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.
But it doesn't have the authority to throw out federal court decisions. That is something that the GOP candidates other than Romney and Huntsman would like to change.
Nothing in your link says they want to throw out federal court decisions. Congress though very CLEARLY write the laws that the courts USE when coming to a decision. By limiting the LAWS and making Congress smaller, they by design, decrease federal courts oversight, not throwing their rulings out
Nothing in your link says they want to throw out federal court decisions. Congress though very CLEARLY write the laws that the courts USE when coming to a decision. By limiting the LAWS and making Congress smaller, they by design, decrease federal courts oversight, not throwing their rulings out
From the article:
"Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, for example, wants term limits for Supreme Court justices. He’s also discussed allowing Congress to override Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds vote."
As far as the other candidates, they don't want to "throw out" federal court decisions, you're right. I shouldn't have suggested that was the case. But what they do want to do is simply stop the federal courts from hearing cases in the first place:
"Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania want to dissolve the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, calling it a “rogue” court that is “consistently radical.” (It’s unclear what would happen next, as the western third of the nation would be without a federal appeals court.)
Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas want Congress to remove certain types of cases from the Supreme Court’s reach, such as those concerning same-sex marriage."
Ron Paul has suggested, possibly even sponsored, legislation before to strip the federal courts from jurisidction over abortion cases.
"Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, for example, wants term limits for Supreme Court justices. He’s also discussed allowing Congress to override Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds vote."
They already "overrule" decisions by a two-third vote, they simply re-write the law in question.
For example, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1850's that slavery in america was legal. In this example we passed the Constitutional amendment which overturned their decision, but Congress was also writing laws into the 1860's which "overrode" the Supreme Courts decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
As far as the other candidates, they don't want to "throw out" federal court decisions, you're right. I shouldn't have suggested that was the case. But what they do want to do is simply stop the federal courts from hearing cases in the first place:
"Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania want to dissolve the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, calling it a “rogue” court that is “consistently radical.” (It’s unclear what would happen next, as the western third of the nation would be without a federal appeals court.)
That doesnt stop them from hearing cases, it just consolidates the courts..
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas want Congress to remove certain types of cases from the Supreme Court’s reach, such as those concerning same-sex marriage."
They believe these are state issues, but that doesnt remove them from the courts either. There are LOTS of levels to our court systems in america.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Ron Paul has suggested, possibly even sponsored, legislation before to strip the federal courts from jurisidction over abortion cases.
Here is the article again for reference -
Again, they believe these are state issues, but this believe doesnt throw out court decisions nor create theocracy societies. It just puts them into state courts rather than federal.
Even Thomas Jefferson had the opinion that courts didnt have the final say, so the question I must ask is why so many Democrats dont seem to know how our government operates?
Thomas Jefferson ''To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.'
Even the Supreme Court says Congress can over rule the Supreme Court. Judge Joseph Story, Supreme Court 1811 ''If the judicial department alone should attempt any usurpation of the Constitution, Congress, in its legislative capacity, has full power to abrogate the injurious effects of such a decision
To quote a 1998 Congressional hearing As Lewis Fisher of CRS has noted, Congress has acted at other times in disregard for judicial supremacy. Child labor laws in the early part of this century, women's rights to practice before the Supreme Court, and, most recently, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, all were passed despite the contrary opinion of the Supreme Court.
You guys all claim to be adults, old enough to be posting here, so I have to ask.. Why are so many americans (usually Democrats) uninformed about how our government operates?
They already "overrule" decisions by a two-third vote, they simply re-write the law in question.
For example, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1850's that slavery in america was legal. In this example we passed the Constitutional amendment which overturned their decision, but Congress was also writing laws into the 1860's which "overrode" the Supreme Courts decision.
They can't just "re-write" a law that has been ruled unconstitutional. Now they can write a Constitutional Amendment, sure, but that also requires approval by two-thirds of state legislatures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
They believe these are state issues, but that doesnt remove them from the courts either. There are LOTS of levels to our court systems in america.
No kidding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Again, they believe these are state issues, but this believe doesnt throw out court decisions nor create theocracy societies. It just puts them into state courts rather than federal.
And most people feel that the federal courts, rather than state courts, should have ultimate authority over potential violations of the US Constitution.
Even Thomas Jefferson had the opinion that courts didnt have the final say, so the question I must ask is why so many Democrats dont seem to know how our government operates?
Thomas Jefferson ''To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.'
I'm not a Democrat.
And I'm aware of how the government operates. I wouldn't be the one to suggest that others are so unaware when I tried to argue that Congress can simply "re-write" a law that was ruled unconstitutional, unless you mean that they can re-write it so that it IS constitutional. But that would of course involve complying with what the court said.
They can't just "re-write" a law that has been ruled unconstitutional.
Thats exactly what I said
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Um, Congress does have the authority to write laws which "overrule" federal courts, as long as they arent unconstitutional.
But unconstitutionality isnt the only reason for re-writing of laws. Judges rule on laws all the time not as they were intended, which require them to be re-written if the courts interprete the written law different then Congress intended. Often times, technology changes require re-writing of laws..
For example, child pornography laws existed, courts ruled on them, Congress had to go back and re-write the laws so things like digital imaging was also illegal.
Child labor laws were re-written to allow children to work in their family owned businesses as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
No kidding.
So whats your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
And most people feel that the federal courts, rather than state courts, should have ultimate authority over potential violations of the US Constitution.
And I'm aware of how the government operates. I wouldn't be the one to suggest that others are so unaware when I tried to argue that Congress can simply "re-write" a law that was ruled unconstitutional,
I did no such thing
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Um, Congress does have the authority to write laws which "overrule" federal courts, as long as they arent unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
unless you mean that they can re-write it so that it IS constitutional. But that would of course involve complying with what the court said.
Really? Care to quote where the courts say that because Judges and history have said otherwise..
Even the Supreme Court says Congress can over rule the Supreme Court. Judge Joseph Story, Supreme Court 1811 ''If the judicial department alone should attempt any usurpation of the Constitution, Congress, in its legislative capacity, has full power to abrogate the injurious effects of such a decision
AGAIN, the Supreme Court ruled that slavery was CONSITUTIONAL.. Congress re WROTE the laws to make it ILLEGAL to own slaves.
If the Congress ever decides to change the laws to make marijuana legal, this would allow everyone in our jails for marijuana use a chance for freedom and over rule the judges orders created when it was illegal.
The way I see it, the government is divided into three branches: the Executive (the President and his Cabinet), the Legislative (the elected representatives in the Senate and the House) and the Judiciary (the Court system) ... each "equal in majesty" as one founding father put it.
Now, two branches can - and often do - cancel out the actions of the third: if Congress passes a low the Supreme Court deems unconstitutional, it can strike it down; the President can veto a law passed by Congress; Congress, with the signature of a President, can pass re-written legislation that overrides a Supreme Court decision ... and so it goes. Presidents can be impeached (and removed from office) by Congress as so can Supreme Court Justices; Congressmen and Senators can be censured and also removed from office.
Romney and Huntsman are the only two who think Congress shouldn't be able to simply overrule the federal courts.
It's terrifying.
That said, so is the thought of further liberalism perpetuating our economic crisis.
Yep. And as badly as I want that jackass Obama gone, I will not vote for any of the other Republicans because of issues like this. Those are the only 2 I will vote for next year.
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.
