Intoxiklown
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 1,670
This is a moderator from a gun rights site who is also a lawyer (I know). Any advice, points, ect to put this guy who says our entire government and our rights are at the whim of who happens to sit on a court bench in place are greatly appreciated:
Intox said: ↑
....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..... (Yes, I stole this quote....lol)
That is your fundamental misunderstanding and makes all your subsequent claims legally pointless.
There is simply no one to decide that a Supreme Court decision is "null and void." Whatever, the Supreme Court decides in the context of the case at bar will be put into effect and affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Strutting around braying that the Court's decision is "null and void" will change nothing. As Justice Robert Jackson pointed out, referring to the Supreme Court:
We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.
You might find that philosophically unsatisfying, but it is simple reality.
And who would decide that a ruling by the Supreme Court conflicts with the Constitution? Is that your call? You might have an opinion, but what about someone else's opinion which conflicts with yours. And each of you might have your respective authorities to point to and your logical arguments to support your respective positions. Who would decide which of you is correct? According to the Founding Fathers, as provided in Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution, it would be the province of the Supreme Court to decide.
And again, the decisions on matters of law of courts affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions on matters of law do not (nor do all the quotes of Founding Fathers and others affect the lives and property of real people in the real world). And even the Founding Fathers would challenge your view here:
Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:
....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, ....
And Madison in Federalist No. 39:
....the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated....
And not the Constitution, nor any law, is self executing. Laws are tools used by courts to decide matters. The meaning and utility of laws comes from their use by courts for that purpose.
The reality is that our Constitution has served as a governing document of this republic for over 200 years. We've survived a panoply of travails, including civil war, economic ups and downs, an assortment of lousy elected officials, and some really lousy laws (like Prohibition) -- and yet we endure.
The judiciary, as other branches of government, is still subject to checks and balances. So if a judge's decision is unsatisfactory, the ball might well be in the court of the legislature.
It's not the proper role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. It's the job of a court to apply the the law and applicable precedent to decide the case. It can sometimes be argued that in a given case the law was not properly applied, or the result of applying the law and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory to some. We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could be entirely within the power of Congress to enact and perfectly constitutional. Being constitutional does not guarantee that a law is a good thing.
I often cite the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) as an example of this phenomenon. It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result. "Checks and balances" at work.
There is also the possibility of amending the Constitution. That's a difficult thing to do, and the Founding Fathers set things up that way. But if can be done, and has been done, when the consequences of a Supreme Court ruling are sufficiently unsatisfactory.
Perhaps the clearest, and most unhappy, example is the income tax. In 1895 the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. ( 157 U.S. 429 (1895) ; 158 U.S. 601 (1895)) that the Constitution did not give the federal government the power to levy a tax on income. But national solvency was a significant concern that the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted.
So no, a ruling of the Supreme Court that you, or someone else, thinks conflicts with the Constitution is not "null and void."
Intox said: ↑
....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..... (Yes, I stole this quote....lol)
That is your fundamental misunderstanding and makes all your subsequent claims legally pointless.
There is simply no one to decide that a Supreme Court decision is "null and void." Whatever, the Supreme Court decides in the context of the case at bar will be put into effect and affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Strutting around braying that the Court's decision is "null and void" will change nothing. As Justice Robert Jackson pointed out, referring to the Supreme Court:
We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.
You might find that philosophically unsatisfying, but it is simple reality.
And who would decide that a ruling by the Supreme Court conflicts with the Constitution? Is that your call? You might have an opinion, but what about someone else's opinion which conflicts with yours. And each of you might have your respective authorities to point to and your logical arguments to support your respective positions. Who would decide which of you is correct? According to the Founding Fathers, as provided in Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution, it would be the province of the Supreme Court to decide.
And again, the decisions on matters of law of courts affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions on matters of law do not (nor do all the quotes of Founding Fathers and others affect the lives and property of real people in the real world). And even the Founding Fathers would challenge your view here:
Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:
....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, ....
And Madison in Federalist No. 39:
....the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated....
And not the Constitution, nor any law, is self executing. Laws are tools used by courts to decide matters. The meaning and utility of laws comes from their use by courts for that purpose.
The reality is that our Constitution has served as a governing document of this republic for over 200 years. We've survived a panoply of travails, including civil war, economic ups and downs, an assortment of lousy elected officials, and some really lousy laws (like Prohibition) -- and yet we endure.
The judiciary, as other branches of government, is still subject to checks and balances. So if a judge's decision is unsatisfactory, the ball might well be in the court of the legislature.
It's not the proper role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. It's the job of a court to apply the the law and applicable precedent to decide the case. It can sometimes be argued that in a given case the law was not properly applied, or the result of applying the law and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory to some. We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could be entirely within the power of Congress to enact and perfectly constitutional. Being constitutional does not guarantee that a law is a good thing.
I often cite the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) as an example of this phenomenon. It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result. "Checks and balances" at work.
There is also the possibility of amending the Constitution. That's a difficult thing to do, and the Founding Fathers set things up that way. But if can be done, and has been done, when the consequences of a Supreme Court ruling are sufficiently unsatisfactory.
Perhaps the clearest, and most unhappy, example is the income tax. In 1895 the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. ( 157 U.S. 429 (1895) ; 158 U.S. 601 (1895)) that the Constitution did not give the federal government the power to levy a tax on income. But national solvency was a significant concern that the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted.
So no, a ruling of the Supreme Court that you, or someone else, thinks conflicts with the Constitution is not "null and void."
