Scotus

[Guy Incognito]

Of course it's an extrapolation. My point is that it's an extrapolation that necessarily follows from the explicit language of the constitution.

Your point is not a relevant one.

 

[YoungConserv]

I never said the Supreme Court could change the Constitution. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.

If there was no judicial review, there be very little in terms of judicial checks on the legislative and executive branches of government.

That is changing the constitution with out a amendment!

 

[Guy Incognito]

That is changing the constitution with out a amendment!

Yes, it is. And even so-called originalists embrace this.

 

[YoungConserv]

Yes, it is. And even so-called originalists embrace this.

And they are wrong!

 

[Aderleth]

Let me help you. Where does it say they cannot just declare a winner and a loser and have to interpret anything?

Setting aside the fairly obvious fact that it's impossible to declare a winner or loser (unless you're doing so arbitrarily) without first understanding what the law means (which invariably is an act of interpretation), that is explicitly, and by longstanding tradition the role of a judge in a common law court. That's been the case for centuries. Since the founders were raised under a common law rubric, whenever they're talking about judicial power/action, they're talking about the interpretation of statutes (among other things).

 

[Fisher]

Of course it's an extrapolation. My point is that it's an extrapolation that necessarily follows from the explicit language of the constitution.

Your point is not a relevant one.

Now you are just being mean. The English common law tradition was for Courts to be able to interpret meaning and we essentially imported English Common Law as our jurisprudence during the colonial era ergo it was a foregone conclusion that was a role of the Court. Regardless, if you are chasing a fox and it runs onto my land, I am shooting it and making my lady a stole assuming she has not poisoned me with tomato soup served in a pewter mug.

 

[Guy Incognito]

And they are wrong!

I think you may be having a satori moment.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Now you are just being mean. The English common law tradition was for Courts to be able to interpret meaning and we essentially imported English Common Law as our jurisprudence during the colonial era ergo it was a foregone conclusion that was a role of the Court. Regardless, if you are chasing a fox and it runs onto my land, I am shooting it and making my lady a stole assuming she has not poisoned me with tomato soup served in a pewter mug.

No I'm not being mean, at least not intentionally. Your point is well heard, and to the extent that you stated in two posts back I agree with your point. But it isn't relevant to what YoungConvserv is saying. Your point doesn't change the fact that the extrapolation of hidden meanings out of the constitution to create new law is a way of altering the Constitution without an amendment.

I get the sense that you're a lawyer or a legal scholar. Edit: Thought I was speaking with Aderleth for a second. Fisher, I know you're a lawyer. Are you familiar with legal realism?

 

[Aderleth]

Your point is not a relevant one.

My point isn't relevant to you disagreeing with my point? Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[head of joaquin]

That is an excellent regurgitation of the Marbury reasoning. I guess if you repeat something enough that makes it true?

What part of Art III don't you understand or do you interpret differently than Marbury?

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 Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

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; 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.

 

[Fisher]

Setting aside the fairly obvious fact that it's impossible to declare a winner or loser (unless you're doing so arbitrarily) without first understanding what the law means (which invariably is an act of interpretation), that is explicitly, and by longstanding tradition the role of a judge in a common law court. That's been the case for centuries. Since the founders were raised under a common law rubric, whenever they're talking about judicial power/action, they're talking about the interpretation of statutes (among other things).

In case you have not noticed, we are in the DP era of technocratic semantics (and apparently of strict constructionists applying civil law doctrine to common law when it suits them).

 

[Aderleth]

No I'm not being mean, at least not intentionally. Your point is well heard, and to the extent that you stated in two posts back I agree with your point. But it isn't relevant to what YoungConvserv is saying. Your point doesn't change the fact that the extrapolation of hidden meanings out of the constitution to create new law is a way of altering the Constitution without an amendment.

Bull****. Pointing out unavoidable conclusions stemming from the language of a document doesn't in any way change the meaning of the document, it informs the meaning of the document.

 

[Guy Incognito]

What part of Art III don't you understand or do you interpret differently than Marbury?

I agree with the Marbury interpretation, I think it's reasonable. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it's interpretation.

Chill out, HOJ, I am pretty confident you're going to like where I'm going with all this.

 

[clownboy]

What part of Art III don't you understand or do you interpret differently than Marbury?

The part where both Jefferson and Madison (authors and framers) disagreed with the court's assumed grant. A court that I might add contained not a single framer.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Bull****. Pointing out unavoidable conclusions stemming from the language of a document doesn't in any way change the meaning of the document, it informs the meaning of the document.

It's not an unavoidable conclusion, you haven't shown that and it's not true. You're giving yourself more credit than you're due.

It's a good interpretation and a reasonable one, but hardly an unavoidable one.

 

[Guy Incognito]

apparently of strict constructionists applying civil law doctrine to common law when it suits them

Say what? This is an exercise in demonstrating the inherently untenable foundation of strict constructionism.

 

[head of joaquin]

I agree with the Marbury interpretation, I think it's reasonable. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it's interpretation.

Chill out, HOJ, I am pretty confident you're going to like where I'm going with all this.

I was sincerely asking.

 

[head of joaquin]

The part where both Jefferson and Madison (authors and framers) disagreed with the court's assumed grant. A court that I might add contained not a single framer.

.

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 Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

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; 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.



I can't wait to hear this crank meme again.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I was sincerely asking.

Oh, ok. Well I haven't got an answer for you. I think it's just a gap that never got filled in, and Marbury does a decent job filling it. But just like filling in gap, they had to add a little bit of stuff that was never originally there.

 

[Fisher]

No I'm not being mean, at least not intentionally. Your point is well heard, and to the extent that you stated in two posts back I agree with your point. But it isn't relevant to what YoungConvserv is saying. Your point doesn't change the fact that the extrapolation of hidden meanings out of the constitution to create new law is a way of altering the Constitution without an amendment.

I get the sense that you're a lawyer or a legal scholar. Edit: Thought I was speaking with Aderleth for a second. Fisher, I know you're a lawyer. Are you familiar with legal realism?

Yes. I understand your argument. I do not wholly accept it or reject it in practice though, in part, because what may be creating new law to you is not creating a new law to me, or the other way around.

 

[head of joaquin]

Oh, ok. Well I haven't got an answer for you. I think it's just a gap that never got filled in, and Marbury does a decent job filling it. But just like filling in gap, they had to add a little bit of stuff that was never originally there.

Well I'd say that the wording is pretty clear: the SC has jurisdiction over all cases involving the constitution. That's judicial review.

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;

This means judicial review.

 

[Fisher]

Say what? This is an exercise in demonstrating the inherently untenable foundation of strict constructionism.

I wasn't speaking of you though I probably should have clarified that. I was speaking of the 2nd Amendment free for all going on up in this joint.

 

[YoungConserv]

Implied powers are dangerous it's what gave us internment camps with out a defined set of powers and a rigid set of rules on how to change them or our rights will erode generation by generation until future generations can't imagine the fredom we and our parents had.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Yes. I understand your argument. I do not wholly accept it or reject it in practice though, in part, because what may be creating new law to you is not creating a new law to me, or the other way around.

Well what else is it? Are you saying it's some sort of hidden law that was always in the constitution, just waiting to be found, like the Michaelangelo said about his marble? Because it's either new law or it's originally in the Constitution.

Or are you saying it's not law? It's not new or it's not law?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Well I'd say that the wording is pretty clear: the SC has jurisdiction over all cases involving the constitution. That's judicial review.

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;

This means judicial review.

What do you base that on?