Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I am not sure how you reconcile this:

    a lot of what the US Supreme Court does is issue rulings on whether various laws are constitutional or not (unconstitutional laws are nullified), but the Constitution does not explicitly give the Court this power.

    with this [cornell.edu]:

    The judicial power [of the Supreme Court] shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution

    • Quite easily. :)

      It does not explicitly say anything about nullifying laws. It says they can decide the outcome of specific cases, but it says nothing about nullifying an entire law based on its constitutionality.

      Or maybe I'm reading it differently than you.

      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...

      If you read that sentence it as saying "The judicial

      • Quite easily. :)

        I don't think so.

        It does not explicitly say anything about nullifying laws.

        It's absolutely implicit.

        It says they can decide the outcome of specific cases, but it says nothing about nullifying an entire law based on its constitutionality.

        I don't understand how this is interesting at all. If someone sues over whether a law is legal/Constitutional, that obviously falls under the Supreme Court's mandate. There is nothing excluding that (either explicitly or implicitly), and it is a "case arisi
        • First of all, let me make clear that my argument is not that the Court overstepped their authority in declaring that they could decide the constitutionality of laws. (And whether or not they've overstepped their authority today is an entirely different question.)

          It's absolutely implicit.

          How is anything implicit absolutely so? Are you asserting that it logically follows from that sentence?

          It says they can decide the outcome of specific cases, but it says nothing about nullifying an entire law based on i

          • How is anything implicit absolutely so? Are you asserting that it logically follows from that sentence?

            Yes, precisely.

            Because we're talking about whether the Supreme Court has the power to nullify a law on the basis that that law is inconsistent with the constitution.

            Right, but the conclusion is necessarily reached from the language. Whether it is explicitly stated is not relevant.

            There is nothing excluding that, but there is nothing explicitly including that either.

            Then it is therefore included. ALL CASES arising under the Constitution, it says. So unless it is excluded, it is included, since obviously a citizen suing the legislature for overstepping its Constitutional limits is a case arising under the Constitution.

            And again, Hamilton is on my side, so you have to be far more convincing than saying you simply think it is not implied, because he said it was. :-)

            And wanting to challenge a law as inconsistent to the constitution is not in itself the basis of a lawsuit that the Court will hear.

            Oh, yes, but that's beside the point. The Court does not hear such cases. Consider the recent Pledge case, where Newdow's suit was thrown out because he didn't have legal standing. That he thought the law was unconstitutional was insufficient.

            My argument is really that the fact that the Supreme Court can decide the constitutionality of laws was established as a decision of the court

            And my argument -- clearly backed up by Hamilton -- is that you are wrong, that this is a part of the Constitution.

            and that the Constitution does not provide a clear model of deciding when the court should uphold its previous decisions or not.

            This, I agree with. And I am glad it does not.
            • Right, but the conclusion is necessarily reached from the language. Whether it is explicitly stated is not relevant.

              I tend to think that reaching conclusions is still a form of interpretation.

              And again, Hamilton is on my side, so you have to be far more convincing than saying you simply think it is not implied, because he said it was. :-)

              Aha! You're appealing to Hamilton. Which is a fine thing to do. But it is an application of a particular framework of interpretation.

              and that the Constitution does not

              • I tend to think that reaching conclusions is still a form of interpretation.

                Given the laws of integers and base 10 and addition, is it an "interpretation" that 2+2=4?

                I think the language gives absolutely no room for any other interpretation.

                Aha! You're appealing to Hamilton. Which is a fine thing to do. But it is an application of a particular framework of interpretation.

                Sure, though you are the one who brought up original intent.

                I assert that because constitutionality determination is a previous decision o
                • you are the one who brought up original intent.

                  I was foolish to bring up original intent. It appears my source was nothing more than a textbook [amazon.com] which has a section that presents some arguments for and against Judicial Review. An argument in support says

                  The Framers left juidical review out of the Constitution because they did not want to heighten controversy over Article III review, not because they opposed the practice.(p.59)

                  and the argument against that point is

                  The participants at the Constitutional Co

                  • Upon more research into the Council of Revision, I found this debate [teachingam...istory.org] but most of it seems to be about Executive plus Judicial review.

                • Given the laws of integers and base 10 and addition, is it an "interpretation" that 2+2=4?

                  Possibly. 2+2=4 is not axiomatic. However, keep in mind that English is a whole lot less precise. :)

                  I think the language gives absolutely no room for any other interpretation.

                  And I assert that the Supreme Court is required to actually make that interpretation.