• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump announces intent to end Birthright Citizenship

BobTheCoward said:
Then please point to the supreme court case or part of the constitution that recognizes judicial supremacy.
Click to expand...

I did. Marbury v Madison. That established the precedent for judicial review in 1803. It has been followed EVER SINCE.
 
acbytesla said:
I did. Marbury v Madison. That established the precedent for judicial review in 1803. It has been followed EVER SINCE.
Click to expand...

That isn't supremacy, only review. Of course the Constitution gives them the ability to make judgement on Constitutional questions. Every branch has it.

But a full day is enough. You can do yourself a favor by reading some of the law papers that tackle this question.
 
BobTheCoward said:
No, the court is stating it is unlawful and not the law in courts. As an equal branch of government with an equal oath to the Constitution, the executive branch gets to ask that same question and can reach a different answer. It would be against the oath to do otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, because as Marbury determined and Youngstown demonstrats, once a law or order is struck, it ceases to be a law, everywhere U.S. Law holds sway.

You are incorrect.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is judicial review, not supremacy. We are not disputing that federal courts are there demesne.

As an aside, the president won that one.
Click to expand...

The courts have had the power to decide what is legal and what isn't since 1803 and Marbury v Madison. While that isn't written in the Constitution, that case established the power of the court over interpretation ever since. And ALL the case law for 215 years the court has exercised that power. They have struck down 182 laws passed by Congress most signed by the President. And this was only up to 2006

The list of those laws can be found at the following link.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/acts-of-congress-held-unconstitutional.html

Since then other laws have been struck down by the court including DOMA. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) was a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. Until Section 3 of the Act was struck down in 2013 (United States v. Windsor),

Judicial Review which is the right to rule on the interpretation and legality of any law enacted throughout the United States whether they are municipal, county, State or Federal. It has been the cornerstone of American jurisprudence.

If this doesn't satisfy you bob....I don't care.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
The courts have had the power to decide what is legal and what isn't since 1803 and Marbury v Madison. While that isn't written in the Constitution, that case established the power of the court over interpretation ever since. And ALL the case law for 215 years the court has exercised that power. They have struck down 182 laws passed by Congress most signed by the President. And this was only up to 2006

The list of those laws can be found at the following link.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/acts-of-congress-held-unconstitutional.html

Since then other laws have been struck down by the court including DOMA. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) was a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. Until Section 3 of the Act was struck down in 2013 (United States v. Windsor),

Judicial Review which is the right to rule on the interpretation and legality of any law enacted throughout the United States whether they are municipal, county, State or Federal. It has been the cornerstone of American jurisprudence.

If this doesn't satisfy you bob....I don't care.
Click to expand...

We are not disputing judicial review. I love judicial review and am a huge proponent of it.
 
LSSBB said:
No, because as Marbury determined and Youngstown demonstrats, once a law or order is struck, it ceases to be a law, everywhere U.S. Law holds sway.

You are incorrect.
Click to expand...

It doesn't actually restrain the executive branch from enforcing it.
 
I understand not supporting departmentalism, but it feels like the first time anyone has heard of it....


...it isn't a non existent legal principle. It is a legal principle that you would hate and have derision for it's advocates. But it isnt non existent.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
It takes away the legal authority. No one has to carry out the order.

I can see this is going nowhere.
Click to expand...

It has massive legal authority. Prosecutors don't want to spend their time bringing charges that will be immediately dropped.

Executive officers would have to carry it out or be fired.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
I understand not supporting departmentalise, but it feels like the first time anyone has heard of it....


...it isn't a non existent legal principle. It is a legal principle that you would hate and have derision for it's advocates. But it isnt non existent.
Click to expand...

You're arguing yourself in circles after insisting that the supremacy of the SC over the other two branches isn't codified anywhere, which is true. As far as I can tell, "judicial supremacy" only exists in the minds of those who fear it's a belief held by those who want the SC "legislating from the bench" to enact liberal policies. But it's a "non-existent legal principle" regardless of who thinks it ought to be one.
 
You know what I think of when I hear, "what part of illegal don't you understand?"

Dicamba

I just think of all the illegal spraying of dicamba going on by Trump supporters and those precious, precious farmers. Enforcement for legality's sake is hypocritical. No one is inspector javert.
 
BobTheCoward said:
We are not disputing judicial review. I love judicial review and am a huge proponent of it.
Click to expand...

You dont seem to get it. By acceding the power to the courts for 215 years you ve established precedence. Now in theory, a President could ignore the court which would set a whole other precedent. Then the ball is in Congress' and the people's hands as the right to govern is given by the people in the end.

If Trump chose to ignore SCOTUS, it would set off a Constitutional crises which we haven't seen in a 150 years minimum if at all.
 
WilliamSeger said:
You're arguing yourself in circles after insisting that the supremacy of the SC over the other two branches isn't codified anywhere, which is true. As far as I can tell, "judicial supremacy" only exists in the minds of those who fear it's a belief held by those who want the SC "legislating from the bench" to enact liberal policies. But it's a "non-existent legal principle" regardless of who thinks it ought to be one.
Click to expand...

That isn't my experience. Here is an example of a pro supremacy piece using that term

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58ae7237e4b0d0d07e7c678e
 
acbytesla said:
You dont seem to get it. By acceding the power to the courts for 215 years you ve established precedence. Now in theory, a President could ignore the court which would set a whole other precedent. Then the ball is in Congress' and the people's hands as the right to govern is given by the people in the end.

If Trump chose to ignore SCOTUS, it would set off a Constitutional crises which we haven't seen in a 150 years minimum if at all.
Click to expand...

You have a low bar for crisis. It would be a muddle.

ETA: the Constitution seems extremely clear on.how the system could muddle along for years under that situation.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
You have a low bar for crisis. It would be a muddle.

ETA: the Constitution seems extremely clear on.how the system could muddle along for years under that situation.
Click to expand...

No, it would be a crisis. You just decided the courts don't matter. Also, btw, Constitutionally speaking POTUS has NO AUTHORITY to legislate anything.

That power is reserved to Congress.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That isn't my experience. Here is an example of a pro supremacy piece using that term

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58ae7237e4b0d0d07e7c678e
Click to expand...

I have no idea who that is, but he's calling it "judicial supremacy" and then makes it clear that he's just talking about Marbury v Madison. He can say that makes them "supreme" over the other branches because it can "invalidate" their actions, but if that's all they can do, that's hardly supremacy. And if you want to call that "judicial supremacy" anyway, then you've pointlessly wasted a lot of bandwidth, haven't you.
 
acbytesla said:
No, it would be a crisis. You just decided the courts don't matter. Also, btw, Constitutionally speaking POTUS has NO AUTHORITY to legislate anything.

That power is reserved to Congress.
Click to expand...

The courts don't matter? What are you taking about? In the scenario the courts matter a lot.
 
WilliamSeger said:
I have no idea who that is, but he's calling it "judicial supremacy" and then makes it clear that he's just talking about Marbury v Madison. He can say that makes them "supreme" over the other branches because it can "invalidate" their actions, but if that's all they can do, that's hardly supremacy. And if you want to call that "judicial supremacy" anyway, then you've pointlessly wasted a lot of bandwidth, haven't you.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying this person was credible or knowledgeable, but only that they they favored it and used the term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom