Why Judicial Supremacy is a myth

[dude58677]

Simply because Congress can refuse appropiation funds for the court to exist. Without a Supreme Court it is up to everyone else to interpret the Constitution whether it is Congress, the President, the State and local legistature, state and local judiciary, mayors, governernors, state and local police, and the American people through jury nullification.

I'm not saying that the Supreme Court will be eliminated but hypothetically because it can be eliminated by lack of appropiations it isn't the final word of the Constitution.

[Danke]

Where does this so-called "Judicial Supremacy" come from and what exactly is it supposed to mean?

If congress doesn't fund something, does it no longer exist?

[James Madison]

I agree. The biggest problem with the Supreme Court is the lack of a check. Essentially, the Court could rule just about whatever it wanted and it would become law. So basically, the nine judges of the SC are the sole interpreters of the Constitution. Just look at rulings like Roe v Wade-totally unconstitional. Article 3, Section 2 implies that the Court has no place to rule on issues that should be left to the states.

[dude58677]

Where does this so-called "Judicial Supremacy" come from and what exactly is it supposed to mean?

If congress doesn't fund something, does it no longer exist?


Law schools and the Supreme Court have derived this myth about judical supremacy and the myth comes from the Marbury vs Madison decision. The Supreme Court claimed this power in the case called "Cooper vs Aaron".

Yes, if a program is not funded it no longer exists. Appropiation bills have to be passed on a deadline. Bills useally do not get passed on time and Congress uses wat is called a "continuing resolution" but hypothetically Congress doesn't have to do this and it could if it wanted to not pass the appropiations bill and the department, agency, or even the Supreme Court would also shut down regardless of past rulings.

As for the 1995 government shut-down on why it wasn't permanent? Because the Republicans along with Newt Gingrinch chose to compromise on their principles by compromising on a spending bill with Bill Clinton.

[dude58677]

I agree. The biggest problem with the Supreme Court is the lack of a check. Essentially, the Court could rule just about whatever it wanted and it would become law. So basically, the nine judges of the SC are the sole interpreters of the Constitution. Just look at rulings like Roe v Wade-totally unconstitional. Article 3, Section 2 implies that the Court has no place to rule on issues that should be left to the states.

The check on the Supreme Court is simply to understand that it is not the sole interpreter of the Constitution regardless of what happens in practice.
Once you know it isn't then you as a juror can nullify laws.

[Danke]

Law schools and the Supreme Court have derived this myth about judical supremacy and the myth comes from the Marbury vs Madison decision. The Supreme Court claimed this power in the case called "Cooper vs Aaron".

Yes, if a program is not funded it no longer exists.

I'll look up those cases.

I'm not sure why funding has to come from just Congress. I'm sure "We the People" can keep an important part of the Constitution if we have the desire.

[dude58677]

I'll look up those cases.

I'm not sure why funding has to come from just Congress. I'm sure "We the People" can keep an important part of the Constitution if we have the desire.

Look up article 1 section 9 of the Constitution, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. "

We the People can fund the Supreme Court by hypothetically, no one needs to. If the people and Congress chose to not fund the Supreme Court it wouldn't exist. If you don't like the Supreme Court not existing esp if you are a justice or a federal judge, you can't sue the Congress and take it to the Supreme Court because there is no Supreme Court thus the Supreme Court doesn't have absolute power over the Constitution.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Simply because Congress can refuse appropiation funds for the court to exist. Without a Supreme Court it is up to everyone else to interpret the Constitution whether it is Congress, the President, the State and local legistature, state and local judiciary, mayors, governernors, state and local police, and the American people through jury nullification.

I'm not saying that the Supreme Court will be eliminated but hypothetically because it can be eliminated by lack of appropiations it isn't the final word of the Constitution.

The *2 party system started off as the entity which judged the constitutionality of law because the Supreme Court didn't start off with the function of judging the constitutionality of law. The court began with the idea that they needed to do something in order to exert power so it issued "writs of mandimus" instead.
While it determines the constitutionality of law today, it doesn't have to. For example, the court could determine in the future that it should only determine the constitutionality of law in regards to civil matters thus leaving all legal business for the lower 50 states.
As Congress could cut off funds to the Supreme Court, the position of a justice could then become a voluntary position. As there are 9 justices today, there could be 10,000 if the president and congress agreed on the number.
The lower 50 states don't need to obey the supreme court either. If a ruling is made that the majority of the states disagree with, then the court will simply lose its integrity. This could leave the high court powerless for many years.

*The Federalists became a political party with the intention of ammending the Constitution. The Democratic Republicans feared that the Federalists had the intentions of scrapping it instead. So, when a party won the presidency, it allowed them to enforce their interpretion of the Constitution.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I agree. The biggest problem with the Supreme Court is the lack of a check. Essentially, the Court could rule just about whatever it wanted and it would become law. So basically, the nine judges of the SC are the sole interpreters of the Constitution. Just look at rulings like Roe v Wade-totally unconstitional. Article 3, Section 2 implies that the Court has no place to rule on issues that should be left to the states.

Abraham Lincoln was checking the Supreme Court by threatening to increase the numbers of its justices. The states don't have to obey the Supreme Court because its function is no longer proactive as it once was when it issued writs of mandimus. So, the high court has to be concerned with its integrity.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Law schools and the Supreme Court have derived this myth about judical supremacy and the myth comes from the Marbury vs Madison decision. The Supreme Court claimed this power in the case called "Cooper vs Aaron".

Yes, if a program is not funded it no longer exists. Appropiation bills have to be passed on a deadline. Bills useally do not get passed on time and Congress uses wat is called a "continuing resolution" but hypothetically Congress doesn't have to do this and it could if it wanted to not pass the appropiations bill and the department, agency, or even the Supreme Court would also shut down regardless of past rulings.

As for the 1995 government shut-down on why it wasn't permanent? Because the Republicans along with Newt Gingrinch chose to compromise on their principles by compromising on a spending bill with Bill Clinton.

The Supreme Court could charge court costs to remain operational. It would still be the Supreme Court afterall.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The check on the Supreme Court is simply to understand that it is not the sole interpreter of the Constitution regardless of what happens in practice.
Once you know it isn't then you as a juror can nullify laws.

The Supreme Court has become the sole interpreter of the constitutionality of laws regarding the United States. While the powers of the Legislature could create laws for a new nation, the Administration could use the corrupt power of tyranny to abolish the Legislature and its Constitution altogether as Santa Anna did in Mexico.
While the Supreme Court has become the sole interpreter of the Constitution, this doesn't mean that it has to remain that way. It could downsize itself even more by limiting its authority to judging only civil matters. This action would hold the lone civil precedent of the people over the importance of legal precedents of the government and its special interests. The Supreme Court could also declare itself unconstitutional in the way it charges the people money. This would place the responsibility of funding directly on Congress.

[James Madison]

Abraham Lincoln was checking the Supreme Court by threatening to increase the numbers of its justices. The states don't have to obey the Supreme Court because its function is no longer proactive as it once was when it issued writs of mandimus. So, the high court has to be concerned with its integrity.

Didn't the SC tell Lincoln to reinstate Habeus Corpus and he pretty much ignored them. Anyways, I don't the prez has the authority to increase the number of justices; just the authority to nominate. And I'll agree that the court no longer serves its purpose but I'd love to find a state with the balls to defy the SC and get away with it.

[dude58677]

The Supreme Court could charge court costs to remain operational. It would still be the Supreme Court afterall.

With no appropiation funds, the people don't even have to bring their case to the court so the court could still hypothetically not exist.

Giving this the benefit of the doubt, the fee's presently would never cover the cost the of the court. The fee's are $300 with 8,000 filed every year with the vast majority being rejected. The total is 2.4 million, divide this by the nine justices, the building, the clerks, office equipment, etc and there clearly wouldn't be enough for the court to exist.

Again hypothetically, Congress doesn't have to appropiate funds and no one has to bring their case to the court system for it to be operational so it it possible for it not to exist.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Didn't the SC tell Lincoln to reinstate Habeus Corpus and he pretty much ignored them. Anyways, I don't the prez has the authority to increase the number of justices; just the authority to nominate. And I'll agree that the court no longer serves its purpose but I'd love to find a state with the balls to defy the SC and get away with it.

Yes. The Supreme Court can be ignored. Writs of mandimus were thought to be necessary for the Supreme Court to exert its powers when the opposite was true. Eventually the Supreme Court found its authority by finding that it would have been unconstitutional for it to have ruled over a particular case. The rest is history.
Right. The President and Congress together can increase the number of Supreme Court justices.
The Supreme Court has no purpose other than maintaining a nation of the people. If an altering of the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court itself would better serve the people against the necessary tyranny ruling over them, it should do so.
But the states control the integrity of the Supreme Court by their freedom not to obey it. If the Supreme Court passed a judgement which the majority of the states ignored, this could leave the high court powerless for many years.
Or, think of it another way. The 2 party system started off filling in the role that the Supreme Court would later play. If the high court were to pass absurd rulings, such indignified actions by it could cause the interpretation of the Constitution to moved elsewhere in the government.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

With no appropiation funds, the people don't even have to bring their case to the court so the court could still hypothetically not exist.

Giving this the benefit of the doubt, the fee's presently would never cover the cost the of the court. The fee's are $300 with 8,000 filed every year with the vast majority being rejected. The total is 2.4 million, divide this by the nine justices, the building, the clerks, office equipment, etc and there clearly wouldn't be enough for the court to exist.

Again hypothetically, Congress doesn't have to appropiate funds and no one has to bring their case to the court system for it to be operational so it it possible for it not to exist.

Even with appropriation funds, the people wouldn't necessarily have to bring the case to the Supreme Court if they win in a lower court.

The individual states, special interests and businesses could be charged to bring a civil matter against "the people." We aren't a government of individual states, special interests or businesses after all but a government of the people.

Having the Legislature mess with the Supreme Court could have it messing right back. Like having the Supreme Court declare the spending of Congress unconstitutional in regards to the 16th ammendment because it isn't "national debt" but legal counterfeit. The Supreme Court can rule any way it desires if such is in the best interests of The People.

[dude58677]

Even with appropriation funds, the people wouldn't necessarily have to bring the case to the Supreme Court if they win in a lower court.

The individual states, special interests and businesses could be charged to bring a civil matter against "the people." We aren't a government of individual states, special interests or businesses after all but a government of the people.

Having the Legislature mess with the Supreme Court could have it messing right back. Like having the Supreme Court declare the spending of Congress unconstitutional in regards to the 16th ammendment because it isn't "national debt" but legal counterfeit. The Supreme Court can rule any way it desires if such is in the best interests of The People.

Congress doesn't have to create lower courts under Articel 1, section 8 nor does it have to fund the Supreme Court and people do not have to bring a case to that court if it wanted to be funded by court fee's. It can rule anyway it wants to but it doesn't have to exist under the Constitution as Congresses check against it is not to fund it. No one has to bring a case to the Supreme Court and the lower courts nor does Congress also have to create lower courts or fund the Supreme Court, so the judicial system isn't required to exist under the Constitution and thus it isn't the final word on the Constitution.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Congress doesn't have to create lower courts under Articel 1, section 8 nor does it have to fund the Supreme Court and people do not have to bring a case to that court if it wanted to be funded by court fee's. It can rule anyway it wants to but it doesn't have to exist under the Constitution as Congresses check against it is not to fund it. No one has to bring a case to the Supreme Court and the lower courts nor does Congress also have to create lower courts or fund the Supreme Court, so the judicial system isn't required to exist under the Constitution and thus it isn't the final word on the Constitution.

Yes, the corrupt powers of tyranny could rise up to overcome the greater powers of the self evident and inalienable truths. Our founding fathers seperated us from the tyranny of the king of England because they argued he wasn't sitting with us at the same dinner table. Evidence that the king was not ruling intimately as our king but as a far away tyrant was his ignorance of the people's thirst for liberty.

So, the idea of the 3 branches of the government wasn't to reestablish a power of tyranny but to establish a power of The People. This greater power is expressed in self evident and inalienable truths. Any attempt to alter our 3 branch government should be held in contempt as an attempt to overthrow the greater power of the self evident and inalienable truths with that of a lessor power of tyranny.

[familydog]

Simply because Congress can refuse appropiation funds for the court to exist. Without a Supreme Court it is up to everyone else to interpret the Constitution whether it is Congress, the President, the State and local legistature, state and local judiciary, mayors, governernors, state and local police, and the American people through jury nullification.

I'm not saying that the Supreme Court will be eliminated but hypothetically because it can be eliminated by lack of appropiations it isn't the final word of the Constitution.

I take it that you approve of the unitary executive theory then?

[Christianalwaysg124RP]

Well, if you read what Andrew Jackson said about the judical system, you can see how important it is. The problem is, the present judical system isn't doing it's limited function.(as all of our many functions are limited) It is getting too much power and is becoming a short term function. The Judical Branch is to be a long term function of our government and is to be checked just as other forms of government are to be checked.(as the judical branch is to have checks and balances on the other functions)

[dude58677]

I take it that you approve of the unitary executive theory then?

No, I said the State and local legislature, state and local police, state and local judges, juries, Congress, President with the power of pardon, and the "people" under the tenth amdendment would interpret the Constitution.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Well, if you read what Andrew Jackson said about the judical system, you can see how important it is. The problem is, the present judical system isn't doing it's limited function.(as all of our many functions are limited) It is getting too much power and is becoming a short term function. The Judical Branch is to be a long term function of our government and is to be checked just as other forms of government are to be checked.(as the judical branch is to have checks and balances on the other functions)

Okay. But as a citizen I view authority as it is supposed to be ideally expressed with every American sitting at the same dinner table. Where people go wrong in their conceptions of a positive government is in their assumption that our American table should be peaceful. To the contrary, it was the primitive caste systems of the divided master and slave classes that were peaceful.
So, it would seem to me that we should differentiate legal violence from civil volatility. While policing against illegal violence will help keep us all sitting at the same dinner table, policing against civil volatility will help divide us.
This is why our society should provide legal and civil police officers.
Or, think of it in a different way, we are still citizens when we enter into the courtrooms to be processed by the legal system while we exit out of the courtroom as clients to become the kinds of winning masters and losing slaves who once existed in the primitive caste system.
So, while sometimes the court should be used as a necessary evil, it would be in the best interests of the people to avoid the legal system altogether.

[dude58677]

Another reason a Supreme Court does not need to exist is because there is no requirement in the Constitution that a Justice even has to be appointed.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Another reason a Supreme Court does not need to exist is because there is no requirement in the Constitution that a Justice even has to be appointed.

To do away with the 3 branches of government doesn't change our government but it creates a new one. Just what is your agenda here?

[familydog]

No, I said the State and local legislature, state and local police, state and local judges, juries, Congress, President with the power of pardon, and the "people" under the tenth amdendment would interpret the Constitution.

So everybody but the President is allowed to interpret the Constitution. Makes sense :rolleyes:

[dude58677]

So everybody but the President is allowed to interpret the Constitution. Makes sense :rolleyes:

I said the President can interpret but pardoning is ONE of the ways of doing it. The President can veto an unconstitutional bill or appropiations for any unconstitutional government program, refuse to appoint officials for any unconstitutional programand, and he can issue executive orders to lay off federal employees.

[dude58677]

To do away with the 3 branches of government doesn't change our government but it creates a new one. Just what is your agenda here?

How does it create a new government? There would just be two active branches and not three.

The point is that the Supreme Court is NOT teh sole interpreter of the Constitution for the reasons I said and that everyone else in both Federal, State, and local government(legislatures, courts, local police) as well as juries can interpret the Constitution through jury nullification(aquitting a criminal defendent for a drug crime) given that the Supreme Court isn't the only one as claimed by law schools.

Because local police being able to interpret the Constitution, then they can hold Supreme Court justices accountable for perjury given that they took an oath to defend the Constitution. Hypothetically that is.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

How does it create a new government? There would just be two active branches and not three.

The point is that the Supreme Court is NOT teh sole interpreter of the Constitution for the reasons I said and that everyone else in both Federal, State, and local government(legislatures, courts, local police) as well as juries can interpret the Constitution through jury nullification(aquitting a criminal defendent for a drug crime) given that the Supreme Court isn't the only one as claimed by law schools.

Because local police being able to interpret the Constitution, then they can hold Supreme Court justices accountable for perjury given that they took an oath to defend the Constitution. Hypothetically that is.

The Supreme Court didn't start off as the sole interpreter of the Constitution. That is why the 2 party system was created while the Supreme Court in its infancy felt that it needed to write writs of mandimus in order to exert its power.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m079.htm
The Supreme Court today exercizes its power not by issuing writs of mandimus but by declaring whether a law is constitutional or not.
The subtle fact is that the Supreme Court is the highest court in regards to interpreting the Constitution of the United States of America while the Legislature is the highest court in that it can abolish the Constitution and create another nation other than the present United States of America.

[dude58677]

The Supreme Court didn't start off as the sole interpreter of the Constitution. That is why the 2 party system was created while the Supreme Court in its infancy felt that it needed to write writs of mandimus in order to exert its power.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m079.htm
The Supreme Court today exercizes its power not by issuing writs of mandimus but by declaring whether a law is constitutional or not.
The subtle fact is that the Supreme Court is the highest court in regards to interpreting the Constitution of the United States of America while the Legislature is the highest court in that it can abolish the Constitution and create another nation other than the present United States of America.

Sigh..You keep missing my point. Given that the Supreme Court doesn't legally have to exist it CANNOT be the final interpeter of the Constitution. Congresses check against a corrupt supreme court by not appropiating funds for the court, the Presidents check is not to appoint justices to the supreme court. By not funding the court and by not appointing members this is a way of telling the supreme court "you're fired". Maybe the Congress doesn't think that Roe v Wade is constitutional so it abolishes the court by not funding it. Or maybe someone is on trial in a state court for a federal drug crime and the jury aquits the defendent because the drug war is unconstitutional. What is hard to understand about this?


PS, Ron Paul doesn't think that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution. http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=377

[familydog]

I said the President can interpret but pardoning is ONE of the ways of doing it. The President can veto an unconstitutional bill or appropiations for any unconstitutional government program, refuse to appoint officials for any unconstitutional programand, and he can issue executive orders to lay off federal employees.

But why put such limits on the President, but not on everyone else you mentioned? You said you don't approve of the unitary executive, but that theory states that the President should be allowed to interpret the Constitution as much as the Supreme Court and Congress. Thus we have Bush and his signing statements.

[dude58677]

But why put such limits on the President, but not on everyone else you mentioned? You said you don't approve of the unitary executive, but that theory states that the President should be allowed to interpret the Constitution as much as the Supreme Court and Congress. Thus we have Bush and his signing statements.



All three federal branches check on each other and check on the states. The states check on all three branches. They check on each other using their unique powers to interpret and enforce Constitution and this is what preserves freedom.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Sigh..You keep missing my point. Given that the Supreme Court doesn't legally have to exist it CANNOT be the final interpeter of the Constitution. Congresses check against a corrupt supreme court by not appropiating funds for the court, the Presidents check is not to appoint justices to the supreme court. By not funding the court and by not appointing members this is a way of telling the supreme court "you're fired". Maybe the Congress doesn't think that Roe v Wade is constitutional so it abolishes the court by not funding it. Or maybe someone is on trial in a state court for a federal drug crime and the jury aquits the defendent because the drug war is unconstitutional. What is hard to understand about this?


PS, Ron Paul doesn't think that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution. http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=377


With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Without a social agenda, we couldn't force ourselves as Americans to ideally sit together at the same dinner table. Our founding fathers argued that the king was not ruling intimately at the same table with us but as a tyrant from a distant and seperate table.
In order to seperate ourselves from this tyranny, our founding fathers established the self evident and inalienable truths. The sovereign power of these truths superceded the corrupt power of the king's tyranny. This allowed the people to establish a new nation with a new sovereign authority, a new dinner table and a new king.
Our founding fathers had a social agenda to create a positive government. The idea of a positive government began with the Greeks who considered the possibility that government could improve the "good life" or the overall happiness of its citizens.
The alternative to a positive government is the tyranny of a primitive caste system that established a master class and a slave class. An example of this type of government is the nation of Mexico where its people work themselves to death without any hope of improving their lives. The people of Mexico have to sit at a different table from its ruling aristocracy. While the people in the United States establish a border between themselves and Mexico to protect their positive government from the primitive Mexican one, the ruling aristocracy in Mexico has established a border to protect their corrupt government from the influences of our positive one.
A book could be written describing our founding father's social agenda.

[familydog]

All three federal branches check on each other and check on the states. The states check on all three branches. They check on each other using their unique powers to interpret and enforce Constitution and this is what preserves freedom.

So now you support the Supreme Court as a check? The only way they can is with judicial review, which you seem to be against. I'm just trying to figure out what on earth your position is.

[dude58677]

So now you support the Supreme Court as a check? The only way they can is with judicial review, which you seem to be against. I'm just trying to figure out what on earth your position is.

Judicial review only means that someone can bring a case to the court against someone and they rule on it but it only effect the parties who brought the case to court and NOT the entire country as does judical supremacy.


The Supreme Court has to rule in favor of the Constitution as justices swore to uphold the Constitution and if they do not the other branches and the State have numerous ways to hold them accountable for perjury(failing to abide by their oath to rule in favor of the Constitution) one of the ways is for Congress to fire them by not funding them or the President refusing to appoint them.

There is Constitutional remedy if the Supreme court makes bad decisions.

[dude58677]

Here is a link that talks about the myth of judical supremacy and makes a clear disticntion between judical review and judicial supremacy:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1301448/posts