Infringement

[gfm7175]

Some troll is invisible. Save your energy, troll

You have no control over what comments I decide to respond to.

You have no idea what a troll is.

I will direct my energy towards whatever comments I feel like directing it towards. You have no control over me.

 

[Flash]

Not legally.

Yes, legally. Because you do not agree with those opinions does not mean they are not legal. The founding fathers who wrote the Constitution accepted the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution and judicial review was practiced in the colonies.

 

[gfm7175]

Yes, legally.

Illegally.

Because you do not agree with those opinions does not mean they are not legal.

ITN's feelings do not matter... neither do ours... Article III of the US Constitution is quite clear on the powers of the judiciary.

The founding fathers who wrote the Constitution accepted the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution

No, they didn't. See Article III.

and judicial review was practiced in the colonies.

Irrelevant to the US Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, legally. Because you do not agree with those opinions does not mean they are not legal. The founding fathers who wrote the Constitution accepted the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution and judicial review was practiced in the colonies.

No, they didn't. See article III of the Constitution of the United States. They did NOT give the court power to interpret its own constitution!

The Supreme Court does not own the constitution that created it. The States own the constitution. They are the ONLY ones with the authority to interpret it or change it.

 

[Flash]

ITN's feelings do not matter... neither do ours... Article III of the US Constitution is quite clear on the powers of the judiciary.

As interpreted by the courts. Without the power of judicial review there is no check on the constitutional powers of the president or Congress because they are free to pass any law or take any action they choose without limits.

No, they didn't. See Article III.

There was no attempt to overturn or amend Marbury v. Madison. Many of the framers were in office at the time of this decision and accepted it.

Congress passed a law for which they had no authority to pass. Only the courts could check such unlimited power.

Irrelevant to the US Constitution.

No, it showed it was a commonly accepted power at the time.

If you want to interpret the Constitution literally only accepting the words on paper the U. S. would have no authority to limit immigration, space exploration, build a wall, or give the presidency "emergency" powers because none of those are contained in the document.

 

[Flash]

No, they didn't. See article III of the Constitution of the United States. They did NOT give the court power to interpret its own constitution!

The Supreme Court does not own the constitution that created it. The States own the constitution. They are the ONLY ones with the authority to interpret it or change it.

There is nothing giving the states the power to interpret or change the Constitution. They can ratify constitutional amendments which gives them some power to change it but not until it has been proposed by Congress (or the convention process).

My arguments are based on the law as it is (whether I agree or not). Your arguments are based on what you think the Constitution should mean which completely destroys the concept of "rule of law."

 

[Into the Night]

Nothing in 4 or 5 protect a woman's freedom (right) to get an abortion. Ever heard of judicial review (Marbury v. Madison)--it gives the courts the power to interpret the constitutionality of laws.

No court has authority to change the Constitution of the United States. No court has the authority to interpret the Constitution of the United States. A court cannot give itself such power!

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, legally.

No. Not legally. Courts MUST operate UNDER the constitution that creates them. They do NOT have power OVER the constitution in any way. They cannot interpret it. They cannot change it. They have no authority there. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States. That is the ONLY authority courts have.

Because you do not agree with those opinions does not mean they are not legal.

It is not opinion. It is Article III of the Constitution of the United States. It clearly specifies the authority the courts have. It does NOT include the authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

The founding fathers who wrote the Constitution accepted the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution

No, they didn't. Go read it.

and judicial review was practiced in the colonies.

Of what?? The Constitution? There WAS NO constitution then!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You have no control over what comments I decide to respond to.

You have no idea what a troll is.

I will direct my energy towards whatever comments I feel like directing it towards. You have no control over me.

A "troll", to domer, is just about anyone that he loses a discussion to; whether he'll admit to the loss or not.

 

[Into the Night]

As interpreted by the courts.

WRONG. The courts have no authority to interpret the Constitution.

Without the power of judicial review

They do have the power of judicial review, but not of the Constitution.

there is no check on the constitutional powers of the president or Congress

Yes there is. They do not need to interpret the Constitution, only require Congress and the President to comply with it.

because they are free to pass any law or take any action they choose without limits.

Yet you are arguing placing the Court ABOVE the Constitution, giving IT power without limits.

There was no attempt to overturn or amend Marbury v. Madison.

No need. It does not change or interpret the Constitution.

Many of the framers were in office at the time of this decision and accepted it.

So do I.

Congress passed a law for which they had no authority to pass. Only the courts could check such unlimited power.

And it worked.

No, it showed it was a commonly accepted power at the time.

Judicial review of laws passed by Congress IS described in Article III. Congress is not the Constitution. You are making a false equivalence fallacy.

If you want to interpret the Constitution literally only accepting the words on paper

That's the only way to accept it.

the U. S. would have no authority to limit immigration,

But they do. Article I, $8 clearly gives Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. That's about immigration, dude.

space exploration,

Correct. They had no authority to explore space, other than for military purposes.

build a wall,

They have authority to build a wall. See Article 1, $8. That is part of establishing a uniform naturalization.

or give the presidency "emergency" powers because none of those are contained in the document.

Congress does have that authority to give the president such power. This is a budget item.

 

[Into the Night]

There is nothing giving the states the power to interpret or change the Constitution.

No? The States created the Constitution. That Constitution creates the federal government and describes what powers it has. It has no powers except what is given to it by the States that created that Constitution and ordained it with their authority. Only the States can vote on changes to the Constitution. Only the States can call a Constitutional convention. Such a convention can completely replace that Constitution with another one. See the amendment procedure of the Constitution of the United States. States can use their representatives in Congress to propose amendments or even to call a convention, but they Do not need Congress to call a convention. They can completely go around Congress if they so choose, completely dissolve the federal government, and establish a new Constitution any time they want.

They can ratify constitutional amendments which gives them some power to change it but not until it has been proposed by Congress (or the convention process).

See the amendment process of the Constitution of the United States. Do you think States have no representation in Congress?

My arguments are based on the law as it is (whether I agree or not).

No, they aren't. The Constitution is the law. All laws Congress may pass MUST conform to that constitution.

Your arguments are based on what you think the Constitution should mean which completely destroys the concept of "rule of law."

YOU want to place the Supreme Court ABOVE the Constitution. THAT destroys rule of law!
YOU want to place the federal government ABOVE the owners of the Constitution (the States). THAT destroys rule of law!

 

[gfm7175]

A "troll", to domer, is just about anyone that he loses a discussion to; whether he'll admit to the loss or not.

Sounds about right.

I'd also propose that he doesn't even have any rhyme or reason behind using that word, akin to how he doesn't have any rhyme or reason for the various profane insults which he throws around. He seems to be a very angry individual, at least from my interactions with him.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Sounds about right.

I'd also propose that he doesn't even have any rhyme or reason behind using that word, akin to how he doesn't have any rhyme or reason for the various profane insults which he throws around. He seems to be a very angry individual, at least from my interactions with him.

The next time I'm really bored and JPP is slow, I might just start a new thread and list all of domer's "intelligent" comments.

 

[gfm7175]

As interpreted by the courts.

Courts do not interpret the US Constitution. Why does it need "interpreting"? Is it not written in English?

Without the power of judicial review

Never said that the power didn't exist.

there is no check on the constitutional powers of the president or Congress

Sure there is.

because they are free to pass any law or take any action they choose without limits.

No, they aren't. That's what YOU are proposing though, through your attempt to make SCOTUS into an Oligarchy. SCOTUS is not an Oligarchy.

There was no attempt to overturn or amend Marbury v. Madison.

There was no need to do so.

Many of the framers were in office at the time of this decision and accepted it.

Correct.

Congress passed a law for which they had no authority to pass. Only the courts could check such unlimited power.

Mhm.

No, it showed it was a commonly accepted power at the time.

Article III is quite clear.

If you want to interpret the Constitution literally only accepting the words on paper

Precisely. That is the only way to do it. Otherwise, the Constitution is meaningless. Why have one then?

the U. S. would have no authority to limit immigration,

Incorrect. See Article 1 Section 8. It gives Congress the power to legislate Naturalization, which is about immigration.

space exploration,

Correct, generally speaking.

build a wall,

Incorrect. See Article 1 Section 8. It gives Congress the power to legislate Naturalization, which is about immigration. It also gives Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers (Naturalization being one of those powers).

or give the presidency "emergency" powers because none of those are contained in the document.

Actually, Congress does have the authority to do this.

 

[gfm7175]

The next time I'm really bored and JPP is slow, I might just start a new thread and list all of domer's "intelligent" comments.

Is there enough bandwidth to do such a thing?

 

[Flash]

Courts do not interpret the US Constitution. Why does it need "interpreting"? Is it not written in English?

True, but you think "naturalization" deals with immigration rather than qualifications for citizenship. There is nothing about immigration control unless you choose to give a broad, liberal interpretation to the power over naturalization.

So, you are choosing to interpret naturalization to give more power to the federal government although that is not the English written in the Constitution. This clearly illustrates why the plain English words are not sufficient and must be interpreted by the courts. You are also choosing a broad interpretation of the "necessary and proper clause" and somewhere finding a provision to allow Congress to grant emergency powers to the president. Nowhere are these in the English language of the Constitution but in the opinions of those who want government to have more power in those areas.

 

[Flash]

The Constitution is the law. All laws Congress may pass MUST conform to that constitution.

And if Congress passes a law for which they have no constitutional authority what is the remedy for abolishing that law?

 

[Into the Night]

True, but you think "naturalization" deals with immigration rather than qualifications for citizenship.

It deals with both.

There is nothing about immigration control unless you choose to give a broad, liberal interpretation to the power over naturalization.

Immigration is part of uniform naturalization.

So, you are choosing to interpret naturalization to give more power to the federal government although that is not the English written in the Constitution.

It is the English written into the Constitution.

This clearly illustrates why the plain English words are not sufficient

Yes they are.

and must be interpreted by the courts.

No court has the authority to interpret the Constitution.

You are also choosing a broad interpretation of the "necessary and proper clause" and somewhere finding a provision to allow Congress to grant emergency powers to the president.

No. That's a budget item. The House originates the budget. The Senate and the President approve it. The emergency powers to the president is a budget item.

Nowhere are these in the English language of the Constitution

Yes they are. The authority of the House to originate a budget item is clearly specified in Article I $8.

but in the opinions of those who want government to have more power in those areas.

The House had all the power it needed to create such a budget item. It also has the power to remove it any time they want (subject to approval of the Senate and the President).

 

[Into the Night]

And if Congress passes a law for which they have no constitutional authority what is the remedy for abolishing that law?

The Supreme Court. They have all the authority they need to review a law passed by Congress. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Flash]

The Supreme Court. They have all the authority they need to review a law passed by Congress. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

That contradicts your statement that "No court has the authority to interpret the Constitution."

It is interpreting the Constitution if it is claiming Congress has no constitutional authority to have passed that law.