• 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!

Does Article III Give SCOTUS The Right To Toss A Law Signed By The President?

Does Article III Give SCOTUS The Right To Toss A Law Signed By The President?


  • Total voters
    12

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's an interesting question.

Does Article III Give SCOTUS The Right To Toss A Law Signed By The President?


Yes

No

I don't know.

Article. III.

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
 
Yes, if a case is brought before them involving a presidentially signed bill or whatever, they have jurisdiction over it.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

Judicial review also comes to mind, and the quoted section plus judicial review says yes, at least from my perspective.

Not to mention, the spirit of the SCOTUS is to act as a check on Congress and the President. I suppose its acting as a check on both by being able to do this.
 
Very few bills/laws are official until the President of the US signs it. The only way that Congress/House can pass a bill past a Presidents veto power is by using a super majority vote overriding the veto. Other than that the President must sign EVERY bill/law that passes through the House and Senate. So after considering that, and then adding that fact that SCOTUS continually judges weather laws are Constitutional or not (and has been since the US was first formed)...I would have to say yes.

There are 5 checks and balances on our government. There are the normal ones that most people know about. Legislative, executive, judicial, peoples right to vote. Each of those are designed to where no one has absolute authority and can countermand the others decisions. The last one is actually far less known and which the courts try to keep it that way. I won't mention it because frankly I'm curious as to if anyone else knows the answer. ;) (I will mention it later though if no one gets it with in the next couple of days.)
 
that SCOTUS continually judges weather laws are Constitutional or not (and has been since the US was first formed)

Actually, they didn't do that until 1803.
 
Very few bills/laws are official until the President of the US signs it. The only way that Congress/House can pass a bill past a Presidents veto power is by using a super majority vote overriding the veto. Other than that the President must sign EVERY bill/law that passes through the House and Senate. So after considering that, and then adding that fact that SCOTUS continually judges weather laws are Constitutional or not (and has been since the US was first formed)...I would have to say yes.

There are 5 checks and balances on our government. There are the normal ones that most people know about. Legislative, executive, judicial, peoples right to vote. Each of those are designed to where no one has absolute authority and can countermand the others decisions. The last one is actually far less known and which the courts try to keep it that way. I won't mention it because frankly I'm curious as to if anyone else knows the answer. ;) (I will mention it later though if no one gets it with in the next couple of days.)

Pretty good checks and balances...except for one. Nobody, and I mean nobody, overrules SCOTUS. Hmmmm.....
 
Pretty good checks and balances...except for one. Nobody, and I mean nobody, overrules SCOTUS. Hmmmm.....

that's not actually true 100%
 
Is this a trick question? It says their powers extend to all laws of the US.
 
Pretty good checks and balances...except for one. Nobody, and I mean nobody, overrules SCOTUS. Hmmmm.....

You could pull a Jackson, and ignore what they have say. If their ruling is that unpopular/horrible, that might be an option for the President.
 
Pretty good checks and balances...except for one. Nobody, and I mean nobody, overrules SCOTUS. Hmmmm.....

Actually that's not true. Congress can rewrite the law and pass it again.
 
It's an interesting question.

Does Article III Give SCOTUS The Right To Toss A Law Signed By The President?


Yes

No

I don't know.

Article. III.

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

What do you mean by 'toss'?
 
Actually that's not true. Congress can rewrite the law and pass it again.

But if someone challenges that law, it can go to the SCOTUS again.


It's not really true that no one overrules SCOTUS anyway.

Jackson and Nixon anyone? The SCOTUS has only the will of the people behind it, while the POTUS has the power of the sword and Congress has the power of the purse.
 
Pretty good checks and balances...except for one. Nobody, and I mean nobody, overrules SCOTUS. Hmmmm.....

This really isn't true. If Congress absolutely thinks that something should be a part of law in the US, they can make it an Amendment to the Constitution. I don't really agree with doing this (we all can see how bad this worked with Prohibition), but it can be done and has been threatened on many issues. Most of the time, however, Congress does not have the supermajority support of both it and the states to actually do this, especially with most laws that Congress passes or issues that Congress faces.
 
I refer not to Article III, but to Marbury v. Madision.
 
I refer not to Article III, but to Marbury v. Madision.

Yeah, in 1803 the court gave itself this power.
However, 2 presidents (at least) thus far have ignored the ruling of the SCOTUS.
 
Pretty good checks and balances...except for one. Nobody, and I mean nobody, overrules SCOTUS. Hmmmm.....

Actually Congress/Senate can. All they have to do is make an amendment to the Constitution. And there is the 5th check and balance that hasn't been mentioned yet. (at least from your post..haven't read all the posts past yours yet....
 
There are 5 checks and balances on our government. There are the normal ones that most people know about. Legislative, executive, judicial, peoples right to vote. Each of those are designed to where no one has absolute authority and can countermand the others decisions. The last one is actually far less known and which the courts try to keep it that way. I won't mention it because frankly I'm curious as to if anyone else knows the answer. ;) (I will mention it later though if no one gets it with in the next couple of days.)

Not to spoil anyone's fun, but he is referring to Jury Nullification. If people thing a law is wrong or its application is wrong then they can give a verdict Not Guilty.
 
Pretty good checks and balances...except for one. Nobody, and I mean nobody, overrules SCOTUS. Hmmmm.....

Not true, congress & states can change the constitution
 
Not to spoil anyone's fun, but he is referring to Jury Nullification. If people thing a law is wrong or its application is wrong then they can give a verdict Not Guilty.

Thank you. I was wondering if someone was going to get it.
 
To answer the OP yes the Supreme Court can.
 
Yeah, in 1803 the court gave itself this power.
However, 2 presidents (at least) thus far have ignored the ruling of the SCOTUS.

Marbury vs Madison is not the soul of the court. Congress can pass a law overriding the court. The court is not an all powerful dictatorship. Liberals consider the court their congress, because they can't get the people to vote for their crap. So they count on the court to make law out of law suits.
 
Last edited:
Pretty good checks and balances...except for one. Nobody, and I mean nobody, overrules SCOTUS. Hmmmm.....

But here's what keeps the Supreme Court from taking over the federal government.

1) They do not have the power to write laws.
While they rule on laws and can strike laws down, they cannot write new laws. Rather, they can only ask Congress to write laws that are constitutional. And Congress, of their own accord, can rewrite laws to make it uphold the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.

2) They do not have the power to enforce laws.
Again, while they can rule unconstitutional the laws and acts of Congress and the President, they do not rule over any executive agencies. The President is in charge of those. So while the Supreme Court can rule the laws and acts of Congress and the President unconstitutional, it is up to President to enforce SCOTUS' rulings and up to Congress to abide by them. If the President and Congress choose to ignore SCOTUS' rulings, there is very little SCOTUS can technically do about it. However, Congress and the President usually don't because our military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution despite the President being commander-in-chief and Congress providing funding.

So I'm not worried about the Supreme Court having the powers that they do have.
 
Back
Top Bottom