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

GeronL

[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.

[Cultural Jihad]

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.

[GeronL]

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

[Fish out of Water]

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

[Cultural Jihad]

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.

[GeronL]

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(

[Texasforever]

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.

[GeronL]

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.

[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.

[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

You are mixing state courts up with federal courts.

[GeronL]

Any court. No court, state or federal should have even considered changing the rules ex post facto

[truth_seeker]

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?

[GeronL]

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.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[Travis McGee]

"The Law of Five" (Justices). It will be until we say "NO!"

[antaresequity]

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

Exactley what I was thinking....

[Hoosier Patriot]

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.

[Fish out of Water]

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

[patent]

>>>>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

[Fish out of Water]

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.

[patent]

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