The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power

[SmarterthanYou]

The Constitution has been changed by both amendment and interpretation and that was not done just by the states. Therefore, the states obviously do not have the sole power to change the document.


In your first statement above you say the states have never used their unilateral power to change constitutional interpretation. Now, you claim they have "done so occasionally."

The states changed nothing in the Constitution when they legalized recreational drugs. They simply exercised their police powers to make that decision for their state. It is still against federal law.

So, that doesn't apply and again proves the states have no power to unilaterally change the Constitution.

What body interpreted the Constitution to provide a right to privacy that applies to contraceptive use, abortion, sodomy?

part of your statement operates on a false premise, that being that just because the government has done it, makes it legal or constitutional. the constitution is the law of the land, yet if we the people do nothing about the government ignoring their constitutional limits, that doesn't make it constitutional. That's just we the people either ignoring the violation or over reach of power, or we the people being powerless to do anything about it.

secondly, the states, or the people respectively, are the sole power to change the document.......legally. that doesn't mean my above statement is any less valid.

the constitution is only as strong as those willing to defend it, however, as long as we have 90% of our population still ignorantly believing that their societal protecters (law enforcement) are benevolent gods, taking action against them for failures or lawlessness is futile bloodshed on both sides.

 

[Flash]

part of your statement operates on a false premise, that being that just because the government has done it, makes it legal or constitutional. the constitution is the law of the land, yet if we the people do nothing about the government ignoring their constitutional limits, that doesn't make it constitutional. That's just we the people either ignoring the violation or over reach of power, or we the people being powerless to do anything about it.

secondly, the states, or the people respectively, are the sole power to change the document.......legally. that doesn't mean my above statement is any less valid.

the constitution is only as strong as those willing to defend it, however, as long as we have 90% of our population still ignorantly believing that their societal protecters (law enforcement) are benevolent gods, taking action against them for failures or lawlessness is futile bloodshed on both sides.

It is not based on a false premise because I never suggested something was legal just because the government did it. However, suggesting it is not constitutional because it does not fit the unorthodox and historically inaccurate view of the Constitution by SmarterthanYou (and Into the Night) fail to make it illegal or unconstitutional.

Debates at the constitutional convention, Federalist Papers, actions while in office by those involved in writing the document are the best evidence we have for understanding the Constitution (plus the words of the Constitution itself). Nowhere are the states given the exclusive power to change the Constitution.

Have you been willing defend the Constitution? How?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Debates at the constitutional convention, Federalist Papers, actions while in office by those involved in writing the document are the best evidence we have for understanding the Constitution (plus the words of the Constitution itself). Nowhere are the states given the exclusive power to change the Constitution.

the constitution has two ways, constitutionally, of being amended. Congress can propose an Amendment and then let the states vote on it, OR, each state can put forth an Amendment and vote on it, letting 3/5ths pass it.

Have you been willing defend the Constitution? How?

I am a Marine...............so, yes. how about you?

 

[Flash]

the constitution has two ways, constitutionally, of being amended. Congress can propose an Amendment and then let the states vote on it, OR, each state can put forth an Amendment and vote on it, letting 3/5ths pass it.

You left out the federal role in the second method of proposing amendments. The Constitution says Congress shall call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments upon the application of 2/3 of the states.

So, the states cannot amend without Congress 1)proposing the amendment; or 2) calling a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing amendments.

You mean 3/4 (not 3/5) are necessary to ratify

 

[In the Night]

part of your statement operates on a false premise, that being that just because the government has done it, makes it legal or constitutional. the constitution is the law of the land, yet if we the people do nothing about the government ignoring their constitutional limits, that doesn't make it constitutional. That's just we the people either ignoring the violation or over reach of power, or we the people being powerless to do anything about it.

secondly, the states, or the people respectively, are the sole power to change the document.......legally. that doesn't mean my above statement is any less valid.

the constitution is only as strong as those willing to defend it, however, as long as we have 90% of our population still ignorantly believing that their societal protecters (law enforcement) are benevolent gods, taking action against them for failures or lawlessness is futile bloodshed on both sides.

Well argued, sir.

 

[In the Night]

It is not based on a false premise because I never suggested something was legal just because the government did it.

Liar. You argued EXACTLY that. You still do.

However, suggesting it is not constitutional because it does not fit the unorthodox and historically inaccurate view of the Constitution by SmarterthanYou (and Into the Night) fail to make it illegal or unconstitutional.

The Constitution is plain. You just deny it.

It does NOT give the supreme court authority over the Constitution. It does NOT give the supreme court authority to usurp this power. It does NOT give the federal government any authority over defining marriage, making any rule on abortions, making any rule on so-called 'illegal drugs', make any rule on so-called 'illegal guns', make any rule restricting air travel (other than from other countries), It DOES give the President executive power or all of his departments and establishes the President as commander in chief, allowing him to send troops into combat. It DOES allow the President to control the borders and to send home illegal immigrants and their children. It does NOT allow Congress to subpoena anyone or to put their noses into the President's private affairs. it does NOT allow anyone to change the Constitution except the States, which own it. They created it. They are the only ones authorized to interpret it. They are the only ones that can change it. They are the only ones that can destroy it.

Debates at the constitutional convention, Federalist Papers, actions while in office by those involved in writing the document are the best evidence we have for understanding the Constitution (plus the words of the Constitution itself). Nowhere are the states given the exclusive power to change the Constitution.

WRONG. Only the States can change the Constitution Only the States own the Constitution.

Have you been willing defend the Constitution? How?

The States are responsible for defending the Constitution. They are the owners of it. They are the ones that created it. They are the ones that can change it. They are the ones that can interpret it. They are the ones that can even destroy it.

 

[In the Night]

the constitution has two ways, constitutionally, of being amended. Congress can propose an Amendment and then let the states vote on it, OR, each state can put forth an Amendment and vote on it, letting 3/5ths pass it.


I am a Marine...............so, yes. how about you?

Correct. Again, well argued, sir. I also thank you for your service to our great nation.
Congress can indeed propose an amendment, but only the States can change the Constitution. In all methods of changing the Constitution, it comes down to only the States can do it. They are, after all, the owners of the Constitution.

 

[In the Night]

You left out the federal role in the second method of proposing amendments.

No, he didn't. Congress cannot change the Constitution at all. They can only propose an amendment at best. Only the States can change the Constitution.

The Constitution says Congress shall call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments upon the application of 2/3 of the states.

If and only if the Constitution is to be retained in some form by the States. The States can also form a convention anyway, forcing Congress to comply, or destroy the Constitution completely (and dissolve the federal government with it).

So, the states cannot amend without Congress 1)proposing the amendment; or 2) calling a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing amendments.

YES THEY CAN.

You mean 3/4 (not 3/5) are necessary to ratify

This part is correct.

 

[Nordberg]

The Supremes interpret the Constitution. Their interpretations are apparently very political and will be more so, as the president wants now. This court was extremely political before Mitch jammed Barrett through. He did it with a purpose. He wanted her in place if they decide the election.
It does not bother the right that Trump is controlling the Supremes.

 

[In the Night]

The Supremes interpret the Constitution.

Nah. The Supremes are a defunct Motown group. The never had the authority to interpret the Constitution. The supreme court doesn't either. See Article III.

Their interpretations are apparently very political and will be more so, as the president wants now.

They do not have authority to interpret the Constitution.

This court was extremely political before Mitch jammed Barrett through.

Mitch didn't jam anything through. Trump picked the nominee, and the Senate voted to confirm Trump's pick. Done. You don't get to override either Trump or the Senate.

He did it with a purpose.

Mitch didn't jam anything. He conducted the vote. The Senate is the one that votes.

He wanted her in place if they decide the election.

Mitch is not the king. He doesn't get to decide by himself. The vote was held, and she was confirmed. Done.

It does not bother the right that Trump is controlling the Supremes.

Nah. The Supremes don't even exist anymore. They were popular in the 50's. Trump isn't controlling the supreme court either. The court acts independently of the President or of the Senate or House. See Article III.

Trump does get to choose the nominee. See Article II. That nominee must be confirmed by the Senate, not Mitch, and it was. See Article I.

 

[Nordberg]

Nah. The Supremes are a defunct Motown group. The never had the authority to interpret the Constitution. The supreme court doesn't either. See Article III.

They do not have authority to interpret the Constitution.

Mitch didn't jam anything through. Trump picked the nominee, and the Senate voted to confirm Trump's pick. Done. You don't get to override either Trump or the Senate.

Mitch didn't jam anything. He conducted the vote. The Senate is the one that votes.

Mitch is not the king. He doesn't get to decide by himself. The vote was held, and she was confirmed. Done.

Nah. The Supremes don't even exist anymore. They were popular in the 50's. Trump isn't controlling the supreme court either. The court acts independently of the President or of the Senate or House. See Article III.

Trump does get to choose the nominee. See Article II. That nominee must be confirmed by the Senate, not Mitch, and it was. See Article I.

Their job is to interpret the constitution. Are you daft? Scalia even thought he could do it better by understanding what the writers intended. I tire of this. You are so wrong again. You stubbornly stick proudly to stupid. Read about originalists and tell us all why the subject was even broached. Read Marbury v Madison. It established judicial review and the power for the Supremes to declare a law unconstitutional.

 

[gemini104104]

Uncorrupted, ethical and U.S. Constitutionally compliant federal courts, in particular, are fully capable of taking on the role that the Putin puppet tRump packed so-called SCOTUS failed to do at being a threat against Democracy, U.S. Constitutional law and the common decency of civilization as a court pack full of looking in the air and taxpayer looting and moral rot repuke guzzlers of high court treason.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Supremes interpret the Constitution. Their interpretations are apparently very political and will be more so, as the president wants now. This court was extremely political before Mitch jammed Barrett through. He did it with a purpose. He wanted her in place if they decide the election.
It does not bother the right that Trump is controlling the Supremes.

only morons of the highest caliber let a government that we the people supposedly limited by a legal document define the limits of that power. congratulations, you moron of the highest caliber

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Their job is to interpret the constitution.

no, it's not

Are you daft?

you must be

Scalia even thought he could do it better by understanding what the writers intended. I tire of this. You are so wrong again. You stubbornly stick proudly to stupid. Read about originalists and tell us all why the subject was even broached. Read Marbury v Madison. It established judicial review and the power for the Supremes to declare a law unconstitutional.

Marbury v. Madison was nothing more than a branch of the federal government usurping a power not given to them. WE THE PEOPLE define our constitution and interpret it's limits on government

 

[In the Night]

Their job is to interpret the constitution. Are you daft?

No, it isn't. To see what their job is, read Article III of the Constitution of the United States. The cannot interpret or change the Constitution.

Scalia even thought he could do it better by understanding what the writers intended.

Irrelevant.

I tire of this. You are so wrong again. You stubbornly stick proudly to stupid.

Insult fallacies. Bulverism fallacy.

Read about originalists and tell us all why the subject was even broached.

Irrelevant. The Constitution is the final reference on the Constitution.

Read Marbury v Madison. It established judicial review and the power for the Supremes to declare a law unconstitutional.

The supreme court does not have authority to change the constitution or to usurp authority it doesn't have.

 

[In the Night]

Uncorrupted, ethical and U.S. Constitutionally compliant federal courts, in particular, are fully capable of taking on the role that the Putin puppet tRump packed so-called SCOTUS failed to do at being a threat against Democracy, U.S. Constitutional law and the common decency of civilization as a court pack full of looking in the air and taxpayer looting and moral rot repuke guzzlers of high court treason.

The United is not a democracy and never was. It is a federated republic. We have constitutions here. Constitutions that you ignore.

 

[gemini104104]

HOW VERY STALINIST OF YOU , COMRADE.

IF YOU CANNOT CONTROL/BLACKMAIL THEM, THEY MUST BE ELIMINATED.


GOOD LUCK AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OVER YOUR SOUR GRAPES...

Considering your shit stain of a un American disgrace, and who do not care of anything of a civilized and a Godly nature but of that of a barbaric nature only, go and do not come back the next to to America. This is when it comes to self deporting to Russian or some other hell bound insurgency on Earth that would do its pestilence duty on your deplorable and mere mortal hides.

 

[Earl]

No, he didn't. Congress cannot change the Constitution at all. They can only propose an amendment at best. Only the States can change the Constitution.

If and only if the Constitution is to be retained in some form by the States. The States can also form a convention anyway, forcing Congress to comply, or destroy the Constitution completely (and dissolve the federal government with it).

YES THEY CAN.

This part is correct.

Indeed.

Your post is Constitutionally accurate.

 

[Earl]

Considering your shit stain of a un American disgrace, and who do not care of anything of a civilized and a Godly nature but of that of a barbaric nature only, go and do not come back the next to to America. This is when it comes to self deporting to Russian or some other hell bound insurgency on Earth that would do its pestilence duty on your deplorable and mere mortal hides.

English isn't your first language, is it?

Do you have a first language?

 

[In the Night]

English isn't your first language, is it?

Do you have a first language?

I call it Liberal. It sort of looks like English, and seems to use the same basic constructs, but the words have no meaning or have shifting meanings, depending on any random moment in time.

A very strange language.