"Opinions are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. But they aren't law."

TomHoefling.com ^ | 9-7-2015 | Siena Hoefling

[EternalVigilance]

Knowing the author very well, as I do, I can tell you that she doesn’t overlook the problems you reference. I think she was trying to keep the essay very short, and to the main point.

Both she and I have been advocates for the repeal of the 17th Amendment for decades. Its passage broke our republic.

[laplata]

http://tarheelteaparty.org/?p=16535

Publius Huldah – 1. The supremacy clause of the federal Constitution (Art. VI, clause 2) says that only the Constitution, laws made pursuant to the Constitution, and Treaties made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land. Supreme Court “opinions” are NOT part of that supreme law.
2. Supreme court opinions are not “law” — they are OPINIONS on the cases [rightly or wrongly] before the Court. The ONLY ONLY ONLY federal law in this land is: The Constitution, Laws made by Congress which are permitted by the Constitution, and Treaties made by the President and the Senate which are permitted by the Constitution.

Supreme Court opinions are NOT LAW.

3. But the Statists have managed to convince most Americans that the Supreme Court is THE highest law making body in the entire Country. If people would only read our federal Constitution and use their heads, they would have seen through this absurd claim 100 years ago.

*Publius Huldah – Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution.

[Vermont Lt]

So, all of those rulings upholding the second amendment attacks are not enforceable?

At some point you either believe in the American way of life or you do not. Judicial review has been a rule here sine the earliest 1800s.

So, we’re they wrong then, or are they wrong now?

[EternalVigilance]

They’re enforceable because they’re according to the Constitution, which every officer of government, in every branch, including the executive branch, which is charged with ENFORCING the law.

[EternalVigilance]

Whoops. Meant to say:

They’re enforceable because they’re according to the Constitution, which every officer of government, in every branch, including the executive branch, which is charged with ENFORCING the law, has sworn to support and defend.

[EternalVigilance]

At some point you either believe in the American way of life or you do not.

The American way of life is as a constitutional republic, not a judicial oligarchy.

Judicial review has been a rule here sine the earliest 1800s.

Not really. That's a modern myth. Anyone who reads Marbury vs. Madision, in its entirety, for themselves, knows this. Marshall didn't foolishly claim supremacy for the court's opinions. If he had, his contemporaries probably would have hung him. No. Marbury clearly says that the Constitution is supreme, and that all officers of all departments, including the courts, are bound to stay within its bounds.

[theoilpainter]

She might read Marbury v Madison. It also may be of note that opinions of the Supreme Court are enforced by the Executive Branch, with all the force needed. Brown v Bd of Education is an example.

There are opinions we agree with and those we don’t. But I think there are far more we agree with.

A written Constitution is what distinguishes us from other nations. It preserves our liberties. Some institution has to have the final interpretation of its content. That task falls on the Supreme Court.

If you think the Court is too liberal, then don’t elect a liberal as President. The next will fill at least one vacancy in the first term.

[EternalVigilance]

The Federalist #78

“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.”

— Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist #78

[EternalVigilance]

Justice Marshall, in Marbury, said the exact opposite of what you claim.

The whole judicial supremacist fallacy is built on one sentence in Marbury, twisted to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means, in context.

[EternalVigilance]

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

-- President Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

[EternalVigilance]

"It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

- Thomas Jefferson

[TigersEye]

Interesting site. Thanks for the link!

[Mean Daddy]

...and they all stink.” Finished your quote for you.

[theoilpainter]

Marbury didn’t get his judgeship, true. But this was the first case where the Court found an act of Congress unconstitutional. It has proven to be a big step, indeed.

[theoilpainter]

This train left the station in 1803.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Thanks. ;o)

[Ray76]

From Obergefell:

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

Have you ever heard such mush?

By the way, the Constitution does not grant rights.

[DoodleDawg]

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.” - John Marshal, Marbury v. Madison

[EternalVigilance]

No, it didn't.

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

--John Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 1803

[EternalVigilance]

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.” - John Marshal, Marbury v. Madison

Within their jurisdiction, in the particular cases that come before them, and no more.

But they have no legislative or executive power, and no veto power. None whatsoever.

-----

The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78, June 14, 1788

-----

Perhaps you might want to read Marbury in its entirety, rather than just the one sentence that modern leftists in the legal profession have turned on its head to make it say the exact opposite of what it actually meant.