Why stop at the 14th?

[Mister_T]

No, they don't. They determine in federal/state law is on the up-n-up with the Constitution. They do not control what is in the Constitution. The states do.

Yes they can. Again, look at Prop 8 in California: The majority of the population voted to amend the state constitiution; the Supreme Court of the state knocked it down....if 80% of the nation voted to have the constitution amended and the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional then it's not going to fly. They have the power (which you seem to be claiming they don't in any way) to do so, even if they are limited by other checks and balances like congress.

You do realise, Constitutional Amendments are not federal legislation, executive agency rules, or state laws? Once again, read the Constitution, I'll post it this time. Article Five, the section about amendment, conspicuously lacks any mention of the Supreme Court... because their power does not extend over what is in the Constitution, everything else is their purview.

The You do realize The Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land" and dictate things like legislation, so yes they are those things.

When 3/4ths of the state legislatures or conventions ratify an amendment, that is it, it is part of the Constitution, nothing anyone can do except repeal it through another amendment with 3/4ths of the state legislatures or conventions.

Right, I never said that Congress didn't have the power to make an amendment, nor did I say that Congress didn't have the power to ursup a Supreme Court decision via constitutional amendment (which is one of the only ways I think), at least not intentionally in this convoluted web of arguments. The argument was not who didn't have power, it was who did have that type of power granted to them in regards to the "will of the people." This goes back to your the beginning of your argument of "the people can take away any right you currently have by an overwhelming expression of their will" or voting populus and it plainly states that it can't if the Supreme Court decides it to be unconstitutional like they did in California, then down it goes.

The only group that can ursup a decision made by the Supreme Court is Congress if they choose to ratify an existing amendment that would then render the Supreme Court's decision "unconstitutional."

Right.

Tea Part(iers?) are not hypocrites in this instance, because they are not using the methods they have condemned in the past.

Since this is what started the whole debate which we have taken from one side to another, I think it's obvious that we're both pretty set in our opinions and are not going to agree on this point. It's probably better to agree to disagree.

I apologise for any immaturity I've displayed.

I'm sure some of my comments didn't help any, either. My apologies as well.

 

[Mister Emu]

Yes they can. Again, look at Prop 8 in California: The majority of the population voted to amend the state constitiution; the Supreme Court of the state knocked it down....

It was a federal judge, who compared it to the U.S. Constitution and said it was not kosher. Yes, federal judges have the authority to declare the actions of individual states such.

if 80% of the nation voted to have the constitution amended and the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional then it's not going to fly. They have the power (which you seem to be claiming they don't in any way) to do so, even if they are limited by other checks and balances like congress.

If the first sentence is true, the Supreme Court has no checks to their actions. They do not have the authority to dismiss a constitutional amendment.

The You do realize The Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land" and dictate things like legislation, so yes they are those things.

The Constitution does dictate how things are to be done. But amendments are not federal legislation, they are not acts of the U.S. Congress(House and Senate).

Right, I never said that Congress didn't have the power to make an amendment, nor did I say that Congress didn't have the power to ursup a Supreme Court decision via constitutional amendment (which is one of the only ways I think), at least not intentionally in this convoluted web of arguments.

Congress doesn't decide whether amendments pass either, it is the states who do so. And yes, if the passing of Amendments falls under judicial review you are saying the States don't have the power to usurp a SCotUS decision. Because any amendment made to counteract such a decision would of necessity go against how they view the Constitution currently, and they could therefore reject anything they didn't like, if they had the power of review over amendments.

They do have the power, which I accept only begrudgingly(I don't like it, but it is necessary for their job) to interpret the document, they don't have the power to stop changes when the states want them.

This goes back to your the beginning of your argument of "the people can take away any right you currently have by an overwhelming expression of their will" or voting populus and it plainly states that it can't if the Supreme Court decides it to be unconstitutional like they did in California, then down it goes.

Yes, if an individual state makes a law, or change to its state constitution, that is unconstitutional the courts can strike it down. If 3/4ths of the legislatures or conventions ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution they have no power to stop it.

The only group that can ursup a decision made by the Supreme Court is Congress if they choose to ratify an existing amendment that would then render the Supreme Court's decision "unconstitutional."

But you've already said that the Supreme Court can deny any alterations to the Constitution it deems unworthy or unconstitutional. If they can do that, then their decisions cannot be usurped, only allowed to be rejected, it is all in the hands of the Supreme Court whether to allow the challenge to their decision. They cannot stop a Constitutional Amendment when speaking about the U.S. Constitution, and not a state one.

It's probably better to agree to disagree.

I suppose so.

 

[Mister_T]

It was a federal judge, who compared it to the U.S. Constitution and said it was not kosher. Yes, federal judges have the authority to declare the actions of individual states such.

Right, and it could very well make it's way to the top and be decided on a federal level, not just a state one which would nullify the "will of the people's" vote in California which makes your insisting about "the Supreme Court not being able to determine our rights" and "the people are the ultimate foundation of rights in our society," just plain false. It also grants the SC power alter amendments at some level despite your claim to the contrary.

If the first sentence is true, the Supreme Court has no checks to their actions.

Yes they do, 75% of the states legislatures ratifying an amendment which could render a Supreme Court's decision unconstituional.

The Constitution does dictate how things are to be done. But amendments are not federal legislation, they are not acts of the U.S. Congress(House and Senate).

The Constitution which contains those amendments is only called "The Supreme Law of the Land" and legislation is another term to describe law, but it still doesn't mean law? That doesn't make sense.

Congress doesn't decide whether amendments pass either, it is the states who do so

Wrong. Congress most certainly does have power to decide in addition to the states. From Article 5:

An amendment may be ratified in three ways:

• The new amendment may be approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then sent to the states for approval.
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures may apply to Congress for a constitutional convention to consider amendments, which are then sent to the states for approval.
• Congress may require ratification by special convention. The convention method has been used only once, to approve the 21st Amendment (repealing prohibition, 1933).

They do have the power, which I accept only begrudgingly(I don't like it, but it is necessary for their job) to interpret the document, they don't have the power to stop changes when the states want them

Right, but you were not arguing in favor of the states, you were arguing in favor for the "will of the people" which are two different things. Either you meant to argue in the favor of the "states," or you are mistakenly assuming that state legislatures automatically translates into the "will of the people," which it most definitely does not; majority in this country certainly does not rule. One doesn't have to look no further than Electoral Colleges to see that the previous statement is true.

Yes, if an individual state makes a law, or change to its state constitution, that is unconstitutional the courts can strike it down. If 3/4ths of the legislatures or conventions ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution they have no power to stop it.

See above. The subject which you presented was the "will of the people (public opinion)" and it's power over amendments, not state legislators or conventions power over amendments.

But you've already said that the Supreme Court can deny any alterations to the Constitution it deems unworthy or unconstitutional

See my first response in this post.

They cannot stop a Constitutional Amendment when speaking about the U.S. Constitution, and not a state one.

I think you're missing what I was saying, either that or I did not explain it clearly enough: Any amendment in the U.S Constitiution that becomes ratified by Congress and the States, would make any Supreme Court decision reagarding state constitutional legislations that were dictated by that same amendment prior to being ratified, would be overturned

I suppose so.

We've got one argument down and one more to go. If we could take anything away from this, it would be developing our skills in long compositions.

 

[Mister Emu]

Just to clarify our posititons, I'm going to make two statements:

The Supreme Court has no power to add or repeal amendments to the U.S. Constitution
and
The acts of congress(whether at state or federal level) can be considered the expressed will of the people.

Do you agree with the first? And I guess you have some issue with the second?

 

[Mister_T]

Do you agree with the first?

More or less, yes.

And I guess you have some issue with the second?

I'll break this down into 2 parts:

My issue with it was that you seemed to be insinuating that the Supreme Court is not able to stop the "will of the people" if the want to take away rights from people when they seemingly can.

Secondly, the "will of the people" is a theoretic concept that is not accurately reflected in regards to our elected officials and politicians; it's public opinion which isn't really tangible.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'll break this down into 2 parts:

My issue with it was that you seemed to be insinuating that the Supreme Court is not able to stop the "will of the people" if the want to take away rights from people when they seemingly can.

The most powerful expression of the will of the people is changing the Constitution, if the people express their will in that way, the Supreme Court has no ability to stop them. That is what I meant. If the people are adamant about removing one of the rights we currently hold, there is nothing to stop them from demanding to, and electing politicians who would, amend the Constitution in such a way as to remove that right.

Secondly, the "will of the people" is a theoretic concept that is not accurately reflected in regards to our elected officials and politicians

As I said, you take issue with the second statement. I'd like to think for the most part it is...

 

[Falvlun]

I have a question about the Misters T and Emu's Supreme Court debate:

From what I understand, the Supreme Court cannot create or repeal a constitutional ammendment, but they obviously have the power to interpret how the ammendment is applied.

But would this not enable them to "interpret" an ammendment to mean something completely opposite (or utterly different) than an ammendment's obvious intent?

For example, take the first sentence of the first clause of the 14th Ammendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

What is stopping them from "interpreting" this to mean that "No persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States", or that "Everyone now must eat chicken on Saturday". Yes, these are ridiculous examples, but seriously, what is the check and balance upon the Supreme Court from doing something like that?

 

[Mister Emu]

What is stopping them from "interpreting" this to mean that "No persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States", or that "Everyone now must eat chicken on Saturday". Yes, these are ridiculous examples, but seriously, what is the check and balance upon the Supreme Court from doing something like that?

Impeachment?

 

[Falvlun]

Impeachment?

Ah, ok. I didn't know that impeachment was possible for judges. I just read the Wiki article on Impeachment in the United States, and apparently a bunch of judges have been impeached, though the only Supreme Court justice to have been impeached was acquitted.

That makes me feel better; I'd always wondered what the check on the judiciary branch was.

 

[Mister_T]

=Mister EmuThe most powerful expression of the will of the people is changing the Constitution, if the people express their will in that way, the Supreme Court has no ability to stop them. That is what I meant. If the people are adamant about removing one of the rights we currently hold, there is nothing to stop them from demanding to, and electing politicians who would, amend the Constitution in such a way as to remove that right.

If we could get the majority of the country to be that adamant and elect politicians (at all levels, state, federal, etc.) required to make that kind of change, we probably wouldn't need the Supreme Court all that much. Especially in today's political climate, getting people at all of those levels to cooperate in such a fashion in order to strip away rights from people seems rather unlikely (but not impossible), but nonetheless if it were to happen that way, then the Supreme Court would indeed have no say.

Putting aside the above scenario though, would you agree then that there are indeed some instances where the Supreme Court can overturn the "will of the people?"

As I said, you take issue with the second statement. I'd like to think for the most part it is...

It's not an issue with me, it's more of a political reality; it's not a rule of thumb when concerning elected politicians, but it's certainly not uncommon.

 

[Mister_T]

But would this not enable them to "interpret" an ammendment to mean something completely opposite (or utterly different) than an ammendment's obvious intent?

You mean like their ruling on Corporations being persons?

Like Mister Emu said there is always impeachment (which I think is the one of the only ways since being on the Supreme Court is pretty much a lifetime tenure), but whether or not they actually get convicted when they should be is a different story.

 

[Mister Emu]

Sorry I missed this post...

Putting aside the above scenario though, would you agree then that there are indeed some instances where the Supreme Court can overturn the "will of the people?"

Indeed...

Lesser expressions of the will of the people can and are overturned.

It's not an issue with me, it's more of a political reality; it's not a rule of thumb when concerning elected politicians, but it's certainly not uncommon.

Alright.