," "Gideon v. Wainwright," "Miranda v. Arizona," and so on.

And it's not like the Supreme Court has completely unchecked authority; Congress has the power to impeach Justices and the failure to impeach over "Citizen's United" is solely on the heads of Congress. And the Constitution can be amended to override decisions that go against overwhelming popular sentiment; look at the 11th, 16th, and 24th Amendments.

[defendandprotect]

13. That is NOT what the Constitution says --- rather it is Congress which limits Supreme Court ... not

the other way around --

and logically -- and all common sense -- suggests that we do not give power to elite

courts which are unanswerable to the public in he end via our Congress!


The Supreme Court is NOT elected -- we only give power to those who are elected and controlled

by the vote -- or controlled by those we elect, such as Congress.


You're simply also repeating the very cases I pointe dout to you -- when you have ELITE control

of the SC then you have elitist decisions which we've had for most of the existence of the SC!

When you have a SC delivering positive decisions they are based on liberal control of the court.

Again -- either way is a BIAS -- which delivers political decisions.

We dod recognize political decisions take place, but they are put in the hands of those we can

easily REMOVE with our vote -- not with Constitutional Amendments -- !!1 :eyes:



Again -- the Constituion gives control over the Supreme Court to our Congress --

obviously that's another job/responsibility they've abandoned or decieived us on similar to

"Signing Statement" farce -- and the "trade agreement" farce -- !!!


This is simply a strong indication of the corruption of our Congress -- without doubt!!


"Congress is controlled by the oil and coal industry" -- Al Gore/Rolling Stone this summer

who also spent 6 pages commenting on our fascist press, though he didn't actualy use those

words. We do have a Goebbels' style press thanks to the RW -- and lack of opposition by

Democrats.

This corruption could only have taken place with the collusion of both parties -- and sadly

our higher executives.

[Pab Sungenis]

17. Have you ever studied anything in regard to civics or history?

I pointed out the exact clause in the Constitution (Article 3, section 2, first sentence) which gives the Supreme Court the authority to decide issues of Constitutionality. It was affirmed in Marbury v. Madison. It is the law of the land.

Congress' "control" over the Court mainly has to do with its composition; Congress can make the Court larger or smaller. Also, the Senate can refuse to confirm a nominee and the House can vote to impeach a Justice, but Congress cannot overrule its rulings.

(Also, in my previous post I forgot to close the "excerpt" section after the end of the first sentence. The first sentence is from the Constitution, the rest is my comment.

[defendandprotect]

19. You wouldn't be trying to be insulting by any chance, would you? ROFL

Marbury vs Madison was a decision by the Supreme Court in an attempt to usurp

power unto themselves -- with a decision which defies the Constitutional

stipulation that Congress controls the Supreme Court.


It is CONGRESS which LIMITS what the Supreme Court can do -- not the other way around.

[Pab Sungenis]

23. No, it was a legitimate question

because you completely misunderstand the way things are structured.

Once more, the Constitution explicitly gave the right to decide Constitutionality. I've quoted it several times here so I will forgo doing it again.

Marbury established a precedent for that fact.

And I've also pointed out multiple times the ways in which Congress can limit the Court, none of which involves overruling decisions like you seem to claim they can.

Do you have any scholarly cites for your opinion?

[defendandprotect]

24. Try to understand that the SC cannot override the Constitution ... and the

Constitution says that Congress controls the Supreme Court --

Don't know what you think you are quoting, but Marbury vs Madison isn't the Constitution ...

it's a decision by the SC in an effort to usurp new powers for themselves.


And -- let's get back to simple common sense --

The people are NOT going to create a hierarchy over a people's government -- i.e., they

are were not going to make an unelected body the decision maker on our Constitution!


Again, in order to have a people's government, those whom we elect and who we can unelect

make the decisions. And this is because we understand that these decisions can be political

and biased. Just as we have seen from the SC over all the years of its existence!

[Pab Sungenis]

32. One last time...

THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE SUPREME COURT THE POWER TO DECIDE WHETHER SOMETHING IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT.

You keep ignoring the quote I keep giving you, which IS IN THE CONSTUTION.

Article III OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, Section 2, begins with the words

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

It then goes on to specify other areas that the Court has jurisdiction.

Marbury just affirmed what was already in the Constitution.

You need one, sole, final arbiter of Constitutionality. And it makes sense to put that power in the hands of the branch least subject to pressure from the populace. That's why the power is given to the Supreme Court.

[defendandprotect]

34. Constitution does no such thing -- and quite to the contrary ....

and you keep ignoring the quote which gives control over the SC to the Congress --


“Congress can pass laws that limit the powers and behavior of the Supreme Court. The Constitution, in Section Two of Article Three which establishes the Judiciary, does give Congress the power to define and limit what the Supreme Court can and can't do. Here's the exact language, "The Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."


Constittion -- Section II/Article III

"The Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact,

with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

If you're setting up a democracy, you don't set up an authoritarian body over the

people's government --

And you certainly don't set up unelected body over the people's government --

[BzaDem]

41. Giving the political branches unlimited power is not a democracy. It is mob rule. n/t

[Selatius]

The argument is undermined by the fact that the US was never meant to be a democracy.

It's a Republic, where a few make the laws for the many. There are plenty of newer republics in the world where they structure things far more democratically, but you must understand the US Constitution was established in September 1787. Quite a few more democratic regimes were established at far later dates up to and including the 20th century where understanding of democracy was far more sophisticated. I mean, slavery was still allowed; women couldn't vote; and voting was limited in many cases to only those who owned property.

Besides, Marbury v. Madison is a precedent that is used in interpreting this issue. The Constitution can say whatever it wants, but it is up to the court system to actually interpret how it applies in real life. That's the deal that everybody took. Otherwise, Congress would have passed an amendment to the US Constitution explicitly changing the Constitution to short-circuit Marbury v. Madison.

I generally think Citizens United was a bad idea, but I agree with Bernie Sanders' notion of an amendment. It is the correct way to get around the Supreme Court's decision there.

[defendandprotect]

50. That's a continuing argument --- "Equality for all" is democracy ---

Granted we have a very schizophrenic Constitution ---

Government "of the people" is democracy ---

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- democracy --

Bill of Rights -- democracy --


Constant war by RW on democracy -- without doubt!!

[Selatius]

51. True, but fundamental structures in the US Constitution are hard to change or remove.

For example, one could argue a unicameral legislature or parliament where legislators are voted upon based upon majority-rule instead of our current first-past-the-post system is more democratic in that it allows multiple parties to become viable instead of two, and it prevents third and fourth party candidates from becoming spoilers, especially if run-off elections are allowed.

Yet, in order for the US Constitution to be even ratified, the US Senate had to be inserted where larger, more populous states are on equal footing with smaller, less populous states to placate fears that the larger states would simply out-vote the smaller states every time. Otherwise, there would never have been the requisite number of states ratifying the document to bring the document into effect. So you can have a puny state like Mississippi cancelling out the votes of a state like California over, say, the issue of keeping or junking the Public Option in in the health insurance bill in Senate deliberations.

On top of that, only a plurality of the electorate is needed to actually win an election for a seat, not a true majority, so third party candidates inevitably become spoilers unless they actually win an outright plurality or even a majority, which is a very high hurdle in either case. The Constitution never explicitly specified that a majority is needed to actually win a federal seat, only that the process is left up to the states, and the states decided upon first-past-the-post.

All of these things I brought up are things that likely won't be changed, even if we accept the notion that this Republic should be more democratic. For such changes to occur, major amendments need to be passed, but we all know the hurdles make these changes next to impossible to happen. Three-quarters of all state legislatures needed to pass an amendment all but dooms any attempt at serious reform if it directly challenges vested interests.

While I do get the intent of what you are saying, the simple fact of the matter is that the Constitution as it is interpreted doesn't work that way even if it is written differently. I do think fundamental changes are needed, but I've come to the conclusion that major, fundamental reforms can't be enacted until after the current Republic is dissolved either in the disintegration of the United States or a major civil war or a third constitutional convention.

[defendandprotect]

57. There really are no "but's" once you begin to recognize the corruption of the Supreme Court --

And it continues on -- total corruption now of the appointment process with ABA sidelined

and after the farce of the Thomas hearings. And Thurgood Marshall well understood what was

going to go down -- and he enlightned us in response to the questions by the press as to

whether Poppy Bush would consider his seat a "black" seat.

Marshall replied that --

"It's not the color of a snake which is important --

What's important about a snake is whether or not it bites" --


Same goes for gender --


And your second paragraph neglects to mention that much of the uncounted populations were

African Americans held in slavery.


And, certainly other nations survive multiple parties with IRV voting --

though our two parties continue to corrupt our system.


And, again, there is much disagreement that this was intended to be republic --

EXCEPT AS A DEMOCRATIC ALTERNATIVE TO A MONARCHY.

Meanwhile, what we have is an oligarchy --


Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Origin of the term|History|Head of state|TypesA republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government and where offices of state are ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic.More results from en.wikipedia.org »


Republic | A democratic alternative to the monarchy
Republic campaigns for an end to the monarchy and a republican constitution for Britain.
www.republic.org.uk/index.php


The very fact that the people are in the streets now points up that our government is totally

corrupted and dysfunctional -- and that includes the Supreme Court, of course.

[Pab Sungenis]

54. Again, you're skipping 90% of the section you quote.

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.

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.

[defendandprotect]

60. It doesn't matter what comes before it ....

with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

The nation was intended to be a democracy -- and it is, of course, our intent today ...

is it not?

That cannot happen with a government under control of an authoritarian body.

[Pab Sungenis]

79. QUOTE THE WHOLE GODDAMN SECTION FOR A CHANGE.

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.

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.

CONGRESS CAN ONLY REGULATE WHICH MATTERS THE SUPREME COURT HAS APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER. IT CANNOT STRIP THE COURT OF THE ABILITY TO DECLARE A LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHICH IS GRANTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, AND IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE DEPENDENT CLAUSE AT THE END OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE SECTION.

[defendandprotect]

81. "...with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make" --

The Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

And think time's about up on this subject --

Again, if you want a democracy you do not put an authoritarian body above the Congress --

However, as some have noted on occasion it looks like some of those who jerked around the

Constitution wanted to ensure that democracy wouldn't rise again.


It's at best a schizophrenic document -- and again, democracy needs to be left in the hands

of those we can elect and unelect -- not some Koch Bros. judges!!

[Pab Sungenis]

82. Again, quote the whole section.

That phrase only refers to Appellate Jurisdiction and has NOTHING to do with restricting the power to decide Constitutionality.

And we are not a Democracy and were never intended to be one; the power of the majority is tempered to protect the rights of the minority. That is why we have an independent Judiciary.

Go read some books on the Constitution.

[defendandprotect]

83. Every Constitutional decision is political --

We don't put such decisions in the hands of people who we cannot easily unelect --

Similar to the FED who have been deciding our economic policies rather than Congress

doing their job.

One thing the founders were quite clear about -- and they well knew -- "not all men are

honext men" -- and the many damaging decisions we've had from takeover of the Supreme

Court by the RW points to the reality that they would not have left the Constitution

solely in the hands of the Supreme Court.


Elites develop hierarchies of power to deliver what they need --

democracy is just the opposite.

[Pab Sungenis]

86. Yes, we DO put these decisions in the hands of an independent judiciary.

Three words tell you why: Roe v. Wade. Abortion would never have been made legal if it had been up to elected officials. (Roe v. Wade)

Segregation would have lasted to this day. (Brown v. Board of Education)

Sodomy Laws would still be in force. (Lawrence v. Texas)

There would be no informing suspects of their rights. (Miranda)

There would be no right to an attorney in non-Federal trials. (Gideon v. Wainright, Brewer v. Williams)

I could go on and on. Many of us HAVE gone on and on.

What you're asking for is not "Democracy." It's mob rule. And we have Courts to guard against them.

[defendandprotect]

90. Not exactly -- many of the states had approved abortion ---

The Supreme Court was merely FOLLOWING what had already been acknowledged --

Not that we would have liked to have seen the advance of women's rights be any slower --

but the SC has not been activist re democracy in decades. And that's because the SC is

political and under control now of RW. Or are you also denying that?


Again, Brown vs Board of Education came about because of a LIBERAL COURT --

And wasn't that Fat Tony objecting to the laws on sodomy being overturned?


What you are confirming is exactly what I am saying ... when the court is in LIBERAL hands

we have decisions which are positive for the nation -- when it's in RW hands, we have

damaging decisions. And from the very beginning -- with only slight interruption, the court

has delivered elite decisions.

[Pab Sungenis]

99. Many but not all.

Not all states had legalized abortion. And many would recriminalize it right now if it weren't for that court ruling.

As for liberal vs. conservative courts, you can't have two sets of rules. There are ways to overcome bad decisions under the Constitution that have been presented to you throughout this thread. Use them.

Put some of your energy towards fighting for an Amendment wiping out Citizens United instead of arguing civics that you don't understand.

[defendandprotect]

103. Only because the SC and Congress have never properly reacted to $$$$ in politics --

All of our government and most of our candidates have been pre-bribed and pre-owned

by elites/corporations.

Are you imagining that legalizing abortion wasn't a blow to those who want to control

women and the workplace? Same money that fights unions, fights female equality and abortion.



Surge of elite/corporate money has corrupted government on the whole -- including the courts!

Only YOU are suggesting anyone is looking for two sets of rules --

We need to have elected officials controlling the Supreme Court -- not the other way around.


Supreme Court is one of our most corrupted institutions -- everyone of the RW judges could

probably be impeached. Let's get to it!

[treestar]

91. Right wingers claim this all the time

But then if the SCOTUS could not invalidate unconstitutional laws, nothing stops them from existing. Congress could pass a law declaring that the Methodist Church is now the state religion and a President could sign it. What enforcement mechanism would exist?

[defendandprotect]

94. dupe

[defendandprotect]

95. Let's see ... you mean Congress could take money from corporations -- and SC could push that notion

even further -- like in Citizens United?

Or did you mean that W Bush could give taxpayer subidies to the RCC via "faith based"

religious organizations -- and NOT have that invalidated by the Supreme Court --

Or maybe you mean that the SC could find capital punishment un-Constitutional and ban

it -- and another RW SC could reverse that decision -- ?


?????????????????


:rofl:


Over and again you are confirming the political nature of the court --

All of government is simply like a typewriter -- depends on who is doing the writing.


And these days it's people like the pervert Clearence Thomas and a variety of religious

fanatics on the courts who support elite/corporate/fascist values.


The final power is in the hands of the people -- all government must be answerable to

the people.

[treestar]

101. It's a human institution and bound to be imperfect

But it's still a good way of keeping Congress honest. What if a Congress and President got elected who passed a state religion? We'd have to hope the SCOTUS wasn't so infiltrated too, that it upheld that. Language can be twisted for people to convince themselves that it's possible if they want it badly enough. All government by rule of law is going to be somewhat affected by who it is that holds the office - that's why we don't want people who will use it for their personal aggrandizement and don't respect the idea of the rule of law.

You're :rofl: at reality - this is life. Over all, our system has worked well. It has its flaws. But you're throwing out the whole thing - and being unrealistic about what would happen under the system you appear to advocate, though without having much chance of seeing it come to pass.

[defendandprotect]

102. Kinda like "Congress controlled by oil and coal industry"...DLC controlled by Koch Bros? ROFL

Good way of keeping Congress "honest" -- GASP/CHOKE --

Not alibing much are you -- ??

:rofl:


Where was the Supreme Court when W gave our taxpayer money to Vatican for their "faith based"

religious organizations -- more likely to pay off their pedophile priest lawsuits!

Still waiting for your SC to overturn that one!

"Language could be twisted" ... ? Maybe you mean by the GOP/NRA gun industry re 2nd

amendment? :rofl:

We haven't had "rule of law" in America back to 11/22/63, at the least!


I'm unrealistic?

Right .. where would we be without the Supreme Court and Citizen's United --

or putting W in the White House -- !! :rofl:


Everyone in office now -- with a handfull of exceptions -- should be run out of town and

coated with tar and feathers!

[treestar]

112. If a case goes up to challenge it, then any thing could be

held unconstitutional. Bush did operate within the framework of the law. The law is slow, too, and it could be many years before the SCOTUS deals with an issue. But it's better than whatever you're advocating - not sure what it is. We elected those officials and they passed what they passed. At least the Court can stop a majority if a majority wants something unconstitutional.

[defendandprotect]

115. The 2000 election reaked of fascism -- and was celebrated by the

Gang of 5 fascists on the court -- and that's a good thing?

The law has been made slow and ineffective -- how could you avoid noticing that?

WE DID NOT ELECT THE SUPREME COURT --

[defendandprotect]

5. Why would anyone be interested in this subject ... ???

[apocalypsehow]

8. And what if a right-wing Congress decides it doesn't like Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board?

I think this is a very dangerous road to go down, even if one accepts the premise of Congress being able to evade court scrutiny simply by saying so in legislation passed.

[sufrommich]

108. God, no kidding. I can't imagine a slippier slope. nt

[MFrohike]

9. Not exactly

"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."

This clause does not give Congress free reign to dictate to the court. What it says, literally, is that Congress has the power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the court. How far can Congress limit that jurisdiction? That's an open question. There are two main lines of thought on the subject. The first says that Congress can absolutely limit the appellate jurisdiction of the court on a given topic. This was done to some extent with the Reconstruction Acts. The second says that the court will always have the ability to hear appeals based on constitutional rights. All in all, Congress does possess some power over the appellate jurisdiction of the court, but not the original jurisdiction, which was the basis of Marbury.

Congress can override decisions of the court with simple legislation. The issue with Citizens United is that the Court would have the power to review the constitutionality of the override. A constitutional amendment cannot be reviewed by the court. It becomes part of the constitution and binds the court.

I personally think signing statements are constitutional. Too many people think of the court as the supreme arbiter of constitutionality, which is ridiculous. All three branches have equal authority to interpret the constitution. The executive has the right, based on the idea of co-equal branches, to interpret the constitution in its own manner. The question is whether that interpretation is in line with existing law and sentiment. Imagine if Congress passed a law that forced people to refer to dogs as cats (yes, it's silly but bear with me). The executive would be fully within its authority to refuse to enforce a law that was unconstitutional on its face (Congress cannot regulate the content of speech, except for very narrow exceptions). Signing statements are valid in this interpretation if they legitimately use executive authority. A signing statement that directly, or mostly, contradicts the text of a law would invalid in this interpretation. When a president contradicts the law with a signing statement, he/she is acting as a legislator (it's sort of like offering an amendment to a bill). The president has executive authority, but zero legislative authority. Given that, the contradictory statement is unconstitutional (unless, of course, the law in question is of doubtful constitutionality).

Treaties do require 2/3 approval of the senate to go into effect, but it can be argued that trade agreements fall under the enumerated power of Congress to regulate foreign commerce. That regulation only requires a majority.

"Congress has the responsibility to ensure that whatever legislation they pass is carried out

with the intent and spirit with which it was passed by Congress"--This is problematic as hell. The authority to enforce the law belongs to the executive, not Congress. Additionally, what does "intent and spirit" mean? It's not hard to find multiple (contradictory) interpretations of a potential law from debates in Congress. Legislative history is notorious for often being inconclusive as well as unreliable. The unreliability partially stems from the fact that members sometimes make statements for the record which are solely intended to influence a court's reading of the legislative history. These kinds of statements tend to be influenced by lobbyists of one stripe or another.

[Sgent]

10. I'm more a sphere's of influence

kinda person.

Yes congress & the president can arbitrate constitutionality of various provisions of law -- but they are at their weakest when doing so whereas SCOTUS is at its strongest.

Its the same thing when POTUS exercises executive authority such as waging war, or congress passes appropriations.

[MFrohike]

11. Textbook answer

That's fine for a civics textbook, but it misses the point. I'll use an example of what I mean.

Congress passes a law that requires all cars must have bumper car bumpers affixed as a safety measure. We'll assume that Congress has evidence that shows that these bumpers will reduce injuries and fatalities and make the roads safer. We also assume that Congress investigated more than one means of road safety and came to the determination that bumper car bumpers were the best choice. Congress has performed a legislative function in passing the law. It has also performed a quasi-judicial function through its investigation into road safety.

The executive is now in charge of enforcing this new road safety law. We'll assume the law contains provisions for its enforcement, such as delegating the power to NTSB to create and promulgate regulations for enforcement. NTSB will investigate different methods of enforcing the law, such as how to attach the bumpers, what materials are acceptable, etc. This will be done partly by its own research and by soliciting the views of interested parties (car makers, safety groups, etc.). The NTSB will then issue a regulation to be followed or a rule for comments. In the case of a rule, a period of time is set for notice and comment by the public. After that time expires, public hearings are held. In this manner, NTSB, functioning in its normal manner, is performing legislative functions. Should a car maker run afoul of the rule, an administrative law judge will perform the judicial function of a hearing on the matter.

That's not a great example, but I hope it shows just how blurry the lines can be. You can choose to think of spheres of influence, but the branches do regularly intrude on each others' authority under that model by their very nature. These functions I've laid out involve constitutional matters, even if not directly mentioned, by their very existence.

[defendandprotect]

16. You're denying the bias of the Supreme Court -- and that they are NOT elected by the people. ...

And how pitiful that anyone would see the SC as in any way "strong" on the Constitution!

How many courts after Plessy v Ferguson sought to re-review the case and overturn it?

How many Courts -- even since the defeat of the ERA -- have called for full Constitutional

equality for females?

How many courts, in fact, called for the overturning of slavery or Segregation, Inc.?

How many are calling the gerrymandering going on unconstitutinal?

Or even electronic voting machines unconstitutional?

Germany has outlawed the electronic voting machines as Un-Constitutional -- !!

When since the capital punishment ban was overturned has anyone on the court or the court

itself called for a new end to capital punishment?

Just the reverse -- these RW courts have permitted state/federal brutality towards prisoners --

even children -- and even the mentally retarded!!

Our SC is an embarrasment before the rest of the world where there is any justice and right

thinking still existing --

Over and again the SC has served the interests of elites/corportions -- and they continue

to do so.

These courts have been made shameful decisions over and again!

Disgusting!



Let's also remind ourselves again that you do not need to have a law license to serve on

the SC -- !!

[Sgent]

20. Wow

And here I thought they were strongest when interpreting the constitution (see above), not when legislating laws (see congress). They have no ability to amend the constitution.

The constitution specifically allowed slavery, didn't prohibit segregation, etc.

Election laws are a hodgepodge -- both gerrymandering and voting irregularities were considered state issues originally. The equal protection clause and right to vote abridge that, but its certainly not cut and dry. Congress (not SCOTUS) is put in charge of monitoring federal elections.

The death penalty is specifically allowed under the clear text of the constitution, I just don't see where they should interfere.

Now... cruel and unusual punishment (lifetime solitary, excessively long sentences, etc.) they should be much more active on.

Equal protection, separation of church/state, illegal search and seizure, etc. are all areas where they are lacking IMHO.

As for being elitist, they are the model that many countries are moving towards (see UK). I am HAPPY!!!!!!!!!!! they are not popularly elected, its a feature. People can't be trusted as a whole with human rights (see Prop 8, or Nazi Germany for extreme example).

I saved what for me is the most difficult area for last: free speech / electioneering. Something desperately needs to be done, but I think it may very well require a con. amendment to get done -- the first amendment is pretty clear that people are allowed to say whatever they want -- and it specifically addressed moneyed interests by allow for freedom of the press (which was much more biased than we have today).

[MFrohike]

22. The court can change the constitution

Not formally, but in practice. It's all in how you view the relationships among the various parts of the constitution. The Incorporation Doctrine is a great example of how the court changed the relationship of the constitution with the people of the US.

[defendandprotect]

27. Supreme Court can be a force for good or evil ... and they've pretty obviously made their choice!!

[MFrohike]

30. Irrelevant

There is a clear distinction between "good and evil" and how the court functions.

[defendandprotect]

35. Of course, when you throw away all common sense ... "good or evil" becomes irrelevant -- ROFL

[MFrohike]

62. Excellent example

If you actually read what I wrote, you'll notice that I only spoke to how the court functions. I didn't make a uninformed value judgment.

[defendandprotect]

64. The Supreme Court functions as a criminal enterprise -- but you don't seem to have noticed -- !!

[MFrohike]

66. Wow

Indict the entire structure because of a few bad decisions? Yes, that's clearly rational.

As for what I've noticed, if you bother to read what I've written, you might realize it's a first year primer on constitutional law. Exclamation points and hysteria don't change the fact that I've laid out how things are done. You can choose to rage against the decisions all day long or learn the process and use it.

[defendandprotect]

72. Which reminds me of an old saying re your claims to "fact" --

You can educate a fool, but what you end up with is an educated fool --


Night --

[MFrohike]

74. Hahaha

You went from hysteria to passive-aggressiveness. Awesome.

[treestar]

100. Do you mean just today's?

What of the court that upheld civil rights laws, or decided Brown v.Bd. of Education?

[defendandprotect]

105. The liberal courts were a very brief part of our history --

All of government and elected officials have been taken over by elite/corproate

$$$$$$$$$$ --

Again -- government is very much like a typewriter -- depends on who is doing the

typing -- which means that all decisions are POLITICAL --

Which is why you don't put an unelected, authoritarian body above the Congress.


Congress couldn't be more corrupt -- and neither could the Supreme Court -- !!

[treestar]

113. You're in essence saying only that when the court

agrees with you, it's OK, but that's only going to be briefly, and so it should be thrown out. So what if segregation were still allowed, because majorities voted for laws that promoted it?

The Court does not have to be elected - it should decide by the rule of law, and if elected, would be swayed by popular prejudice. Then a majority could enact anything, like a state religion or segregation laws, and there would be no way to stop them until one could get other people elected - as we've seen, that's tough enough.

[defendandprotect]

116. And you agree with the RW Supreme Court decisions ... ???

Segregation was overturned not by Congress and not by Courts but by the people in

the streets getting their heads busted --

Change comes from outside government -- then they are FORCED to do something!

As we're seeing once again with OWS!

[defendandprotect]

25. The Court does not speak for freedom and democracy, equality for all --

The constitution specifically allowed slavery, didn't prohibit segregation, etc.

And the Supreme Court further cemented that outrage in Plessy vs Ferguson.

We have a Supreme Court with heavy elite/corporate bias and no conscience - !


Gerrymandering is gimmickry to create "safe" voting districts and is does violence to

equal protection.



The death penalty is specifically allowed under the clear text of the constitution, I just don't see where they should interfere.

WTF?

Now... cruel and unusual punishment (lifetime solitary, excessively long sentences, etc.) they should be much more active on.

WTF? They were "more active" -- they voted for cruel and brutal punishment and to return to

capital punishment!

Equal protection, separation of church/state, illegal search and seizure, etc. are all areas where they are lacking IMHO.

But none of that couldn't be BIAS ... could it? ROFL


And what you're saying here is that the rise of the RW and elite wealth ...

As for being elitist, they are the model that many countries are moving towards (see UK). I am HAPPY!!!!!!!!!!! they are not popularly elected, its a feature. People can't be trusted as a whole with human rights (see Prop 8, or Nazi Germany for extreme example).

is crashing economies, buying governments and moving towards corporate/fascism across the globe.

"People can't be trusted as a whole with human rights" -- but the Gang of 5 can be? ROFL

Prop 8 is simply another case where Church and male-supremacist religions are trying to impose

their hateful teachings on society.

And you trust people you can't remove easily from office? Good thinking!! ROFL


I saved what for me is the most difficult area for last: free speech / electioneering. Something desperately needs to be done, but I think it may very well require a con. amendment to get done -- the first amendment is pretty clear that people are allowed to say whatever they want -- and it specifically addressed moneyed interests by allow for freedom of the press (which was much more biased than we have today).


Again, we don't need a Constitutional amendment -- Congress has the Constituional right to

limit the behavior of the Supreme Court.




"If we didn't laugh we'd all go insane." -- Jimmy Buffett

Your post certainly provided a lot of laughs -- but in a very sad way -- !!



Bye

[BzaDem]

42. The court often speaks a hell of a lot more for those principles than the political branches

at the time.

You seem to favor having no check on the political branches -- the very branches that IGNORED and TRAMPLED on the principles you blame the court for not adhering to.

[Pab Sungenis]

55. I quoted a half dozen cases where that was the situation

and it had no effect on this argument, sadly.

We have a regressive Court right now, yes, but there are ways under the Constitution to remedy that. We don't blow up a power that has been used for good (Roe, Brown, Griswold, Miranda, Loving, Lawrence, etc.) just because lately it's done something bad.

[defendandprotect]

65. Actually, you're describing what government is ... like a typewriter ....

depends upon who is doing the typing --

but you're overlooking one essential --

We need to be able to FIRE the writers who aren't working for the general welfare --

And we cannot FIRE the Supreme Court merely with our votes --


The court is an authoritarian concept -- not a democratic one!

[Pab Sungenis]

111. No, but Congress can.

Congress has the power to impeach and remove members of the Court. We just need to elect Congresspeople who will do so.

[MFrohike]

21. Denied?

I didn't deny anything. I gave you a legal perspective of your claim from the OP. As for the rest of your post, I don't think you understand the role nor the history of US courts. As for the comment about the law license, while that is true, it's only true as far it goes. You could put a non-lawyer on the court, but that justice would have a tough time proving him/herself to the legal community. It's far more likely the non-lawyer would be ignored because he/she would have a very tough time speaking the same language as lawyers. I don't mean legalese, I mean common words, definitions, cases, lines of thought, and the various other things that are shared among lawyers.

[defendandprotect]

28. If you don't acknowledge the bias, you're in denial of it --

Our Supreme Court has a disgusting history -- and we should make that clear -- !!

And as for the "law license" -- you don't think that the decisions from our RW Supreme

Court have been an embarrassment throughout the world where people truly care about justice?

I'm sure that the 2000 decision certainly "proved" justice to the legal community.

:rofl:


You're saying a humanist -- someone of sound mind -- just couldn't possibily understand our

Constitution? :rofl:


Or the cases - :rofl:

[MFrohike]

29. Nice argument

If you don't mention something, you're denying it. That's a silly, childish argument. I spoke to your OP, not your later comments. If you didn't like the fact that your reading of that clause was wrong, that's not my problem.

Did I say a non-lawyer couldn't understand the constitution? No. I said that person would have trouble with credibility in the legal community. That person would be highly disadvantaged because he/she wouldn't know the language. That person would probably not be influential because he/she would have a hard time speaking directly to the case at issue. It would no different from anyone not in a given profession speaking to those who are.

As for the history of the court, it is what it is. It has good points and bad points. I don't know that I would casually, and ignorantly, term the entire history of the court as "disgusting." Do not jump to conclusions about what I've written. I know it will be hard, but if you take me at my literal word, this conversation will go much more smoothly.

[defendandprotect]

36. Except that I did mention the bias ...

which you then ignored --

Go back to the post where I make "bias" part of the discussion --



Did I say a non-lawyer couldn't understand the constitution? No. I said that person would have trouble with credibility in the legal community.

We all know that law was invented by elites to manipulate those who didn't speak "the language."

Just another part of the propaganda of white male history.

Quite legally inventive, especially in moving Native Americans off of the land!

Want to discuss treaties with Native Americans?

Democracy demands that citizens be able to understand our laws and our Constitution and

legal decisions.

And certainly there is a ton of law advice/books available at the Supreme Court.

How many does every Judge have now?

Again -- there is NO REQUIREMENT that a member of the Supreme Court have a law license.

Try face that, at least!


As for the history of the court, it is what it is. It has good points and bad points. I don't know that I would casually, and ignorantly, term the entire history of the court as "disgusting." Do not jump to conclusions about what I've written. I know it will be hard, but if you take me at my literal word, this conversation will go much more smoothly.


I'm sure that's exactly how Females, Native Americans, Homosexuals and African Americans felt

about it -- !!

ROFL

[BzaDem]

39. "I'm sure that's exactly how Females, Native Americans, Homosexuals and African Americans felt"

Really? If you recall, the Supreme Court declared that the removal of the Cherokee was illegal and unconstitutional. The reason it continued was that the democratic branches (or rather, President Jackson) ignored the Supreme Court. It takes a lot of gall to blame that on the Supreme Court, and to assert that to have a democracy we need unlimited power for the democratic branches (the ones that ignored the court's order to stop).

You should also see Brown vs. Board of Education, United States vs. Virginia, Romer vs. Evans, and Lawrence vs. Texas (just to name a few).

There are also plenty of stains on the court's history. (Dred Scott vs. Sanford, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States, just to name a few.)

One cannot paint the 200 year history of the court as simply good or bad. Without the court, segregation would have continued until the democratic branches stopped the practice. Blatant sex discrimination would have continued until the democratic branches stopped it. Anti-LGBT and anti-consensual-sex laws would have remained on the books until the democratic branches repealed them. Those accused of crimes would have far fewer rights than they do today (unless the democratic branches decided to voluntarily observe those rights).

Political scientists have debated the definition of democracy for centuries. But one thing is for sure: we do not live in a direct democracy, where there are no limits on the actions of the political branches, and where the enforcement of Constitutional rights is subject to the whims of popular votes and elected representatives. Yet that is precisely the world we would live in if your view about the exceptions clause had any merit.

[MFrohike]

61. Ok

I have a suggestion. Why don't you actually spend some time learning about the history of law in the US before you talk about it? The "law" was not responsible for the plight of Native Americans. It was presidents and citizens ignoring the law that was the problem. Treaties were negotiated and signed, then ignored. Even when the courts ordered enforcement, the executive branch continually found ways not to bother. When the supreme court, in a decision written by John Marshall, disallowed the removal of the Cherokee, Andrew Jackson blatantly ignored it. Seriously, you are not remotely credible when you confuse the law with the executive.

Democracy demands that citizens be able to understand our laws and our Constitution and

legal decisions.--This is ironic because you clearly don't. If you want to pontificate on the "evil" of the law, it would help if you actually knew the history.

Your comment about women, gays, and black people is far more persuasive than the above. There are decisions which I would term disgusting. I find Harlan's dissent in Plessy to be a light shining out of the darkness. Dred Scott was...there's not a word strong enough to describe how wrong it was. It made the Civil War inevitable. I am not pleased that Scalia's great hero is the author of that decision. At the same time, I can look at the decisions made regarding the 1st amendment, Brown, Griswold, Roe, and others which are far from disgusting. That's why I said I you casually and ignorantly called the entire history of the court disgusting. It is what it is. You take the bad with the good and try to remedy the bad as best you can.

Yes, you did mention bias in the OP. I realize now that I ignored it because it was not relevant. I responded to the meat of your post, not that. I figured the bias comment was general bitching and didn't realize that I had to genuflect to it in order to prove my purity.

There is no requirement that a justice be a lawyer. All I've said is that any non-lawyer justice would have trouble establishing credibility with the legal community. That does not mean such a justice would be an idiot incapable of understanding the law. That means such a justice would have to prove that he/she is capable of speaking to lawyers in their own language. It is no different from any other profession. Imagine a plumber lecturing doctors on the finer points of neurosurgery. The plumber would be starting at a disadvantage.

[defendandprotect]

67. Treaties/Contracts with Native Americans weren't law ... ?

That's like saying that the Nuremberg Courts weren't law -- !!

We should try to ignore the Court more often -- just on different issues!



Democracy demands that citizens be able to understand our laws and our Constitution and

legal decisions.--


Your admiration for the Supreme Court is alarming -- especially considering those now

serving on the court!


Yes, you did mention bias in the OP. I realize now that I ignored it because it was not relevant. I responded to the meat of your post, not that. I figured the bias comment was general bitching and didn't realize that I had to genuflect to it in order to prove my purity.

Again -- all decisions are political -- that is also undeniable --

There doesn't exist a human being without bias -- we simply hope it will be a bias towards

justice, democracy, freedom, liberalsm -- but we haven't seen much of that from the Supreme Court.

Bias is not "irrelevant" -- and the "genuflecting" and "purist" comments aren't going to work -

they're trite/overplayed and especially make no sense in the context of the discussion.


Let's also remember that "language" has often been used to keep others from understanding what's

really going on -- See Orwell on that!!





There is no requirement that a justice be a lawyer. All I've said is that any non-lawyer justice would have trouble establishing credibility with the legal community. That does not mean such a justice would be an idiot incapable of understanding the law. That means such a justice would have to prove that he/she is capable of speaking to lawyers in their own language. It is no different from any other profession. Imagine a plumber lecturing doctors on the finer points of neurosurgery. The plumber would be starting at a disadvantage.

I know what you said -- and the argument carried no weight --

FDR was a lawyer -- but he spoke to the people in language they could understand --

eloquently -- and language which lives on pretty much in "infamy" -- !!

I've responded to your "points" -- but again, you've ignored the response.

Move on --

[MFrohike]

70. I'll sum this up real quick

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

1. Treaties are part of the supreme law of the land, with federal law and the constitution. The problem is less with the process of making that law than in executing it. You should stop talking about this subject because you are clueless about it.

2. I have no admiration for the current court. I invite you to prove this with direct quotations.

3. Your bias comments still are irrelevant to the original discussion of a constitutional clause. You didn't understand the clause, I explained it, you began to rail nonsensically about bias. I'm sure you'll throw more exclamation points at me, but ranting about bias has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with a simple explanation of that clause.

4. FDR was a president, not a supreme court justice. The fireside chats, which were absolutely brilliant, were an explanation of modern economics and the interplay with politics. They were not about the law. Yeesh, I realize the problem. You have no idea what I'm talking about when I say law. I'm not talking about political talking points, election platforms, or vague notions of history, I'm talking about how law, in terms of lawyers and judges, actually works. The fact you don't get that just makes my point about a non-lawyer judge that much more relevant.

5. Hysteria and exclamation points are not a substitute for being informed.

[defendandprotect]

71. Aaah .... from "purist" to explanation points -- that will sum it up -- !! ROFL

And when all else fails -- try insults -- ROFL

Come on --


What you're confirming is that our government has had little respect for law --

and perhaps even more so now --

You certainly have indicated a trust in the Supreme Court system -- are you denying that?

You have a limited understanding of the discussion --

BIAS and POLITICAL DECISIONS are the basis of Supreme Court decisions at this point

in "interpreting" the Constitution.


Can only say of your "4" response that it explains how little you understand of any of

this discussion. And how dangerous it is to have such narrow-mindedness contemplating law

and justice.


Don't bother responding again -- your comments throughout are a waste of time --

but don't want to have to put you on ignore --



Night --

[MFrohike]

75. Feel free to ignore me

It's your loss. I'm not the one who thinks FDR was on the supreme court.

[defendandprotect]

84. OK -- you're on ignore --

[treestar]

98. It does not matter that they are not elected

The Constitution provides how they are chosen - as long as that is followed, they are legitimately in power as judges.

Right wing confusing and wrong talking point to pound on their not being elected.

[defendandprotect]

106. You mean the way the pervert Clarence Thomas was chosen ... ?

Or maybe you mean the way John Roberts was chosen -- since he worked for it in the

W Bush campaign in planning the GOP fascist rally which shut down the vote counting

in Miami-Dade County -- !!

Great recommendation for a Chief Justice -- !! :puke:


Your comments couldn't be more naive --


Again, if you want a democracy, you don't put an authoritarian body above the Congress --

especially one as corrupt and evil as what we have now.

[treestar]

114. Yes, he was.

And that's unfortunate. Bush was President, too.

[defendandprotect]

117. Democrats were in control of Congress when pervert/Clarence was appointed ---

You might recall the hearings -- Leahy, I think chaired them --

And immediate complaints were taken to Joe Biden when the witnessing by Prof.

Anita Hill was being ignored -- !!

Nice men's club going on there -- !!


And of course the Chief Justice spot given to Roberts was his reward for his dirty

work during the 2000 election --


Certainly a democracy to be proud of -- !! :puke:

[defendandprotect]

14. "under such regulations as the Congress shall make" ... !!

“Congress can pass laws that limit the powers and behavior of the Supreme Court. The Constitution, in Section Two of Article Three which establishes the Judiciary, does give Congress the power to define and limit what the Supreme Court can and can't do. Here's the exact language, "The Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."


Again -- it is Congress which controls the Supreme Court --


The final say is with the Congress -- "under such regulations as the Congress shall make" -- !!




Your comments on "singing statements" also make no sense --

It is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that the legislation they pass is carried out

with the intent and spirit with which it is passed."

As we all know, signing statements have been simply an effort to try to distort the meaning

of the legislation and NOT to carry it out!


Trade agreements are TEEATIES and require 2/3rd vote by Senate -- this has been a deceptive means

of passing TREATIES which effect our economy and our citizens -- for the benefit of elites/

corporations.


We also need a return to TARIFF protection --

[BzaDem]

15. So under your theory, Congress could pass a law that strips all judicial enforcement of federal

Constitutional rights?

Let's say that Congress (when no war was occurring) decided that fair trials were messy and annoying, and passed a law to end the practice of federal trials. Anyone accused of a crime would simply be imprisoned for whatever duration the executive determined.

Furthermore, Congress included in the law that no federal court had jurisdiction to hear any case for which anyone arrested was a party.

This would be a valid action under your reading of the Constitution?

[Pab Sungenis]

33. Now I see where you're getting your misinformation.

You're not actually reading the Constitution, but COMMENTARY on the Constitution.

This is the full text of Article III. Read it carefully.

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 Behavior, 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.

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.

The first paragraph of Section 2 is slightly modified by the 11th Amendment:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State

(In other words, as a citizen of New Jersey I can't sue Delaware or Colorado for something I disagree with in their laws or Constitution.)

Now let's go up to Article I and look at what it has to say about the Court:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 9: (Congress shall have the power) To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

There you have it. The only powers specifically given to Congress in regard to the Court is to create lower courts. Congress created the composition of the Court in the enabling laws drafted by the First Congress and amended many times over the centuries, but no power is given to Congress (or the President) to ignore, overrule, or invalidate rulings of the Court. In fact, only four years into its history the Supreme Court made a decision that Congress really didn't like (Chisholm v Georgia) and it did what is the proper thing to do in those situations: it sent an Amendment to the States to ratify, and that's how we got the Eleventh Amendment.

Other Amendments arose in response to bad Court decisions. Leaving aside the 13th, which overruled Dred Scott (because of its association with the Civil War), we have the 16th (overruling Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust) and the 24th (which overruled Breedlove v. Suttles).

This is an effective check on the Supreme Court by the Congress and the States; if they make a bad ruling then Congress can send an Amendment to the States to reverse it and the Supreme Court can do nothing to stop it. Alternately, the Congress can impeach Justices who make a very egregious decision and the Court can do nothing to stop them.

This is part of "checks and balances." The Congress places checks on the Court through approval of nominees, Constitutional Amendments, and impeachment. The President places checks on the Court by naming appointees. The Court checks the Congress and the President by deciding Constitutionality of laws. The Congress checks the President through impeachment, veto overrides, and approval of nominees, the President checks Congress through the veto. No single branch is subservient to another, which is the way it SHOULD be. Your theory would place the Supreme Court underneath Congress which it clearly was never intended to be, and should not be.

[defendandprotect]

37. You've simply confirmed what I'm saying ....

I don't know what you think you found, but it simply repeats what I've stated --

"The Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact,

with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Again, if the intention is to create a democracy, then you do not create an authoritarian

body over the Congress.

We elect and un-elect the Congress -- all decisions are subject to bias --


Politics is the shadow cast over government by corporations/elites --


Again, in Marbury vs Ferguson, you have a SC decision which usurps power unto itself.



Granted -- others have suggested that our schizophrenic Constitution was written to insure

that democracy would not rise again!

[BzaDem]

38. So you think Congress can suspend all trials in a time of peace, and simply take any jurisdiction to

hear complaints about that policy away from the Supreme Court?

[Major Nikon]

40. The key words here are "appelate jurisdiction"

Congress can (and does) determine the jurisdiction of the USSC in certain instances. For some unknown reason, you seem to think this phrase allows Congress to negate any decision that's already been made by the USSC. It doesn't. Congress can only determine what jurisdiction the USSC has in appellate cases, which means they can only really influence future decisions by way of limiting the types of things the USSC can arbitrate on appeal.

For further reading...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

[defendandprotect]

43. That defies common sense --

Again, if you have a democracy you do not create an authoritarian body above it --

If we were beginning right now we certainly wouldn't do any such thing --


This should interest many more in exploration of this issue --

And, including our schizophrenic Constitution --

[BzaDem]

44. "Again, if you have a democracy you do not create an authoritarian body above it."

Yes you do.

You most certainly do have an independent judiciary that checks the political branches. Without a judiciary that at least minimally checks the political branches (whether the political branches like it or not), what is to stop the political branches from denying all Constitutional rights and suspending elections?

[Major Nikon]

46. That seems to be your standard answer

[defendandprotect]

49. ROFL You mighr recall "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine -- ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

[Pab Sungenis]

53. Thomas Paine did not write the Constitution.

Nor does "Common Sense" have any legal authority under U.S. law.

[defendandprotect]

58. For those reasons, we should all of course disregard it -- !!! ROFL

[Pab Sungenis]

59. So you aren't really taking this seriously?

So this thread from the beginning has been some elaborate joke?

[defendandprotect]

73. Are you serious? Evidently you need sarcasm explained to you -- ???

:eyes:

[Pab Sungenis]

78. I thought you were winking at this whole thread being a joke on your part.

Now I sadly see you've been deadly earnest with it.

Let me explain it to you simply then: the writings of Thomas Paine have no force in law. Can you accept at least that one basic fact?

[defendandprotect]

87. So law is based on thoughtlessness and requires a lack of common sense -- ROFL

[Pab Sungenis]

89. No, that is not what I said.

I said Thomas Paine's writings do not have force of law. Can we at least agree upon that basic fact?

[defendandprotect]

93. Neither did the Enlightenmnet have the force of law --

Meanwhile, our Supreme Court is an embarrassment throughout the world wherever

we have people who value justice --

[Pab Sungenis]

97. No, it does not.

So it's irrelevant to discussion of the Constitutional powers of the Supreme Court.

[defendandprotect]

45. Again, these should be questions for constant exploration --- and from your link ....

In 1882, the Supreme Court again conceded that its own "actual jurisdiction is confined within such limits as Congress sees fit to describe.”<23>

In 1948, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter conceded: "Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred."<24>

In 1993, the Supreme Court held in Nixon v. United States that judicial power may not be exercised in cases of impeachment. Such cases are a political question that are exempt from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.



We've seen many cases distorted by political decision making by the Supreme Court --

[Major Nikon]

47. Those instances you mentioned are exactly what I was talking about

Congress can (and does) determine the jurisdiction of the USSC in certain instances.

The USSC is not immune from oversight itself. The court can be stripped of most of its power, and every member can be impeached and removed from office. The number of members of the court can also be changed.

[defendandprotect]

48. Every case is a POLITICAL QUESTION ....

Such cases are a political question that are exempt from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.


So was slavery -- so is female inequality -- so was Bush vs Gore -- on and on --


That's why our Founders wouldn't have been so nuts as to have set the SC up as the final

say on Constitutionality on any issue!


We also know the prior distortions of the corporations/citizens with a CLERK having supplied

the headline which technically gave corporations 'personhood' -- !!


We also understand the full meaning of having someone like Clarence Thomas appointed to the

court -- and other RW fanatics --


Would that have been a surprise to the Foudners -- :rofl:

[Pab Sungenis]

56. Again, you are approaching it from an uninformed point of view.

Impeachment is a power granted specifically to Congress by the Constitution and does not involve the court system. That makes it a purely political issue and not one for the Court. That's why they refused to hear that case.

The other matters you mentioned (for example, slavery) were not only political issues but had matters of equity and law around them, not simply politics.

[defendandprotect]

68. And yours is an "informed" point of view -- ROFL

Every decision made by our government is POLITICAL --

it begins on a spiritual plane ---


Of course Congress can impeach the Supreme Court --

The Supreme Court cannot impeach a president, however --


Slavery was a business -- for profit --

The "compromise" made by our Founders with slave holders/states guaranteed that we

would have a Civil War.

Every decision made by government/courts is political --

[Pab Sungenis]

76. Yes, I'm discussing it from an informed point of view.

If you want to talk in general terms then, yes, everything is political. The Court was using the word in a specific sense: i.e. a matter purely of politics and not of equity under the law. The Court was talking about how impeachment is a matter completely within the realm of politics and thus is not a matter that can be taken before a court.

[Pab Sungenis]

52. Here we go again.

"The Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

In matters of law and fact, yes, but NOT CONSTITUTIONALITY. The restrictive clause in that sentence applies only to THAT sentence, not to the other ones in the Article. The first clause of the first sentence of Article III Section 2 specifically grants the Supreme Court the power to decide Constitutionality.

Here's an example. "You can eat. You can breathe. You can go to the bathroom as I say you can." That little paragraph does not give me the power to tell you how to eat or breathe.

And the fact that you don't recognize Marbury v. Madison (do you even recognize who Madison was?) shows me that you have never studied Civics or U.S. History where the Constitution is concerned. Marbury did NOT usurp power, it confirmed the power of the Court to decide Constitutionality.

Considering that only a decade before Congress had overruled a Supreme Court decision it didn't like with the 11th Amendment (and were in the process of drafting the 12th Amendment so they were in an amending mood) they could have sent an Amendment to the States if they disagreed with the affirmation of the right to decide Constitutionality. They didn't.

Please go read up on it. It's one of the founding decisions upon which 208 years of jurisprudence is based. You can't throw out Marbury without throwing out every decision afterward that declared a State or Federal law unconstitutional. And that includes Roe v. Wade among hundreds of others that safeguard our rights.

[defendandprotect]

69. And the Constitution isn't law or fact ... ??? ROFL

"The Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact,

with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

. . . . . . . . . . . .


The Constitution is as much the business of our Congress and President as it is of the

Supreme Court --

The Supreme Court is there to study the Constitution and to form argument and listen to

argument -- and obviously the elites saw the need for a higher power to apply some brakes

on legislators which is why they invented the Senate vs the House --


The Constitution carries a spirit and intent as all law does -- and it begins on a spiritual

plane --

If your spiritual plane begins in elitism and corporatism you're not going to do much to

improve the general welfare.


Let's put it this way -- if the GOP wants guns and a violent America, the RW Supreme Court

will find a way to give that to them.


All decisions of government are political --

that's why we need elected bodies making those decisions and not authoritarian bodies.











Here's an example. "You can eat. You can breathe. You can go to the bathroom as I say you can." That little paragraph does not give me the power to tell you how to eat or breathe.

And the fact that you don't recognize Marbury v. Madison (do you even recognize who Madison was?) shows me that you have never studied Civics or U.S. History where the Constitution is concerned. Marbury did NOT usurp power, it confirmed the power of the Court to decide Constitutionality.

Considering that only a decade before Congress had overruled a Supreme Court decision it didn't like with the 11th Amendment (and were in the process of drafting the 12th Amendment so they were in an amending mood) they could have sent an Amendment to the States if they disagreed with the affirmation of the right to decide Constitutionality. They didn't.

Please go read up on it. It's one of the founding decisions upon which 208 years of jurisprudence is based. You can't throw out Marbury without throwing out every decision afterward that declared a State or Federal law unconstitutional. And that includes Roe v. Wade among hundreds of others that safeguard our rights.

[Pab Sungenis]

77. Again, you are taking one sentence of Article III and using it out of context.

This has been pointed out to you numerous times. The phrase in question has no bearing on the power of the Court to decide Constitutionality.

And the rights of Citizens most assuredly, as has also been pointed out to you numerous times, do NOT belong in a purely political arena. The Court is there as a guardian of those rights. When you have a reactionary Court like we have under Roberts or they had before the Civil War with the Taney Court, there are ways around it: impeachment or amendment. Ignoring the Court's rulings is not a power given to Congress nor should it be.

[defendandprotect]

85. Are you saying that interpreting law/Constitution isn't political ... ????

:rofl:

Remember that the Bill of Rights was forced into existence because the Constitution

was so inadequate without it --

[Pab Sungenis]

88. Are you being deliberately dense?

Go back and re-read what I posted about the different meanings of the word "political" in these matters.

As used by the Court in the referenced decision, it said that impeachment is solely political and doesn't come under equity, so it's not a matter for the Courts.

Other matters may have political implications but arise from questions of equity.

[defendandprotect]

104. Is there something about ... "All decisions are pollitical" that you don't understand?

And certainly courts made decisions which put Bill Clinton into entrapment --

And certainly RW members of the Congress made sure that happened.


You're posting nonsense -- and you're on ignore --

[Pab Sungenis]

109. I'm not the one posting nonsense here.

You've been the one who is conflating different meanings of the word "political." You've been the one ignoring when we've pointed out your misinterpretation of Article III Section 2 over and over again. And now you're the one running away from the debate.

[sl8]

63. Interesting article on jurisdiction stripping

"Congress, The Constitution, And the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: The Letter and the Spirit of the Exceptions Clause"

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2243&context=wmlr

[maddezmom]

80. I'd take any commentary from Michael with a huge grain of salt...he's an End Timer

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_T._Snyder

[treestar]

92. Jurisdiction stripping clauses bother me though

Congress declares certain decisions of the Executive Branch cannot be reviewed. That just doesn't seem right to me. Then the Executive Branch is dictator-like on such decisions.

[Javaman]

96. This would require the house and senate and the two parties to agree on something...

good luck with that.

[StarsInHerHair]

107. I do think you're onto something here

http://prospect.org/article/overruling-court

..."The Supreme Court often insists that Congress cannot really "overrule"
its decisions on what a law means: The justices' interpretation has to be correct
since the Constitution gives final say to the highest court in the land. But
Congress certainly has the power to pass a new or revised law that "changes" or
"reverses" the meaning or scope of the law as interpreted by the Court, and the
legislative history of the new law usually states that it was intended to
"overrule" a specific Court decision...."

..."In 1982, for example, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to
overrule a narrow Supreme Court holding in Mobile v. Bolden, a 1980 decision
that addressed whether intentional discrimination must be shown before the act
could be invoked. In 1988, Congress overruled another Supreme Court decision (in
the 1984 case Grove City College v. Bell) by passing the Civil Rights
Restoration Act, which broadened the coverage of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. The legislative history of that law specifically recited that "certain
aspects of recent decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court have unduly
narrowed or cast doubt upon" a number of federal civil rights statutes and that
"legislative action is necessary to restore the prior consistent and
long-standing executive branch interpretations" of those laws.
And in 1991, Congress passed a broad, new Civil Rights Act that specifically
reversed no fewer than five Supreme Court cases decided in 1989--decisions that
severely restricted and limited workers' rights under federal antidiscrimination
laws. Led by Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy in the Senate and New York
Republican Hamilton Fish, Jr., in the House, Congress acted to undo those
rulings, as well as make other changes to federal law that strengthened the
weapons available to workers against discrimination. Despite partisan contention
over the language of certain provisions (which led to last-minute-compromise
language), President George Bush the elder supported the changes. The new law
recited in its preamble that its purpose was "to respond to recent decisions of
the Supreme Court by expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in
order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination..."

[Pab Sungenis]

110. Yes, but

in those cases Congress is passing modified versions of the bills in question to clarify issues that caused controversy, or to remove or replace portions deemed unconstitutional.

It's not the same as just ignoring the Court, which is what was being advocated in the OP.