Posted on 10/10/2015 8:10:22 PM PDT by cradle of freedom
Yes, congress can pass an amendment taking something out of the courts jurisdiction. It can remove the courts bility toule on something this way. Further the court has zero enforcement mechanism.
[[If a decision is based on a law passed by congress, if congress changes that law, the supreme court decision is annulled, i think.]]
correct
The short answer is "no." Our original Constitution could not conceive that rational homo sapiens could claim validity for two opposing decisions, by the identically same members on the same subject, as a final answer. That should be self evident.
I am not a lawyer, Constitutional or otherwise. Nor have I played one on TV.
But I do know for a fact, (mistakenly perhaps, and I stand ready to be corrected) that the Supreme Court can, and has, as an institution, reversed itself!
Not the same Supreme court with the identically same members. That would make our judicial system joke!
That would be creating a totally new and different Constitution. The original Constitutional is not a suicide pact, and cannot be amended such as to oppose any part of the Bill of Rights, either by amendment, by legislative action or by executive order.
Common sense..
But that tired , silly and nonsensical question keeps being asked over and over.
No.
The Constitution would not exist without the annexation to it of the Bill of rights, which clearly is not subject to any modification.
A slightly different question, which can be examined and debated, is can Congress specifically prohibit the Supreme Court from debating and passing judgment in specific areas of law?
ABSOLUTELY!
Your post proves that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." There never was a Supreme Court justice named Marbury. You are, of course, thinking about the case Marbury v. Madison, which laid the cornerstone of the American judicial system when Thomas Jefferson was President. Marbury was the plaintiff in the case - a banker who was appointed to serve as a Justice of the Peace by John Adams and who sued Secretary of State James Madison when his boss, President Thomas Jefferson, rescinded the nomination. The fact that you're clearly unfamiliar with even the most basic facts of the case lead me to suspect that you probably don't understand Justice Marshall's holding either.
And I'd agree - the Court should be hesitant to overturn the will of the people. But in every country that does not have judicial review, governments have eventually become tyrannies.
The important point about any case is money. Getting to SCOTUS is a very expensive proposition. Once the ruling is made, it is up to the lower courts to abide by and enforce that ruling.
If a lower court does not like the SCOTUS ruling, they can and have ignored it successfully - because of rule one: money - the plaintiffs lack the funds to either bring a case or to pursue it; thus, SCOTUS is over-ruled by a lower court and an onerous law stands.
Read the 11th amendment!
Yes, it was called “The Civil War”
So there ya go, only takes 600,000 dead and a ruined country to undo the Supreme Court
Yes, there were little details to work out such as whether loyal slaveholders would be compensated. They weren't. But even the south knew the institution was gone in February 1865 when they started granting emancipation in return for military service. Things had grown pretty desperate by that point and, contrary to popular belief, black men did bear arms on behalf of the south; they didn't just drive mule teams and chow lines.
Yes, Brown explicitly overturned Plessey.
Please explain.
The Supreme Court is only ONE of THREE equal branches of government.
Each has the opportunity to overturn or change any ruling by the others.
The fact that the current Congress has no desire to do anything about the JUNK Obama does .. doesn’t matter. And, the fact that the Supreme Court has now decided to be in league with the WH .. doesn’t matter. This current Congress is not willing to challenge the other two parts.
But, legally Congress can challenge either the WH or Supreme Court.
I don’t get how people believe the Supreme Court is the be all, end all, of the world .. and what it says is Gospel.
IT IS NOT .. and it was never set up to be that in the first place.
That’s my explanation.
Thanks for the explanation.
Without the amendments (13,14, and 15) to the constitution there would NOT have been a grant of citizenship.
Your analysis lacks in oh soon many ways.....but I won’t bother.
You are confused
It is like arguing about when ObaMao's affordable care act was imposed upon us were I to say the American electorate made it inevitable in November 2008 and you arguing that it actually took more than a year after that.
The court has no enforcement mechanism...Was it President Jackson who made an impertinent reply to the court? Something like—you and what army?
You have a reasonable point there that I had recently discussed with my wife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.