Ted Cruz battles SCOTUS marriage decision, calls Republicans to join him

KPTV.com ^ | Jun 26, 2015 8:26 PM PDT

[conservativejoy]

The ideal thing would be for the Congress to uphold their oaths and impeach these rogue judges. Something has to be done. They are doing too much damage to the country.

[Vermont Lt]

No tree of life, but the property taxes are enough to strangle us.

But the schools are great. Not a lot of conservative values taught, but they never wasted time on putting condoms on bananas.

[mlo]

"Article 3, Section 2 clearly gives the right to Congress to regulate the Court,including its rulings."

Article 3 grants no power to overturn a court decision. Congress can't negate a ruling or prevent a court from ruling on a subject. As I've already explained, if a ruling is based on a law then Congress can always change the law. But a ruling based on the Constitution would require a constitutional amendment. Congress cannot change a court decision.

[exit82]

You talk as if every decision by the Supreme Court is based on a Constitutional decision, therefore, not reviewable by Congress.

If that were so, the language of the Constitution would specifically say that.

Congress has as much right to interpret the Constitution as the Supreme Court.

And Congress has more power, as it can enact legislation.

The Supreme Court can only make a ruling, but it cannot make law.

We treat it as law because we agree to abide by it.

But what if we do not wish to abide by it?

What is the remedy then?

Marriage is not in the Constitution and it has never been a listed responsibility of the Federal government.

Therefore, any ruling which changes marriage is not in the purvey of the Supreme Court to even begin with.

The best legal minds on the court agree with that assertion.

If Congress passes a law and then an override, just what is the Supreme Court going to do about it?

It will be out back into its box,as the Founders intended.

The people, nor Congress, are duty bound to abide by the whims of an overreaching court.

Nor are we doomed to go through a Constitutional amendment process to correct a ridiculous Supreme Court decision.

Just because it has never been done before doesn’t mean it cannot be done.

It would take guts, which the GOP-E has none.

Just because the Supreme Court referred to the 14th Amendment does not make this a Constitutional decision.

As marriage is not and never has been an enumerated Federal power, the decision is illegal and improper on its face.

[mlo]

"You talk as if every decision by the Supreme Court is based on a Constitutional decision, therefore, not reviewable by Congress."

That's not true. I very clearly made the distinction between decisions based on statutes Congress can change, and decisions based on the Constitution that it could not. This particular discussion was started specifically about the gay marriage decision, which was not based on a statute.

"Congress has as much right to interpret the Constitution as the Supreme Court."

You or I can interpret the Constitution too, but it has no weight on anyone else. Congress doesn't make judicial rulings, it passes bills. Congress has no power to change the Constitution, hence it has no authority to pass an unconstitutional law. If it does, and it does because Congress is filled with politicians that don't follow the rules, it is the court's job to resolve the conflict in favor of the Constitution because it is the superior law.

"The Supreme Court can only make a ruling, but it cannot make law."

Supreme Court rulings are law. The court decides what the law means, and it's rulings are bound to be followed by all lower courts. Since it's the courts that decide when you are guilty of breaking a law, that is real power. Decisions are not just suggestions.

"But what if we do not wish to abide by it?"

Depending on what specific thing are talking about then you can go to jail or lose your property. Whatever the law dictates. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you have to follow.

Since we were talking about gay marriage, nobody is asking you to abide by it. The decision doesn't require you to get gay married. There's nothing you have to do.

"Marriage is not in the Constitution and it has never been a listed responsibility of the Federal government. Therefore, any ruling which changes marriage is not in the purvey of the Supreme Court to even begin with."

Yes, but so what? The court already made the decision and it didn't agree. That's the losing argument. It doesn't matter any more.

"The people, nor Congress, are duty bound to abide by the whims of an overreaching court."

Yes, they are. That's how the system works. If authorities could ignore the court then they could ignore Congress too. Then the whole thing breaks down.

You do not get to pick and choose which laws you follow. That's a pretty basic concept. If you think a law is unconstitutional you take it to court. But someone has to have the power to make the final decision on that question, and guess who it is!

"Nor are we doomed to go through a Constitutional amendment process to correct a ridiculous Supreme Court decision."

Yes. Or get a future Supreme Court to reverse it. Neither is going to happen. This one is a done deal.

"As marriage is not and never has been an enumerated Federal power, the decision is illegal and improper on its face."

Do you realize how much of the government exists at all because it is exercising unremunerated powers it isn't supposed to have? This is hardly the first time the court has misinterpreted the Constitution, or the first time the federal government exceeded its authority, and it's not the most important instance either. Why are you just now realizing this is a major problem?

The fact remains, once the Supreme Court says it passes constitutional muster then it's done. There's no higher authority to which to appeal. The only recourse is to get a future reconsideration, or to change the premise of the decision by modifying the law or Constitution on which it is based.