Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. The courts, like Congress, can compel the production of evidence and testimony through the use of a subpoena. The inferior courts are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court — once the Supreme Court interprets a law, inferior courts must apply the Supreme Court's interpretation to the facts of a particular case.
Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. The courts, like Congress, can compel the production of evidence and testimony through the use of a subpoena. The inferior courts are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court — once the Supreme Court interprets a law, inferior courts must apply the Supreme Court's interpretation to the facts of a particular case.
New evidence cannot be introduced to the Supreme Court. Their role is to rule whether the lower court applied the law appropriatly based on the evidence introduced. The Supreme Court does not re-try the case and only take cases where a constitutional issue is raised.
The Supreme court DECIDED they had the right to interprert the law!
And precedent matters significantly in our law. And since they have done it for over 200 years, they'll keep right on doing it.
Anyone who thinks courts shouldn't interpret law should disagree with, civil rights, ending slavery in the manner it was, Brown vs. the board of education, and countless other laws that have been interpreted by the courts.
The Legislative branch writes the law. The Executive branch executes those laws. The Judicial branch interprets those laws, and determines if they are constitutional.
That is the extreme basic view of the American system of government.
New evidence cannot be introduced to the Supreme Court. Their role is to rule whether the lower court applied the law appropriatly based on the evidence introduced. The Supreme Court does not re-try the case and only take cases where a constitutional issue is raised.
The Justices are going to look at this over the issue of the Constitution and whether or not a government can force citizens to buy something they do not want.
Hope to God this gets reversed. The costs of health care is starting to really go up since the Democrats and Obama got this through, and once the employers are forced to give health insurance to employees, there will be instant 20-40% unemployment in this country as companies close down or fire employees to four.
Here is my question : The case is going to be argued over a provision { you have to buy health insurance or be fined} if the SC rules that the provision is unconstitutional will they just strike the provision or rule that the whole bill is unconstitutional ? Is there a lawyer in the house?
The Supreme Court could do either. If they find the whole bill cant stand without that clause, they will throw the whole bill out, if they find it unconstitutional. If they find the bill can stand without that clause, they can enforce the rest of the bill. Final option of course, is they could deem the whole thing legal because its a tax, and the US Govt has the authority to "tax".
The Supreme Court could do either. If they find the whole bill cant stand without that clause, they will throw the whole bill out, if they find it unconstitutional. If they find the bill can stand without that clause, they can enforce the rest of the bill. Final option of course, is they could deem the whole thing legal because its a tax, and the US Govt has the authority to "tax".
The Supreme Court CANNOT rule that it is a "tax" because the Obama regime blatantly said that it was NOT a tax.
FDR lied to the people when the Democrats advertised Social Security as a voluntary entitltement. The bill was challenged immediately in the Supreme Court. FDR was LOSING the case and flipped and declared it a tax. That is the only reason it is constitutional. If Obama flips and calls the healthcare bill a tax he should be impeached for lying to the people.
The Supreme Court CANNOT rule that it is a "tax" because the Obama regime blatantly said that it was NOT a tax.
FDR lied to the people when the Democrats advertised Social Security as a voluntary entitltement. The bill was challenged immediately in the Supreme Court. FDR was LOSING the case and flipped and declared it a tax. That is the only reason it is constitutional. If Obama flips and calls the healthcare bill a tax he should be impeached for lying to the people.
I would call it "fraud", not "lying to the people".
I'm not a lawyer, but it was my understanding that the entire piece of legislation hinges on that one part. From what I understand, if that one part is found to be unconstitutional, the entire thing will be thrown out.
That too was my take on the situation, but maybe i am missing something. Thought the piece of legislation all hinged on that one part, just maybe i am wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks.
