Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are the courts the final arbiter of the Constitution? RE: CFR, more
GeronL

Posted on 03/20/2002 10:01:16 PM PST by GeronL

My question is...

Are the courts the final arbiter of the Constitution? Does this mean they are the Imperial Courts? What happened to co-equal branches of government and the balance of powers?


Article III.

Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: cfrlist; constitution; constitutionlist; courts; govwatch; judicialreview; silenceamerica
Lets continue the debate here. Are the Imperial Judges rulers of this country?
1 posted on 03/20/2002 10:01:16 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Are the courts the final arbiter of the Constitution?

Hell NO! American gun owners are!!!!!!!!!!

2 posted on 03/20/2002 10:03:40 PM PST by Buffalo Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob
Some people take this so far as to mean the Supreme Court can overturn the Bill of Rights if they so please. Now thats an Imperial Court!!
3 posted on 03/20/2002 10:09:54 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Only if there is a democrat majority on the SCOTUS. Let's hope that there never will be. Thank God for Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas. God Bless them all.
4 posted on 03/20/2002 10:13:56 PM PST by RamsNo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob
Are the courts the final arbiter of the Constitution?

Hell NO! American gun owners are!!!!!!!!!!

More to the point, the Constitution was written to be a guide by which ordinary educated citizens could judge whether the actions of government officials were legitimate. The citizens could thus either help the officials act against lawbreakers, or help protect the so-called lawbreakers against lawless officials.

Too bad so many people have worked for so long to obscure the straightforward meaning of much of the document.

5 posted on 03/20/2002 10:14:33 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RamsNo1;Texasforever;Pistias;Sabertooth;JohnHuang2;Travis McGee
bump
6 posted on 03/20/2002 10:15:41 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Congress should impeach Imperial judges that try to make law from the bench (Roe V Wade)

Some seem to think that if the Court throws out the First Amendment that their action is Constitutional. Stupid.

Congress also has the power to take issues out of the purview of the courts, like abortion.

7 posted on 03/20/2002 10:17:53 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: supercat
bump
8 posted on 03/20/2002 10:18:21 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Are the courts the final arbiter of the Constitution

The courts are the final arbiter on whether laws passed by the Legislative branch and enforced by the Executive branch are Constitutional. Sheesh.

9 posted on 03/20/2002 10:20:28 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
and if the Court decides that all guns in civilian hands is unconstitutional? if they decide that private media outlets and free speech is not allowed?

Then what?

10 posted on 03/20/2002 10:21:53 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Depends what you mean by that.

What judiciary is Constitutional? By the stroke of a pen, all courts except the Supreme Court can lose their jurisdiction and thereby be abolished. Question is, would that make matters better or worse?

Do appellate or circuit courts have jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution? If not, then why do their decisions amount to so much legislation? It is my understanding, that each case that these courts decide is based on the merits of each case that they hear.

ONLY the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction and only with regard and respect to issues of Constitutionality. Even so, the highest court of this last best best place to live on this planet, has no business legislating through its decisions.

11 posted on 03/20/2002 10:25:57 PM PST by raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
What it all boils down to is that we all have a duty to knowingly pursue truth and justice under our rule of law in this nation. The three branches of government know full well the constitutionality of CFR and they are obligated to speak up when they know something isn't right. They may not full authority to take certain actions but they should still voice their opinions which includes speaking up when there is blatant abuse by any branch of government. We, too as citizens have that right and the obligation to speak up (or at least we have some part of it left). I am just so stunned by the President's quick response to the senate passage despite his reservations. He could have been more deliberative and contemplative about this but he seems so quick to jump on the media bandwagon. He has been so strong and right on so many issues that the swiftness of this statement on whitehouse.gov was breathtaking and very disconcerting.
12 posted on 03/20/2002 10:26:38 PM PST by RamsNo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
The portion of the Constitution that you posted says nothing about the Supreme Court being the final authority on Constitutional matters. All it says is that when someone is charged or who has standing sues that the court will hear the case.

At that point the Supreme Courts only authority is to decline to enforce an unconstitutional law. Through precedent inferior courts also no longer enforce laws that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the legislature from passing a new law and the President from signing and enforcing it. There is no provision that would prevent the executive branch from enforcing a law that has been ruled unconstitutional and forcing everyone into the time and expense of court or to simply submit.

That is why all three branches must take responsibility for determining and only approving laws that are in compliance with the Constitution. No where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court has final authority. The President, Senators and Congressmen all take an oath to uphold the Constitution, that oath requires that they determine weather a bill or any provision in the bill is constitutional before passing it into law.

13 posted on 03/20/2002 10:28:50 PM PST by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
and if the Court decides that all guns in civilian hands is unconstitutional? if they decide that private media outlets and free speech is not allowed? Then what?

You phrased your make-believe scenario backwards. The court cannot claim that gun ownership or media outlets are unconstitutional. All they can do is judge laws against the supreme law of the land, so a law would have to be written which claims "All people shall be obligated to turn in all weapons by April 15th" or "All private media outlets will be shut down effective immediately" or whatever. Then someone brings the case to court. If they lose, they appeal. They can appeal all the way to the SC. If they lose at the SC, "then what?" you ask. Then if people want the law reversed they elect those who will represent their interests in the matter and change the law, or the Constitution, or the ideology of the court. It's truly the worst form of governance, except for all the others.

14 posted on 03/20/2002 10:41:49 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water
You'll find this very interesting

Its Robert Borks' look at what the courts did with the Florida recount. It says a lot, namely that the Florida courts and the Supreme Court had no real business deciding what should have been decided by Florida law before the election.

15 posted on 03/20/2002 10:42:16 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Like Roe Vs Wade. It was an issue the courts had no business deciding.
16 posted on 03/20/2002 10:43:20 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
I'm afraid I'm going to have to cite you, sir--Wanton use of Churchill. It's a Class C misdemeanor.
17 posted on 03/20/2002 10:44:21 PM PST by Pistias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water;Texasforever
Bork writes:

The majority opinion raises a further question: whether a desirable result can ever be an adequate reason for law-bending. That seems to depend on one’s political sympathy. The question lay at the heart of the court’s ruling in United States v. Nixon requiring the president to comply with the special prosecutor’s subpoena of White House tapes. Strictly speaking, the case was not justiciable, for it involved a dispute between the head of the executive branch and a subordinate officer

It should never have been taken up by the courts, in other words

18 posted on 03/20/2002 10:44:37 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pistias
I agree with Bork that some things are not within the purview of the courts. (and should not be)
19 posted on 03/20/2002 10:45:30 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
judicial usurpation
20 posted on 03/20/2002 10:46:10 PM PST by Pistias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Like Roe Vs Wade. It was an issue the courts had no business deciding.

Indubitably. I am merely pointing out that the histrionics on these threads are pathetic. "If the SC rules against something that I like, then it's time to end this awkward period and begin the open armed revolt!" Sheesh. The ideologues need to get a life.

21 posted on 03/20/2002 10:46:47 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
I am merely seeking that the Imperial Court should be reigned in to its Constitutional limits.

Bork: It is possible to be at once critical of the majority’s legal performance in Bush v. Gore and yet recognize that such performances are inevitable, or at least almost irresistible, when the pressure is high enough. Very few people today are critical of the court’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, though this first broad assertion of the power of judicial review came in a case over which the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction and which required the wilful misconstruction of a congressional statute in order to gin up a bogus constitutional issue

22 posted on 03/20/2002 10:48:59 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I would agree with that.
I started reading Bork's opinion, I will save it for morning when I will be in better shape to digest it.
Thanks
23 posted on 03/20/2002 10:52:37 PM PST by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pistias
I'm afraid I'm going to have to cite you, sir--Wanton use of Churchill. It's a Class C misdemeanor.

This fellow Winston should never have been allowed to plagiarize my best lines.

24 posted on 03/20/2002 10:53:16 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water
I'm afraid it only touches on the purview of the courts, but it is clear he doesn't believe that courts have the power to throw out whatever they want. He also thinks it might be a lost cause =o(
25 posted on 03/20/2002 10:55:01 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Like Roe Vs Wade. It was an issue the courts had no business deciding.

Then you can thank the 14th amendment for that one. Now the 14th amendment, which I hate with a passion, is a part of the constitution. It allowed the R v. W case to be heard in front of them since the amendment has been used to whittle away states rights since its inception sometimes for the good but mostly for ill. Once one state law is found unconstitutional every other state law that is similar in major parts are also unconstitutional. Now as to Bork's words on the election. The only thing the Republicans did was to turn the dagger of "equal protection under the law" back at the Liberals for once. It gave them the opening to argue the issues that the case was decided on.

26 posted on 03/20/2002 10:55:34 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
The Gutenberg Project has many of his writings available for download. I downloaded 'The Crossing'. First I have to finish reading the autobiography of Ben Franklin.
27 posted on 03/20/2002 10:56:24 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
But the courts, the first court it came to should have thrown it out. It should have refused to change the laws after the election.
28 posted on 03/20/2002 10:57:48 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
But the courts, the first court it came to should have thrown it out. It should have refused to change the laws after the election

You are mixing state courts up with federal courts.

29 posted on 03/20/2002 10:59:41 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Any court. No court, state or federal should have even considered changing the rules ex post facto
30 posted on 03/20/2002 11:04:09 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
But the courts, the first court it came to should have thrown it out. It should have refused to change the laws after the election.

I believe that was the intended result, of the majority SC ruling. Didn't the USSC throw it back to the FSC, directing them to act according to existing election laws, passed by the Fla. legislature?

Meaning stop illegal FSC directed recounts (ad infinitum), observe legislated cutoff dates; Bush wins Fla. electoral votes and becomes 43rd President?

31 posted on 03/20/2002 11:14:13 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
That was their point the first time. The second time they actually had to violate their own principles to smack that stupid little court around.
32 posted on 03/20/2002 11:22:17 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: *CFR list; *Silence, America!;*Constitution list;*Gov_Watch
Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.
33 posted on 03/21/2002 8:05:39 AM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
"The Law of Five" (Justices). It will be until we say "NO!"
34 posted on 03/21/2002 9:19:25 AM PST by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Bob
Hell NO! American gun owners are!!!!!!!!!!

Exactley what I was thinking....

35 posted on 03/21/2002 9:21:22 AM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Are the courts the final arbiter of the Constitution?

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone"
(James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

We are coming closer and closer to the point where we the people will have to exercise the authority that we possess to return to the Constitutional Republic that the founders gave us. It is a gift too precious to let slip away.

36 posted on 03/21/2002 9:39:03 AM PST by Hoosier Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patent
I saw on another thread that you are a lawyer. I thought you might be able to add something to this and give some background on the Supreme Court's power grab.

Thanks

37 posted on 03/21/2002 9:06:57 PM PST by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water
>>>>give some background on the Supreme Court's power grab.

Ooof. That is a 20 page paper. I don't quite have the time to do that. A couple quick comments, yes the SC is the final arbiter of the Constitution, but that does not mean that they are our overlords. They can be impeached, and that is a check on their power. Congress can also change the nature of the Court to some degree, cahnge some of its jurisdiction, things like that. Its all part of the checks and balances. All that is meaningless though if Congress is either as corrupt as the Court or if Congress is spineless.

patent

38 posted on 03/22/2002 7:55:53 AM PST by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: patent
I can imagine that an explanation of the Supreme Court’s power grab could be quite lengthy. I would agree that the way our system has evolved that the Supreme Court is now the final arbitrator of what is Constitutional but from my reading of history I don’t believe that was intended when the Constitution was written.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Maybe you could point me to a good source for more information. I have a great deal of interest in our Constitution and how our government operates in accordance with it. I read Bork’s opinion on the Gore Bush Supreme Court opinion linked above and have read some on Marbury v Madison.

39 posted on 03/22/2002 12:22:32 PM PST by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water
I would love to recommend a book but right now I can't think of a good one. I know I've read a couple, but its a couple years back and I don't own them or recall their names. Things related to the Marbury case are probably a pretty good place to start, by the way. I apologize that I'm not more help.

patent

40 posted on 03/22/2002 1:57:34 PM PST by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: patent
Thanks anyway
I flagged you to another post that relates to the courts and Roe v Wade which I believe is of interest to you.
41 posted on 03/22/2002 4:26:03 PM PST by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson