Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: Supreme Court Supremecy?

  1. #1

    Supreme Court Supremecy?

    If Article III, Sections 1 and 2, as some will argue, grants the Supreme Court to constantly "update" meanings of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights per their personal opinions/interpretations, doesn't that in fact make the Supreme Court an overpowered branch of government?
    "Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Intoxiklown View Post
    If Article III, Sections 1 and 2, as some will argue, grants the Supreme Court to constantly "update" meanings of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights per their personal opinions/interpretations, doesn't that in fact make the Supreme Court an overpowered branch of government?
    Doubly so since they're appointed for life and Congress has failed to ever remove them for gross distortion of the Constitution.
    Last edited by Swordsmyth; 03-30-2018 at 05:33 PM.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #3
    Yes.

    And who gets to decide if Article III really means that? The Supreme Court.

    And the Executive and Legislative branches wouldn't have it any other way.

  5. #4
    No. The Supreme Court is a product of the Constitution, and as such has no power to re-write the Constitution at a whim. They are bound to it, and any ruling they issue that conflicts with it is null and void.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Ryan
    In Washington you can see them everywhere: the Parasites and baby Stalins sucking the life out of a once-great nation.

  6. #5
    What got me pondering on this was people constantly talking of things like the Heller decision, using it as a basis to claim that individual rights to arms is a relatively new thing. As well as trying to use it as a basis for heavy regulation of what firearms the people are protected to possess. I counter with United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) where the Court found that Congress could in fact regulate certain weapons like a sawed off shotgun as it was not a "viable weapon for the battlefield, hence not protected under the 2nd." Even though veterans from WWI who had seen trench warfare disagreed with that premise vehemently.

    That decision, to me, has always reflected what can be found in the supporting documents (Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, ratification documents) that the 2nd protects the militia from being disallowed as well as the individual right to arms in case the militia is needed. Also that the right of the individual to arms is small arms (any weapon afforded to the infantryman).

    Am I wrong? If so, please educate me. If I'm not....please tell me to grit my teeth and go explain the facts of life to the unwashed masses.
    "Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Intoxiklown View Post
    What got me pondering on this was people constantly talking of things like the Heller decision, using it as a basis to claim that individual rights to arms is a relatively new thing. As well as trying to use it as a basis for heavy regulation of what firearms the people are protected to possess. I counter with United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) where the Court found that Congress could in fact regulate certain weapons like a sawed off shotgun as it was not a "viable weapon for the battlefield, hence not protected under the 2nd." Even though veterans from WWI who had seen trench warfare disagreed with that premise vehemently.

    That decision, to me, has always reflected what can be found in the supporting documents (Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, ratification documents) that the 2nd protects the militia from being disallowed as well as the individual right to arms in case the militia is needed. Also that the right of the individual to arms is small arms (any weapon afforded to the infantryman).

    Am I wrong? If so, please educate me. If I'm not....please tell me to grit my teeth and go explain the facts of life to the unwashed masses.
    In the founders day individuals could own artillery and cavalry equipment or even warships, only WMDs should be restricted.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    No. The Supreme Court is a product of the Constitution, and as such has no power to re-write the Constitution at a whim. They are bound to it, and any ruling they issue that conflicts with it is null and void.
    How's that working out for you?

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    How's that working out for you?
    Not too good, since the people don't insist on it like they were warned to do... complacency is our downfall.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Ryan
    In Washington you can see them everywhere: the Parasites and baby Stalins sucking the life out of a once-great nation.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    In the founders day individuals could own artillery and cavalry equipment or even warships, only WMDs should be restricted.
    Yeah. I don't go that route with these anti-gun people simply due to the fact that most people kept their privately owned artillery in armory located in town, which would leave my argument open to a "yeah, but those weapons were locked up and controlled by a town appointed quartermaster" or something.
    "Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Intoxiklown View Post
    Yeah. I don't go that route with these anti-gun people simply due to the fact that most people kept their privately owned artillery in armory located in town, which would leave my argument open to a "yeah, but those weapons were locked up and controlled by a town appointed quartermaster" or something.
    Some people need milk before they are ready for meat.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    No. The Supreme Court is a product of the Constitution, and as such has no power to re-write the Constitution at a whim. They are bound to it, and any ruling they issue that conflicts with it is null and void.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Supporter of judicial activism over constitutional governance?
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Ryan
    In Washington you can see them everywhere: the Parasites and baby Stalins sucking the life out of a once-great nation.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Some people need milk before they are ready for meat.
    Yeppers
    "Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    Supporter of judicial activism over constitutional governance?
    Congress people are overworked as it is and had to drop the ball on multiple occasions. Do you want them to take on more responsibilities?

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Congress people are overworked as it is and had to drop the ball on multiple occasions. Do you want them to take on more responsibilities?
    Would be nice if they kept up the ones they already have, and did so honestly and diligently. Liberty and real justice could be a nice way to live...
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Ryan
    In Washington you can see them everywhere: the Parasites and baby Stalins sucking the life out of a once-great nation.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    Would be nice if they kept up the ones they already have, and did so honestly and diligently. Liberty and real justice could be a nice way to live...
    $#@! you, your liberty and the real justice. You should see what kind of pressure the real owners of this country are putting on us. Most people would snap in an instant.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    Supporter of judicial activism over constitutional governance?
    The Supreme court has already ruled that the Supreme Court has constitutional activism powers,

    and if you disagree with that, maybe you should vote harder in the next election.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    $#@! you, your liberty and the real justice. You should see what kind of pressure the real owners of this country are putting on us. Most people would snap in an instant.
    Most people are blind to the tiny dot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Ryan
    In Washington you can see them everywhere: the Parasites and baby Stalins sucking the life out of a once-great nation.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    Most people are blind to the tiny dot.

    problem is many of those dots perceive. they are a net beneficiary of stealing from the productive one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Ron Paul know some weird people...



    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Intoxiklown View Post
    If Article III, Sections 1 and 2, as some will argue, grants the Supreme Court to constantly "update" meanings of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights per their personal opinions/interpretations, doesn't that in fact make the Supreme Court an overpowered branch of government?
    Some can argue that, but Article III says no such thing.

    Article III ranks last in order of the 3 branches listed in the constitution and has the fewest words written in their article of enumerated powers.

    Many founders expesssed the judiciary as the weakest of the 3 branches.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Intoxiklown View Post
    If Article III, Sections 1 and 2, as some will argue, grants the Supreme Court to constantly "update" meanings of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights per their personal opinions/interpretations, doesn't that in fact make the Supreme Court an overpowered branch of government?
    This is an inherent problem for constitutionalism.

    A constitution does not interpret itself; some person(s) must interpret it, and the power to interpret is in effect the power to amend.

    ...since there is by definition no one to overturn a bad interpretation by the interpreter-of-last-resort.

    It doesn't have to be a court, but then it must be the legislature, or the executive, or some other body - it can't be no one.

  25. #22
    Article III grants the "judicial power" of the United States to the federal courts. Judicial power obviously includes the power to determine the law applicable to a particular case. It follows that in cases involving constitutional issues, the courts must determine how the Constitution applies. Judicial review was clearly contemplated by the Founders:

    Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

    There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

    If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. Federalist 78.
    This doesn't make the Supreme Court the most powerful branch. If the people don't like a SCOTUS decision on a constitutional matter, they can amend the Constitution to override the Court, which has occurred three times (Amendments Nos. 11, 13-15, and 16). Congress can limit SCOTUS's appellate jurisdiction, and it controls the Court's budget. It and the President could increase the number of Justices and appoint ones that would overturn an unpopular decision (this hasn't happened, although FDR tried).
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Article III grants the "judicial power" of the United States to the federal courts. Judicial power obviously includes the power to determine the law applicable to a particular case. It follows that in cases involving constitutional issues, the courts must determine how the Constitution applies. Judicial review was clearly contemplated by the Founders:



    This doesn't make the Supreme Court the most powerful branch. If the people don't like a SCOTUS decision on a constitutional matter, they can amend the Constitution to override the Court, which has occurred three times (Amendments Nos. 11, 13-15, and 16). Congress can limit SCOTUS's appellate jurisdiction, and it controls the Court's budget. It and the President could increase the number of Justices and appoint ones that would overturn an unpopular decision (this hasn't happened, although FDR tried).

    The court applies the law(ie constitution) to the case at hand. But this doesn’t make the court supreme to the document itself. Is that an agreed point by us?

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    The court applies the law(ie constitution) to the case at hand. But this doesn’t make the court supreme to the document itself. Is that an agreed point by us?
    The Constitution is supreme. But some entity has to determine how it applies to a given situation. The same can be said for statutes, regulations, court rules, or common law rules -- how do they apply in a particular case? Whatever body makes these determinations will from time to time be accused of trying to be "supreme" to the constitution, statute, regulation, court rule, or common law rule under consideration if the result is something the accuser doesn't agree with.

    I'm old enough to remember when the Brown v. Board of Education case was handed down in in 1954, after which the Court was accused of violating the Constitution by interfering with a purely local matter (racial segregation in public schools) and "Impeach Earl Warren" signs sprouted up throughout the South (never mind that the decision was unanimous). But as long as there are ways to overturn unpopular SCOTUS decisions the Court won't be in a position to entrench itself as the authority of last resort.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    The Supreme court has already ruled that the Supreme Court has constitutional activism powers,

    and if you disagree with that, maybe you should vote harder in the next election.
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheTexan again."

  30. #26
    There are no problems or issues concerning the constitution, it is working perfectly as designed.

    The anti-federalists warned, but lost, and those who work within the current system are party to its success.
    Last edited by PAF; 12-04-2018 at 07:41 AM.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    There are no problems or issues concerning the constitution, it is working perfectly as designed.

    The anti-federalists warned, but lost, and those who work within the current system are party to its success.
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PAF again."

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    There are no problems or issues concerning the constitution, it is working perfectly as designed.

    The anti-federalists warned, but lost, and those who work within the current system are party to its success.
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PAF again."
    So Rand, Ron, Amash and Massie etc. are villains?

    When you start a revolution to overthrow the current order I might respect you, until then you are just worthless insects criticizing your betters.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    you are just worthless insects criticizing your betters.
    Telling, indeed.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    Telling, indeed.
    It is telling that you dare to attack Rand, Ron, Amash and Massie etc. for working inside the current system without doing anything yourself to bring down the current system, let me know when you launch your revolution.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-13-2017, 02:53 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-29-2015, 12:20 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2012, 06:05 PM
  4. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-28-2012, 07:59 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-04-2010, 10:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •