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.
Hellion.. you missed my point completely.
Just because the courts declare a law or policy 'unconstitutional' doesn't require it to be enforced.
This is rare, and unlikely, but entirely possible, and there is precedent.
Capiche?
what???? LOL if the S.C. declares a law or Executive Order unconstitutional it dies, that's it! The law dies or it goes back to Congress and starts all over again. You can't enforce a law that the S.C. struck down. So a law that can't be enforced is not actually a law, right?
what precedent are you talking about?.......tell me when has the S.C. struck down a state law or , federal law or EO as unconstitutional and they ignored the S.C. ruling? can you name 1 event when that happened?
That's like saying we can bring back slavery....it's rare and unlikely but entirely possible....yeah sure, erase the 14th amendment by a 2/3 majority in the house and senate and have 2/3 of the states ratify it and done!!!....I forgot, get ready for another civil war.
Let's take away women's rights to vote......it's possible, right? just take the constitution and shred it, anything is possible by your argument.
Please, calm down...and understand that actually, yes, anything IS possible.
You are naive to think otherwise.
The problem that revolves around Marbury vs Madison, establishing the 'principle' of judicial review, is that, well, it's just a principle. And one that arose from one branch of the U.S. government, declaring essentially by fiat, that it reserved for itself, the right to declare laws written by others as unconstitutional.
In other words, they gave themselves the right of review.
Somewhat a circularity, and perhaps a self-serving conflict of interest?
That is a reality, but that is not my argument.
My argument is that the court has no power, nor are they granted any power by the constitution to ENFORCE it's decisions.
The example that springs to mind is when President Andrew Jackson, in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia to strike down a Georgia law that imposed regulations on the comings and goings of white people in Native American land said:
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
Eventually the Cherokee were forcibly removed to Oklahoma in what is now known as the 'Trail of Tears'.
So much for judicial review.
My point is that the SC has power because, by our common tacit cultural agreement, we let it.
And it is so... until it's not.
You need look no further than to other 'modern' countries, with constitutional rights far more expansive than ours, to find that none of these rights actually exist, except on paper. And their Supreme Courts cannot, or will not change a thing.
Last edited by PamelaIamela; 04-25-2018 at 11:29 PM..
PUerto Rico doesn't need Asians. They just need to send someone over there to see how it's done, and then do it in Puerto Rico. There can be a bullet train connecting San Juan to all the other cities. Get an American company to build it using Act 20 and 22.
Please, calm down...and understand that actually, yes, anything IS possible.
You are naive to think otherwise.
The problem that revolves around Marbury vs Madison, establishing the 'principle' of judicial review, is that, well, it's just a principle. And one that arose from one branch of the U.S. government, declaring essentially by fiat, that it reserved for itself, the right to declare laws written by others as unconstitutional.
In other words, they gave themselves the right of review.
Somewhat a circularity, and perhaps a self-serving conflict of interest?
That is a reality, but that is not my argument.
My argument is that the court has no power, nor are they granted any power by the constitution to ENFORCE it's decisions.
The example that springs to mind is when President Andrew Jackson, in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia to strike down a Georgia law that imposed regulations on the comings and goings of white people in Native American land said:
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
Eventually the Cherokee were forcibly removed to Oklahoma in what is now known as the 'Trail of Tears'.
So much for judicial review.
My point is that the SC has power because, by our common tacit cultural agreement, we let it.
And it is so... until it's not.
You need look no further than to other 'modern' countries, with constitutional rights far more expansive than ours, to find that none of these rights actually exist, except on paper. And their Supreme Courts cannot, or will not change a thing.
so blacks should be worry that slavery can comeback because your argument is that a possibility? by your argument everything extreme is a possibility. A President can order the military to bomb congress and the S.C. and declare himself emperor of the U.S......I mean, by your argument it's a "possibility" just saying......let's throw everything out there to make your point whatever that is.
In the constitution Article 3 gives the judicial branch the power the interpret laws and punish law breakers, also the judicial branch can rule laws unconstitutional.
Congress makes the laws and the executive branch enforces the laws and carries out the laws that mandate services for the people. Now, the executive branch has prosecutorial discretion in what laws it will enforce and which ones are priority (immigration laws is an example) but once the judicial branch has declared a law unconstitutional then that law has NO TEETH and the executive branch has no power to enforce that law in the courts unless a President makes secret courts behind the judicial branch's back and puts people in jail or execute Americans in secret.....another possibility, right?....lol.....you heard a thing call articles of impeachment right?
Congress and the executive branch doesn't have more power than the judicial branch. Powers are divided for a reason in this country.
Judicial branch doesn't enforce laws but they have the power to interpret laws and rule laws unconstitutional and what is the executive branch is going to do ignore the courts ? open a kangaroo court run by the White House and skip and ignore the judicial branch?.....another possibility right? lol
You had to go back to 1832 to bring me an example with Andrew Jackson? LOL......you know in 1832 slavery was legal and women couldn't vote and didn't have rights and many other things. Many things have evolved in our laws and constitution from 1832 to 2018 don't you think?
Hellion.. I suppose you also believe that jurors are obliged to 'follow the law', right?
HAHAHA.
You seem intent on misunderstanding me, and the cynicism that experience demands.
IMO, PR will not be a state in our lifetime - maybe never.
Enough of this .. I'm off to the RE forum for a dose of realism!
jurors don't decide if a law is unconstitutional. The O.J. Simpson jury will never be in front of the Supreme Court or any court arguing a law, just saying......lol
Maybe you are right or maybe you are wrong about Puerto Rico becoming a state, I'm not a future reader.. They said Hawaii will never be a state or Alaska (too far from the mainland).....they said a black man will never be President......they said woman would never be in the S.C, let alone a Puerto Rican.
Puerto Ricans who have U.S. Citizenship now can't lose it involuntarily. It doesn't matter what Congress does or your argument of "possibly" do. Whatever new laws congress passes about citizenship it has to be applied equally under the law for all citizens and it can't violate the 14th amendment. That is the point before you went off on the extreme deep end of "possibly" scenarios that will never happen.
This caught my eye first until I realized it was produced and edited by RT news.....lol
Check “RT news” on Venezuelan news, describing a socialist paradise under Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro
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.
