I believe the operative phrase is: The Black Years.
Prez: Supreme Court oveturning a law passed by Congress would be "uprecedented, extraordinary step."
If it had no implied authority to rule a case UNconstitutional, none would have ever been.
While Marbury may be silent about Article 3’s limitation’s, there can be no other interpretation than what Marshall came up with.
True, they have ruled when Congress passes a law, it is “presumed to be constitutional”, therefore if it is argued it is not, theere is a heavy burden of the party so claiming to show it.
Wait, what? There are numerous other interpretations, and one equally plausible interpretation is that constitutional limitations on congressional power are self-effectuating. That’s how it works in numerous parliamentary democracies: the legislatures themselves determine the extent of their own authority.
I happen to think judicial review is a good thing, but it’s not a power granted to the judiciary by the text of the constitution.
This is true, by the EXACT wording, NO. As we both know though, there are many doctrines in jurisprudence not by TEXT in the Bill of Rights or the Original 7.
Proportion. Point out for me where a hundred thousand innocent people are dead because of Obama, and we’ll talk more about two cocks.
You actually want to *keep ***John **from yet another “Tsk, tsk, you both do it, glad I’m above it all” moment? That’s mean.
I’m not a nice person. But then, neither is he, so its all good. If we are busy with each other, much less time available to harass the innocent and harmless.
I’ve been lurking for a long time. Never have I been so dumbfounded by a thread in GD.
The only dumb thing Obama did was overestimate the listening and reading comprehension abilities of the American people. And, most disappointingly, this message board.
If you thought that the President, a man who taught constitutional law at one of the top law schools in the county, honestly believes that courts do not have the power to overturn a law passed by Congress, you are letting your dishonest caricature of the President dictate your judgment. In other words, you are a partisan hack. And I am not even a big fan of the guy.
He was pretty clearly using the same words and talking points that conservatives trot out when judges overturn laws that they like to show they are hypocrites. The context is clear from the next paragraph. He is turning the words of those conservatives on the wrong side of the civil rights movement right back against them. Specifically,* Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka* and Loving v Virginia, where judges overturned laws that were blatantly discriminatory. What did those say who disagreed with those decisions? It sounded a lot like, "This is an
Using peoples’ words against them and baiting them to show their hypocrisy. Sound familiar, Bricker?
You misspelled “liberal hypocrisy”. Left off the first seven letters.
I saw this live. I rolled my eyes and changed the channel. It’s probably Obama’s biggest gaffe.
You know, Bricks has already acknowledged, a few times actually, that all this agita coming out of the Fifth Circuit and elsewhere is much ado about nothing. I don’t think it’s very fair to pin this one on him.
It was meant to be lighthearted and I should have ended it with a :p. I was only pointing out a certain strategy he has been known to partake in. My apologies.
It might help if you actually read what people are saying in this thread.
Nope.
You simply don’t understand what people are saying in this thread. We don’t actually think Obama doesn’t understand constitutional law. And that’s the point–it makes his statements even stupider because he must know they are wrong.
Obama failed to show any hypocrisy. The term “judicial acitivism” is used when the Court itself makes law–e.g., by finding some principle buried in penumbras and what-not and then applying that new principle to overturn a law. Conservatives don’t use the term “judicial activism” to refer to any over-turning of a law.
Also, luci, you are really letting me down. After Una’s post, I expected your signature “come see the liberal hypocrisy! Get it while it’s hot!” You’re slipping, man.
Try to imagine how little I care. Nope, not even close, try again.
If his statement sounds stupid, that is because you are intentionally interpreting it that way. Conservatives, or more precisely, those that were upset with the outcome of civil rights era cases (modern conservatives are their direct descendants), absolutely described the actions of those courts as judicial activism. Someone can prove me wrong, but I would not be surprised if that is when we first heard the term.
You are narrowly defining judicial activism and ignoring history instead of admitting maybe he slipped something past you. Cheer up.
Cite?
Oh. You don’t have one. You are just making stuff up. Gotcha.
And you are making up facts to support an argument.
It has been 75 years since 1937. There has been one case in which an act was held unconstitutional as being too broad an extension of the Commerce Clause – and that one involved the rights of local governments.
And all the strict constructionists coming out of the woodwork in this thread? May I assume you are equally opposed to the existence of the United States Air Force?
That’s not true - there are in fact several. And let’s remember that several states were involved in this litigation against the government - so there are pretty clear parallels with the decisions in Lopez and Morrison.
I know you aren’t addressing me here, but come on, this is too facile. An enumerated power of Congress is raising and supporting armies. This is plural - there is no indication that we are limited to a single Army. And if some of these army forces concentrate on a certain field of warfare and have different uniforms - well, that is pretty much how armies have always run.
Justices basically serve for life if they want. Supreme Court rulings can only be overcome by the difficult process of constitutional amendment or by waiting until enough Justices can be replaced. If they won’t be deferential to the elected branches and are willing to act on partisan reasoning alone then how can the other branches check or balance the Supremes? Take them out back and shoot them?