• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

Is the Supreme Court being the Ultimate Arbiter of Constituionality a Problem?

  • The Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality

    Votes: 5 17.9%

  • The supreme court is the ultimate arbiter and there are no problems with that

    Votes: 5 17.9%

  • The supreme court is the ultimate arbiter and there are problems but it is the best system possible

    Votes: 11 39.3%

  • the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter its a problem, but there are ways to improve (explain)

    Votes: 6 21.4%

  • Other/Don't Know

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Total voters
    28
Kal'Stang said:
Ah, I was talking about SCOTUS since that is what the thread is about. :shrug:



You're right, thats what they said. However if you take a look, no where does Obamacare call it a tax. Including at healthcare.gov which tells people what happens to those that don't have insurance. In that section the word "tax" does not appear even once. However the words "fee" and "penalty" does, several times. Even the government refuses to call it a tax. That section also states that when you pay the fee/penalty you also still have to fully pay for any medical costs you get. So....where is the benefit here? Where is the evidence that this is in actuality a "tax"? IE: You can call a cat a human, but that does not mean that it IS a human.
Click to expand...

The evidence is in the SCOTUS interpretation, and according to them, it IS a tax. Thus, the issue has been vetted. However, I agree with you that the Obama interpretation of this was less than honest.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Ah, I was talking about SCOTUS since that is what the thread is about. :shrug:
Click to expand...
No, the thread is about "who is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality", or perhaps "should SCOTUS be?" I argued Congress.
 
Most Congressmen seem to believe in Congress having unlimited power. at least if what they actually pass is any indication. If Congress shoudl be the ultimate arbiter, then there's no point in even having a constitution.
 
francois60 said:
Most Congressmen seem to believe in Congress having unlimited power. at least if what they actually pass is any indication. If Congress shoudl be the ultimate arbiter, then there's no point in even having a constitution.
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly sure how it works currently...Congress can pass a law, but then if someone challenges it in court the SCOTUS can overturn it? Or call it "unconstitutional"?

Can Congress then modify or add to the constitution? Does that take a larger percentage of congress?
 
The Mark said:
I'm not exactly sure how it works currently...Congress can pass a law, but then if someone challenges it in court the SCOTUS can overturn it? Or call it "unconstitutional"?
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional is one way to define it, but I just prefer illegal. Congress has been delegated certain powers, and any exercise of powers it does not posses is illegal. So whenever they exceed their powers, someone affected by the illegal law can seek relief from the courts.

Can Congress then modify or add to the constitution? Does that take a larger percentage of congress?
Click to expand...

Yes, two thirds of both chambers, and then 38 states have to ratify the amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom