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

To: Hugin

Your post: “Congress has the authority under Article III to put any law it passes out of the authority of any court to rule as unconstitutional. They could also attach criminal penalties against any judge who tried to do so. Of course it would require both houses, and the presidency, and some balls to enact it into law.”

If true, wouldn’t this put Congress and the Executive beyond the “check and balance” principle? Seems that there would be a second side to that sword.

Hypothetical question: What if Congress passed a bill and the Executive signed it into law which said in essence that the right to bear arms applied only to state federal police forces, not individuals?

Or, what if a law was passed which said that the 1st amendment applied only to entities that produced information through the “press” (newspapers and magazines only)? Or, a law which said that individuals could indeed “freely practice their religion” as long such practice did not violate any subsequently passed “hate crime” legislation. ETC

Just wondering. I’m probably missing something.


14 posted on 06/28/2015 6:19:10 AM PDT by Let_It_Be_So (Once you see the Truth, you cannot "unsee" it, no matter how hard you may try.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Let_It_Be_So
If true, wouldn’t this put Congress and the Executive beyond the “check and balance” principle?

That's what the founders intended. After all, they can impeach anyone in the other two branches. They have separate powers, but nowhere does the Constitution say they are equal. The legislative branch ultimately has supreme power. In fact nowhere does it say the court has the right to rule any law passed by Congress unconstitutional. That power was usurped in Marbury v. Madison.

You are right about the abuse of power by the other branches. I guess the founders trusted elected representatives to follow the Constitution. In any case you cannot count on scotus following the Constitution either. as we have seen. But the language is very clear...

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.

17 posted on 06/28/2015 1:58:20 PM PDT by Hugin ("Do yourself a favor--first thing, get a firearm!",)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

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