Thread: Questionable Constitutional Authority Statements

Originally Posted by Aderleth

Ah, but it's not an assumption, it's a deduction. This is why I kept pressing you and others to address the reasoning of Marbury, rather than its conclusion (okay - one of the reasons). The obligation arises as a necessity from the explicit language of the constitution.

I don't disagree that either of those things are true. Most people don't understand the constitution, and I suspect that there are quite a few people with strong convictions about its content (on both sides of the political divide) who have never even read it, let alone studied the law that surrounds it. Was it you who brought up Citizens United a few pages back? I live in San Francisco, so as you might imagine, I know quite a lot of people who were vehemently opposed to that decision. Some of them are lawyers, and can muster cogent arguments in support of their position. Many of them have never read the case at all, and don't know the first thing about the First Amendment. I imagine you know people with diametrically opposed convictions who are equally clueless.

And those are all fine conclusions, but the conclusion of last resort will always be the judiciary. It's the end of the line for any dispute (obviously I don't mean that literally - some disputes end in murder, e.g.), and, therefore, the last word on any matter of statutory or constitutional construction. That's what the judicial system is for (aside from trying criminals): to resolve otherwise unresolvable conflicts.

Let's reset back to what you said initially, because we've had considerable creep here.

Originally Posted by Aderleth

And under the Constitution, SCOTUS (not "the federal government," but SCOTUS) has the ultimate authority to determine the limits of federal power as set out by the Constitution. So if you don't support that idea, you don't support the Constitution.

This is what I was arguing with, not necessarily the idea of judicial review in general.

The Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court "ultimate authority" of anything other than being the final court of appeal in the federal judicial system.

It certainly in no way grants the courts sole providence over matters of constitutionality, and it doesn't grant them final say.

The reasoning of Marbury doesn't contemplate this, either.

So no, to say this does not mean one does "not support the Constitution."

You were also replying to the idea that that the federal government doesn't have final say as to its authority over the states, and you cited Marbury as evidence that it does. Those are two separate spheres of argument -- the courts determining constitutionality of laws, and the relationship between the federal government and the states.

Textually, the states have considerable authority over the federal government as the Constitution specifically grants them the power to call a constitutional convention, at which they could alter the federal government in any way they choose. The Constitution does not grant the federal government any similar authority over the states.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

Let's reset back to what you said initially, because we've had considerable creep here.

True enough. And I agree with your contention that we should get back to the initial proposition.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

This is what I was arguing with, not necessarily the idea of judicial review in general.

The Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court "ultimate authority" of anything other than being the final court of appeal in the federal judicial system.

It certainly in no way grants the courts sole providence over matters of constitutionality, and it doesn't grant them final say.

Yes, and no. I agree that there's no literal statement to that effect. But it does follow logically from what the constitution does affirmatively state.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

The reasoning of Marbury doesn't contemplate this, either.

So no, to say this does not mean one does "not support the Constitution."

I was absolutely being a dick about that. I was also, from a certain perspective, right about that.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

You were also replying to the idea that that the federal government doesn't have final say as to its authority over the states, and you cited Marbury as evidence that it does. Those are two separate spheres of argument -- the courts determining constitutionality of laws, and the relationship between the federal government and the states.

That's true. And funnily enough, I was actually making a very narrow point. The post to which I was responding had asserted that the Federal Government had final authority over the constitution. I was merely pointing out that it's not the federal government (in general ) but rather SCOTUS (in particular) that has that authority.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

Textually, the states have considerable authority over the federal government as the Constitution specifically grants them the power to call a constitutional convention, at which they could alter the federal government in any way they choose. The Constitution does not grant the federal government any similar authority over the states.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Aderleth

True enough. And I agree with your contention that we should get back to the initial proposition.

Yes, and no. I agree that there's no literal statement to that effect. But it does follow logically from what the constitution does affirmatively state.

I was absolutely being a dick about that. I was also, from a certain perspective, right about that.

That's true. And funnily enough, I was actually making a very narrow point. The post to which I was responding had asserted that the Federal Government had final authority over the constitution. I was merely pointing out that it's not the federal government (in general ) but rather SCOTUS (in particular) that has that authority.

I agree.

Well, I think we generally agree on most things except these:

1) The Constitution does not grant the courts sole or final say on constitutionality, and 2) not even Marshall made that claim.

Originally Posted by Aderleth

I agree. And if you look closely at the analysis of Marbury, you'll find that they did.

Well all I know is that it's the best thing that ever happened to modern liberalism, because they can't get enough people to vote for their socialist, hair-brained ideas to get them into law, or unchallenged by the courts unless they're packed with liberal justices.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

Well, I think we generally agree on most things except these:

1) The Constitution does not grant the courts sole or final say on constitutionality, and 2) not even Marshall made that claim.

That's pretty much accurate, I think.

Originally Posted by American

Well all I know is that it's the best thing that ever happened to modern liberalism, because they can't get enough people to vote for their socialist, hair-brained ideas to get them into law, or unchallenged by the courts unless they're packed with liberal justices.

The current SCOTUS is decidedly not packed with liberals. So, currently, Marbury was the best thing that ever happened to conservatism.

Originally Posted by Aderleth

The current SCOTUS is decidedly not packed with liberals. So, currently, Marbury was the best thing that ever happened to conservatism.

not really-I don't recall anything like Roe v Wade, Gideon, Miranda, etc created by conservative courts.

And now the President says that if the "unelected group" known as the Supremes toss out Obamacare, they'll be guilty of "judicial activism."

Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare | Reuters

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

not really-I don't recall anything like Roe v Wade, Gideon, Miranda, etc created by conservative courts.

And now they have the opportunity to do so, which is why Marbury is very good for the currently somewhat conservative court.

Originally Posted by Aderleth

The current SCOTUS is decidedly not packed with liberals. So, currently, Marbury was the best thing that ever happened to conservatism.

We wouldn't be where we are today if it weren't for the courts packed by FDR to pass on or not judge his intrusive big govt money and power. He hurt this country more than all other presidents combined. He did it by the simple trick of the payroll tax.