How about Amendment XXVIII to our Constituion? (The Supreme Court shall make no law..."

Free Republic ^ | 26 MARCH 2005 | R. DeWynne Brown, III

[rdb3]

I'm making this post of mine available to all of FR for discussion:

To: Red Badger; jwalsh07; Southack; mhking; Howlin

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.........The best part of The Constitution.

The Supreme Court shall find no flaw........Should be in there somewhere........

---

I'm surprised that no one replied to your post here. You may have posted in jest, but you're on to something!

Think about it. Article III , Sections 1 & 2 of the Constitution provide for the functions of the Supreme Court, and the inferior courts. Only the Supreme Court is Constitutionally mandated. The inferior courts are not.

But let's get back to what you said. "The Supreme Court shall find no law..." That's actually in the Constitution! Take a look at Article III, Section 2. It explicitly states:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...

There you have it. The Supreme Court's power only extends to matters of laws on the books, not the Justices opinion(s).

To rectify this situation, and to prevent federal courts from legislating as opposed to interpreting, Amendment XVIII should be added to our Constitution which says exactly what you wrote: "The Supreme Court shall find no law".

Where would I be wrong?

453 posted on 03/26/2005 10:00:54 AM CST by rdb3 (I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.........The best part of The Constitution.

[rdb3]

Thoughts?

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Well past time. Should have been thought of shortly after Marbury v. Madison.

[mwyounce]

You'd better add an X...

I know you meant the 28th amendment, not the 18th... unless you think we need to fill up the hole created when we repealed the first 18th amendment? ;-)

[Prost1]

You need, what 3/5 of the states to pass an Amendment.
The republicans hold a tad more than 50% of the state governors offices and ?? of state legislatures.

Something as sensitive as limiting socialist causes might not stand much of a chance, regardless of how sensible.

Might be worth the try, though. Possibly further limit the influence of MSM and ultra-libs.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT
(Hit your ping lists)

[Paleo Conservative]

They'd get around it. They'll just twist existing laws.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

You need, what 3/5 of the states to pass an Amendment.

Make that 3/4. And 2/3 of both houses of Congress.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The republicans hold a tad more than 50% of the state governors offices

Oh, and governors have nothing to do with it. Constitutional amendments don't get signed by any executives.

[Prost1]

I know that. But it takes local support to push the issue through the state legislatures. Knowing the political balance is one metric for measuring success.

[MeekOneGOP]

How about Amendment XVIII to our Constituion?
(The Supreme Court shall make no law...)

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[rdb3]

You're right. I was typing in a hurry with something on the stove.

Admin, could you please edit the title? It should be XXVIII, not XVIII.

[P_A_I]

To rectify this situation, and to prevent federal courts from legislating as opposed to interpreting, Amendment XVIII should be added to our Constitution which says exactly what you wrote:

"The Supreme Court shall find no law".
Where would I be wrong?
453 rdb3


______________________________________



Should have been thought of shortly after Marbury v. Madison.

2 WinOne4TheGipper

---

You would be wrong in thinking that our Constitution allows federal courts to legislate 'law', as opposed to interpreting whether the law in question is itself Constitutional.

Marbury made clear that the USSC is just as bound to support the principles of the Constitution as Legislators. - Or the Executive.

Nothing has changed since 1803 except our political system, - and the men in that system who dishonor their oaths to support the Constitution.


In Marbury vs Madison Jefferson Saw the Beginning of Judicial Tyranny
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368285/posts

[avile]

The USSC will just "interpret " it to mean that they can do what they want. "its a living, breathing document"

[Publius6961]

Amendment (X)XVIII should be added to our Constitution which says exactly what you wrote: "The Supreme Court shall find no law".

The following practical problem must be solved first. The judicial can make totally illogical and nonsensical twists of logic to make a clear law do the opposite of what the legislature intended. It happens all the time.

How do we prevent that?
A clear example of this is the RICO laws. They were passed to fight organized crime and terrorism; at least that was my understanding.
They have been applied mostly against individuals and anti-abortion groups.

The court's role should be limited to stating why a proposed law is unconstitutional, and send it back to the legislature to clarify; as many times as it takes.
The judicial should never be allowed to modify, substitute, or to twist the original intent of the legislature. That is clearly unlawful usurpation of the powers of the legislature.

[FBD]

Ha! Fat chance of this happening.
Why do we need the other branches of government, when the judicial branch can do it all?
They can create law, interpret law, enforce, execute, and even over-ride law.

Judges have the ability to be dictators in their own court rooms. That power has got to go to their heads. No one challenges them, except maybe a judge higher up the chain. But they do allow each other professional courtesy. Consider the Schiavo case.

- And our Congress and President aren't going to challenge them either.

They in effect, now rule our land, and the great unwashed masses abide with it.

All Rise!

[dts32041]

No amendment needed, Art 3 states the congress's power.

Just no longer fund the current court system.

The Supremes ( apologizes to that soul group) as envisioned as being necessary to only take care of differences between the states and the states and the federalis.

[rdb3]

No amendment needed, Art 3 states the congress's power.

---

True, but this amendment would drive the point home.

[dts32041]

If they don't have money they don't exist, and they can enjoy that most pleasant of deaths starvation.

BTW when will that be the new form of Capital Punishment.

[gidget7]

"The court's role should be limited to stating why a proposed law is unconstitutional, and send it back to the legislature to clarify;"


But that is exactly what the SC did here in MA< and instead of that being done, same sex marriage went thru as law.

[MeekOneGOP]

All Rise!

More like all rise UP!

Time for ALL of Bush's judicial nominations to get and up or down VOTE!!

I'm sick of the filibustering of judges by the 'RATS.