# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Supreme Court Supremecy?

## Intoxiklown

If Article III, Sections 1 and 2, as some will argue, grants the Supreme Court to constantly "update" meanings of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights per their personal opinions/interpretations, doesn't that in fact make the Supreme Court an overpowered branch of government?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> If Article III, Sections 1 and 2, as some will argue, grants the Supreme Court to constantly "update" meanings of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights per their personal opinions/interpretations, doesn't that in fact make the Supreme Court an overpowered branch of government?


Doubly so since they're appointed for life and Congress has failed to ever remove them for gross distortion of the Constitution.

----------


## Superfluous Man

Yes.

And who gets to decide if Article III really means that? The Supreme Court.

And the Executive and Legislative branches wouldn't have it any other way.

----------


## fedupinmo

No. The Supreme Court is a product of the Constitution, and as such has no power to re-write the Constitution at a whim. They are bound to it, and any ruling they issue that conflicts with it is null and void.

----------


## Intoxiklown

What got me pondering on this was people constantly talking of things like the Heller decision, using it as a basis to claim that individual rights to arms is a relatively new thing. As well as trying to use it as a basis for heavy regulation of what firearms the people are protected to possess. I counter with United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) where the Court found that Congress could in fact regulate certain weapons like a sawed off shotgun as it was not a "viable weapon for the battlefield, hence not protected under the 2nd." Even though veterans from WWI who had seen trench warfare disagreed with that premise vehemently. 

That decision, to me, has always reflected what can be found in the supporting documents (Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, ratification documents) that the 2nd protects the militia from being disallowed as well as the individual right to arms in case the militia is needed. Also that the right of the individual to arms is small arms (any weapon afforded to the infantryman). 

Am I wrong? If so, please educate me. If I'm not....please tell me to grit my teeth and go explain the facts of life to the unwashed masses.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What got me pondering on this was people constantly talking of things like the Heller decision, using it as a basis to claim that individual rights to arms is a relatively new thing. As well as trying to use it as a basis for heavy regulation of what firearms the people are protected to possess. I counter with United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) where the Court found that Congress could in fact regulate certain weapons like a sawed off shotgun as it was not a "viable weapon for the battlefield, hence not protected under the 2nd." Even though veterans from WWI who had seen trench warfare disagreed with that premise vehemently. 
> 
> That decision, to me, has always reflected what can be found in the supporting documents (Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, ratification documents) that the 2nd protects the militia from being disallowed as well as the individual right to arms in case the militia is needed. Also that the right of the individual to arms is small arms (any weapon afforded to the infantryman). 
> 
> Am I wrong? If so, please educate me. If I'm not....please tell me to grit my teeth and go explain the facts of life to the unwashed masses.


In the founders day individuals could own artillery and cavalry equipment or even warships, only WMDs should be restricted.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> No. The Supreme Court is a product of the Constitution, and as such has no power to re-write the Constitution at a whim. They are bound to it, and any ruling they issue that conflicts with it is null and void.


How's that working out for you?

----------


## fedupinmo

> How's that working out for you?


Not too good, since the people don't insist on it like they were warned to do... complacency is our downfall.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> In the founders day individuals could own artillery and cavalry equipment or even warships, only WMDs should be restricted.


Yeah. I don't go that route with these anti-gun people simply due to the fact that most people kept their privately owned artillery in armory located in town, which would leave my argument open to a "yeah, but those weapons were locked up and controlled by a town appointed quartermaster" or something.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yeah. I don't go that route with these anti-gun people simply due to the fact that most people kept their privately owned artillery in armory located in town, which would leave my argument open to a "yeah, but those weapons were locked up and controlled by a town appointed quartermaster" or something.


Some people need milk before they are ready for meat.

----------


## TheTexan

> No. The Supreme Court is a product of the Constitution, and as such has no power to re-write the Constitution at a whim. They are bound to it, and any ruling they issue that conflicts with it is null and void.

----------


## fedupinmo

> 


Supporter of judicial activism over constitutional governance?

----------


## Intoxiklown

> Some people need milk before they are ready for meat.


Yeppers

----------


## timosman

> Supporter of judicial activism over constitutional governance?


Congress people are overworked as it is and had to drop the ball on multiple occasions. Do you want them to take on more responsibilities?

----------


## fedupinmo

> Congress people are overworked as it is and had to drop the ball on multiple occasions. Do you want them to take on more responsibilities?


Would be nice if they kept up the ones they already have, and did so honestly and diligently. Liberty and real justice could be a nice way to live...

----------


## timosman

> Would be nice if they kept up the ones they already have, and did so honestly and diligently. Liberty and real justice could be a nice way to live...


$#@! you, your liberty and the real justice. You should see what kind of pressure the real owners of this country are putting on us. Most people would snap in an instant.

----------


## TheTexan

> Supporter of judicial activism over constitutional governance?


The Supreme court has already ruled that the Supreme Court has constitutional activism powers,

and if you disagree with that, maybe you should vote harder in the next election.

----------


## fedupinmo

> $#@! you, your liberty and the real justice. You should see what kind of pressure the real owners of this country are putting on us. Most people would snap in an instant.


Most people are blind to the tiny dot.

----------


## Danke

> Most people are blind to the tiny dot.


problem is many of those dots perceive. they are a net beneficiary of stealing from the productive one.

----------


## TommyJeff

> If Article III, Sections 1 and 2, as some will argue, grants the Supreme Court to constantly "update" meanings of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights per their personal opinions/interpretations, doesn't that in fact make the Supreme Court an overpowered branch of government?


_Some can argue that,_ but Article III says no such thing.  

Article III ranks last in order of the 3 branches listed in the constitution and has the fewest words written in their article of enumerated powers.  

Many founders expesssed the judiciary as the weakest of the 3 branches.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> If Article III, Sections 1 and 2, as some will argue, grants the Supreme Court to constantly "update" meanings of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights per their personal opinions/interpretations, doesn't that in fact make the Supreme Court an overpowered branch of government?


This is an inherent problem for constitutionalism.

A constitution  does not interpret itself; some person(s) must interpret it, and the  power to interpret is in effect the power to amend.  

...since there is by definition no one to overturn a bad interpretation by the interpreter-of-last-resort. 

It doesn't have to be a court, but then it must be the legislature, or the executive, or some other body - it can't be no one.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

Article III grants the "judicial power" of the United States to the federal courts.  Judicial power obviously includes the power to determine the law applicable to a particular case.  It follows that in cases involving constitutional issues, the courts must determine how the Constitution applies.  Judicial review was clearly contemplated by the Founders:




> Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.
> 
> There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
> 
> If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.  Federalist 78.


This doesn't make the Supreme Court the most powerful branch.  If the people don't like a SCOTUS decision on a constitutional matter, they can amend the Constitution to override the Court, which has occurred three times (Amendments Nos. 11, 13-15, and 16).  Congress can limit SCOTUS's appellate jurisdiction, and it controls the Court's budget.  It and the President could increase the number of Justices and appoint ones that would overturn an unpopular decision (this hasn't happened, although FDR tried).

----------


## TommyJeff

> Article III grants the "judicial power" of the United States to the federal courts.  Judicial power obviously includes the power to determine the law applicable to a particular case.  It follows that in cases involving constitutional issues, the courts must determine how the Constitution applies.  Judicial review was clearly contemplated by the Founders:
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make the Supreme Court the most powerful branch.  If the people don't like a SCOTUS decision on a constitutional matter, they can amend the Constitution to override the Court, which has occurred three times (Amendments Nos. 11, 13-15, and 16).  Congress can limit SCOTUS's appellate jurisdiction, and it controls the Court's budget.  It and the President could increase the number of Justices and appoint ones that would overturn an unpopular decision (this hasn't happened, although FDR tried).



The court applies the law(ie constitution) to the case at hand.  But this doesn’t make the court supreme to the document itself. Is that an agreed point by us?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The court applies the law(ie constitution) to the case at hand.  But this doesn’t make the court supreme to the document itself. Is that an agreed point by us?


The Constitution is supreme.  But some entity has to determine how it applies to a given situation.  The same can be said for statutes, regulations, court rules, or common law rules -- how do they apply in a particular case?  Whatever body makes these determinations will from time to time be accused of trying to be "supreme" to the constitution, statute, regulation, court rule, or common law rule under consideration if the result is something the accuser doesn't agree with.

I'm old enough to remember when the Brown v. Board of Education case was handed down in in 1954, after which the Court was accused of violating the Constitution by interfering with a purely local matter (racial segregation in public schools) and "Impeach Earl Warren" signs sprouted up throughout the South (never mind that the decision was unanimous).  But as long as there are ways to overturn unpopular SCOTUS decisions the Court won't be in a position to entrench itself as the authority of last resort.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The Supreme court has already ruled that the Supreme Court has constitutional activism powers,
> 
> and if you disagree with that, maybe you should vote harder in the next election.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheTexan again."

----------


## PAF

There are no problems or issues concerning the constitution, it is working perfectly as designed.

The anti-federalists warned, but lost, and those who work within the current system are party to its success.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> There are no problems or issues concerning the constitution, it is working perfectly as designed.
> 
> The anti-federalists warned, but lost, and those who work within the current system are party to its success.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PAF again."

----------


## Swordsmyth

> There are no problems or issues concerning the constitution, it is working perfectly as designed.
> 
> The anti-federalists warned, but lost, and those who work within the current system are party to its success.





> "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PAF again."


So Rand, Ron, Amash and Massie etc. are villains?

When you start a revolution to overthrow the current order I might respect you, until then you are just worthless insects criticizing your betters.

----------


## PAF

> you are just worthless insects criticizing your betters.


Telling, indeed.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Telling, indeed.


It is telling that you dare to attack Rand, Ron, Amash and Massie etc. for working inside the current system without doing anything yourself to bring down the current system, let me know when you launch your revolution.

----------


## PAF

> It is telling that you dare to attack Rand, Ron, Amash and Massie etc. for working inside the current system without doing anything yourself to bring down the current system, let me know when you launch your revolution.


I don’t ever recall stating that I attacked the exceptions to the norm. Each of us has our own path to take, which makes us individuals. To vomit out what you just did does not further the cause of liberty. Lastly, if you search my threads, you will see that I have always thought highly about Rand, Ron, Justin and Tom. It does not change the fact that the anti-federalists were correct, and that continuing to acknowledge their game of lessers of evil only provides credibility to the “designed system” that enslaves us.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I don’t ever recall stating that I attacked the exceptions to the norm. Each of us has our own path to take, which makes us individuals. To vomit out what you just did does not further the cause of liberty. Lastly, if you search my threads, you will see that I have always thought highly about Rand, Ron, Justin and Tom. It does not change the fact that the anti-federalists were correct, and that continuing to acknowledge their game of lessers of evil only provides credibility to the “designed system” that enslaves us.


If you didn't mean this then I will take back what I said:




> Originally Posted by *PAF*  
> 
>  				There are no problems or issues concerning the constitution, it is working perfectly as designed.
> 
> The anti-federalists warned, but lost,* and those who work within the current system are party to its success*.

----------


## Stratovarious

> This is an inherent problem for constitutionalism.
> 
> A constitution  does not interpret itself; some person(s) must interpret it, and the  power to interpret is in effect the power to amend.  
> 
> ...since there is by definition no one to overturn a bad interpretation by the interpreter-of-last-resort. 
> 
> It doesn't have to be a court, but then it must be the legislature, or the executive, or some other body - it can't be no one.


My view is that our founders intentions were
that the constitution be written in simple language whereby
'interpretation' never becomes an issue, the issue 
is whether Judges and Office holders choose to
obfuscate its Articles or uphold and or legislate accordingly.
No public official is legally fit for office that is not a 
strict constitutionalist, liberals and most republicans 
fit that dubious description in spades, by nature they 
are Judas Goats and Oathbreakers , never intending
for a moment to honor the oaths that they take.
.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> My view is that our founders intentions were
> that the constitution be written in simple language whereby
> 'interpretation' never becomes an issue, the issue 
> is whether Judges and Office holders choose to
> obfuscate its Articles or uphold and or legislate accordingly.
> No public official is legally fit for office that is not a 
> strict constitutionalist, liberals and most republicans 
> fit that dubious description in spades, by nature they 
> are Judas Goats and Oathbreakers , never intending
> ...


Suppose a bunch of criminals are routinely elected because the people - the voters -_ like_ criminals, because they generate loot...

....who's going to stop them?

Answer: no one.

QED

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Suppose a bunch of criminals are routinely elected because the people - the voters -_ like_ criminals, because they generate loot...
> 
> ....who's going to stop them?
> 
> Answer: no one.
> 
> QED


Suppose a bunch of criminals take power over a country and raise their children to be criminals before they leave their positions of power to them............

.............who's going to stop them?

Answer: no one.

QED

----------


## Stratovarious

> Suppose a bunch of criminals are routinely elected because the people - the voters -_ like_ criminals, because they generate loot...
> 
> ....who's going to stop them?
> 
> Answer: no one.
> 
> QED





> Suppose a bunch of criminals take power over a country and raise their children to be criminals before they leave their positions of power to them............
> 
> .............who's going to stop them?
> 
> Answer: no one.
> 
> QED


.
Suppose the constituency is primarily comprised of compromised,
coddled, sycophantic, cucks? 
.
Who's going to stop Hillary, Mueller, Comey, lynch, Holder,
(the late) Janet Reno, Bush 1&2 , Bill Clinton, George Soros etc...?
.
Answer: no one

AR (actus reus)


.
*one hand typing 4 few days/weeks , no spell checkers & grammar police pleez .....

----------

