NOT the Supreme Court's job to decide what's unconstitutional

[glenn1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Tom
Thanks for explaining for Glenn1 why reading one part of the Constitution and ignoring other articles leads to mistaken interpretation.

Glenn1- I believe you completely misread Article III, Section 2. This section gives Congress the authority to decide if the Supreme Court will have original OR appellate jurisdiction in certain matters. It does not give Congress authority to eliminate the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, just if lower courts will have jurisdiction first, or if a matter goes directly to the Supreme Court.


"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,.."


Congress cannot take away this power simply by passing a law. It would take an Amendment to change it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court has decided otherwise. And not just on some trivial matter like flag burning, but rather a fundamental right such as habeas corpus.

link


While I understand you are making a good-faith effort to try to create a mental framework for how judicial review is implemented, unfortunately you seem to be a casualty of relatively poor job the country does of educating its citizens on civics in anything but generalities.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
From reading this whole thread I've come to the conclusion that ProfJohn's post was full of half truths, maybe even outright lies. Funny, it's not the first time his posts "facts" have been shredded. He's made troll status as far as I'm concerned.

Please back up this accusation with some facts. Where did I tell a half truth and where did I lie. Otherwise keep your comments like this to yourself.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: glenn1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Tom
Thanks for explaining for Glenn1 why reading one part of the Constitution and ignoring other articles leads to mistaken interpretation.

Glenn1- I believe you completely misread Article III, Section 2. This section gives Congress the authority to decide if the Supreme Court will have original OR appellate jurisdiction in certain matters. It does not give Congress authority to eliminate the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, just if lower courts will have jurisdiction first, or if a matter goes directly to the Supreme Court.


"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,.."


Congress cannot take away this power simply by passing a law. It would take an Amendment to change it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court has decided otherwise. And not just on some trivial matter like flag burning, but rather a fundamental right such as habeas corpus.

link


While I understand you are making a good-faith effort to try to create a mental framework for how judicial review is implemented, unfortunately you seem to be a casualty of relatively poor job the country does of educating its citizens on civics in anything but generalities.

Again, it isn't that simple, the complexities are evident in the following-

Link


It isn't correct that the case you cite involved habeas corpus as granted by the Constitution. The case involved Congress' extension by statute of habeas in a specific circumstance, and then subsequently repealing the statute.

Obviously Congress can make an exception of jurisdiction for a statute, but unless you can cite a case where Congress has limited the Supreme Court's jurisdiction on a Constitutional issue, and the Court agreed, you haven't really made a convincing argument.

 

[Agent11]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well I think Tony Snow could have done a better job answering this question, but there are two things he said that are true.

1."the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document"
The Presidential Oath of Office,""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
President is the only one with those words in it, everyone else says "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and the courts only says "perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States"

2. He is right about the Supreme Court, no where in the Constitution does it give them the ability to decide whether laws are unconstitutional or note. Although it has been accepted that it has that power for 200+ years so I am not what Snow is getting at with that remark.

"The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of the Supreme Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton writes: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute." The Supreme Court first established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the system of checks and balances."

I think you need to click the link and read the whole exchange in order to get a better understanding of what Tony Snow was trying to say. The original question was about the President being able to issue "signing statements" to get around laws. Signing statements have been around since James Monroe and Clinton signed as many as Bush has signed.

Read this statement from the Clinton justice department on signing statements
'If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority."

As you can clearly see the Clinton justice department is saying the President has the right to decide when a law "encroaches on his powers" I don't remember the left making a big fuss out of this when Clinton was President.
The whole exchange is essentially Tony Snow defending the right of the President to do so. So far the Supreme Court has not said anything about Presidents doing this, but there is a law in congress giving congress the right to sue in the Supreme Court in order to determine the constitutionality of signing statements

Let the flames and personal attacks begin.

John, you seem like a smart guy.. However you need to do some research on signing statements, the way Bush is using them has NO precident.
He is signing bills and then saying 'it doesnt apply to me' in the signing statement, this has never been done before and is a grave risk to the checks and balances in our system of government.
If you want to know why this is freaking people out look up Cheney's minority report during the Nixon impeachment investigations..
They have a theory that is not backed by the constitution of a 'Unitary Executive'.
article on NPR

 

[glenn1]

Again, it isn't that simple, the complexities are evident in the following-

Link


It isn't correct that the case you cite involved habeas corpus as granted by the Constitution. The case involved Congress' extension by statute of habeas in a specific circumstance, and then subsequently repealing the statute.

Obviously Congress can make an exception of jurisdiction for a statute, but unless you can cite a case where Congress has limited the Supreme Court's jurisdiction on a Constitutional issue, and the Court agreed, you haven't really made a convincing argument.

You are the most stubbornly persistent to holding onto an error of anyone I've ever met. From the article you cited, here are several cases to cite. I cannot further help you or engage in discussion with you if you still refuse to bow to the reality of many posts of unamigously clear language and the very text of Supreme Court decisions affirming the exact opposite of what you writing.

United States v. More: "As the jurisdiction of the court has been described, it has been regulated by Congrss, and an affirmative description of its powers must be understood as a regulation, under the Constitution, prohibiting the exercise of other powers than those described" (italics in the original)

Barry v. Mercein: "By the Constition of the United States, the Supreme Court possesses no appellate power in any case unless conferred upon it by an act of Congress; nor can it, when conferred, but exercised in any other form or by any other mode of proceeding, than that which the law prescribes. And since this court can exercise no appellate pwer unless it is conferred by act of Congress..."

Daniels v. Railroad Company: "But it is for Congress to determine how far, within the limits of the capacity of this court to take, appellate jurisdiction shall be given, and when conferred it can be exercised only to the extent and in the manner prescribed by law. In these respects if it wholly the creature of legislation."

Natural Mutual Insurance Co v. Tidewater Transfer Co: "Congress need not establish inferior courts; Congress need not grant the full scope of jurisdiction which it is empowered to vest in the; Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred and it may do so even while a case is in sub judice."

Yakus v. United States: "Congress has the plenary power to confer or withhold appellate jurisdiction."