other doctrines?

[cyjeff]

The supreme court has nothing to do with amending the constitution. That would be done by congress and the states. If the constitution WERE amended, then the supreme court would have to change its interpretations based on the new amendment.

Agreed.

Let's say that the Constitution is amended to state that only left handed people may vote in Presidential elections.

The amendment is properly ratified and voted.

The Supreme Court can do NOTHING about that amendment. It is now part of the law of the land.

 

[questar]

i suppose the point I was trying to touch on in my last post was that there are some ideas which are made in absolute contradiction to the ideas which our nation was founded upon. _for example- the pro-life issue- the sciences which are responsible for our luxuries, technologies and all life-saving procedures say that human life begins w/a single cell(zygote), yet when it comes time to make it official, this parallel is(to put it lightly) neglected._another example is the border control issue. isn't the protection of our physical borders common logic? the protection of the physical borders is so that the people inside them retain their lives. if government or civilian components of neighboring nations don't agree w/certain policies, they should not have the option of physically crossing over here(especially in mass numbers) in order to exploit them.-allowing non-citizens easy physical access embraces the fundamentally erroneous idea that the lives of those we don't know takes precedence over the lives of those we do. but this is a little off-topic and I appologize, though...

 

[questar]

...as far as 'other doctrines' are concerned- i now understand that all our laws are derived ONLY from the constitution and any writing(or no writing at all) can be used by congress to ethically justify the creation of new law._at this point in time, that interpretation sounds sensible to me. ill end this ramble w/a question pertinent to the thread._are there any notable cases in which historical writings(the declaration of independence, the federalist papers, common sense, maybe the samuel johnson english dictionary, etc.) were used by a defense?

 

[Free_Advice]

Agreed.

Let's say that the Constitution is amended to state that only left handed people may vote in Presidential elections.

The amendment is properly ratified and voted.

The Supreme Court can do NOTHING about that amendment. It is now part of the law of the land.

Lets say that we sign a treaty with france for the same thing & the senate approves it .. then it has the effect of law too.

 

[BOR]

Agreed.

Let's say that the Constitution is amended to state that only left handed people may vote in Presidential elections.

The amendment is properly ratified and voted.

The Supreme Court can do NOTHING about that amendment. It is now part of the law of the land.

I do not concur. There is nothing in the Constitution, OR constitutional case law, that states the US SC can not declare a ratified Amendment UNconstitutional.


They have struck down state constitutional amendments, as an example.

In reality can the US SC "enforce" thier Orders? Can they federalize the state national guards to enforce them like Ike did for the Little Rock 9, no.

Would the President do so to back the SC?

NOW, the seperation of powers match comes after the ruling

 

[BOR]

...as far as 'other doctrines' are concerned- i now understand that all our laws are derived ONLY from the constitution and any writing(or no writing at all) can be used by congress to ethically justify the creation of new law._at this point in time, that interpretation sounds sensible to me. ill end this ramble w/a question pertinent to the thread._are there any notable cases in which historical writings(the declaration of independence, the federalist papers, common sense, maybe the samuel johnson english dictionary, etc.) were used by a defense?

Congress passes many laws under the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare clause, some are still in tact, some were declared UNconstitutional.

One of the "Liberties" the 14th AM guarantees, is the right to "pursue happiness" and engage in the common occupations of life, so in a sense the SC has borrowed from the DOI.

A LIBERTY under the 14th has not been exactly defined, the same for Due Process, but there are Constitutional guidelines, yes.

 

[davew128]

I do not concur. There is nothing in the Constitution, OR constitutional case law, that states the US SC can not declare a ratified Amendment UNconstitutional.


They have struck down state constitutional amendments, as an example.

You HAVE heard of the Supremacy Clause, right?

 

[BOR]

You HAVE heard of the Supremacy Clause, right?

Never.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

That still does not negate my position of the US SC declaring a ratified amendment UNconstitutional.

They have overturned themselves over 200 times since 1789 also, so what they rule is also subject to a reversal of the "law of the land".

Conressional laws do not always pre-empt state laws also, yet according to the Supremacy clause they do.

As I stated, there is nothing to stop them from doing such, the seperation of powers showdown comes later.

They are as defined by the Constitution a basic appeals court, with some original jurisdiction subject matter, and it states nothing of them being a trial court, yet they held a criminal trial once themselves, not an appeal. What court could stop them??

The SC interprets the constitution under the Judicial power clause of Article 3. IF they declare an Amendment UNconstitutional, how is that outside the scope of the wording itself?

 

[Tex78704]

The SC interprets the constitution under the Judicial power clause of Article 3. IF they declare an Amendment UNconstitutional, how is that outside the scope of the wording itself?

The USSC striking down state constitutional amendments, or their own prior rulings, is not a good example, since these are struck down only because they conflict with the US Constitution or its 'newest interpretation'.

How can the USSC lawfully declare any part of a duly amended US Consitution Unconstitutional?

The only plausible scenario is if the amendment conflicts with any other provision of the constitution. Pretty unlikely since the minimum 75% of Congress (and US citizens) favoring amendment would presumably get the wording right prior to ratifying it.

But absent this scenario, the USSC striking down a consitutional amendment may violate its lawful mandate to uphold the Constitution, and subject any rebel Justices to impeachment, trial, and removal from office.

But it cannot be argued the Supreme Court can do whatever it wishes.

Although historically their rulings have often been ignored or circumvented by states, since the USSC has no direct means of enforcing its rulings, and must generally rely on the good graces of the legislative and executive branches to put teeth into their rulings.

 

[BOR]

The USSC striking down state constitutional amendments, or their own prior rulings, is not a good example, since these are struck down only because they conflict with the US Constitution or its 'newest interpretation'.

It as as good an example as you will find. Romer v. Evans, a Colorado state AM was struck down as violating the Equal Protection Clause.

As you see, Romer dealt with gays and lesbians not being permitted to engage in the political process.

Thee same with Jeff's left handed example, it violates the Equal Protection clause, or would.

How can the USSC lawfully declare any part of a duly amended US Consitution Unconstitutional?

I keep reiterating, there is nothing that can stop them from doing so. If anyone can tell me HOW they can be stopped, please tell me. Again, the seperation of powers showdown comes later.

The same constitution that permits the repeal of an AM permits the SC to rule one UNconstitutional by wording, period.

Since it has never been done, it is assumed they never will or can't, not true!

The only plausible scenario is if the amendment conflicts with any other provision of the constitution. Pretty unlikely since the minimum 75% of Congress (and US citizens) favoring amendment would presumably get the wording right prior to ratifying it.

What is there were a ratified Constitutional AM that ordered the secession of California, would that be okay?

But absent this scenario, the USSC striking down a consitutional amendment may violate its lawful mandate to uphold the Constitution, and subject any rebel Justices to impeachment, trial, and removal from office.

They would be upholding the Constitution, as with any other ruling. What if there passed an AM that did away with the U.S. House of Represenatives and we then had a Unicameral legislature, but no provision was left concerning Impeachments, as the House has the sole power of impeachment.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and ordered the arrest of the Maryland legislature to keep them from voting for secession. How was that legal and upholding the Constitution?

The point is, again, no one can stop a person/entity from doing anything.

But it cannot be argued the Supreme Court can do whatever it wishes.

Although historically their rulings have often been ignored or circumvented by states, since the USSC has no direct means of enforcing its rulings, and must generally rely on the good graces of the legislative and executive branches to put teeth into their rulings.

This reinforces my idea of the Little Rock 9 example. The SC ordered the desegregation of schools, and the Executive Branch followed the rule of law and enforced it.

Also historically, thier rulings have not been ignored by the states. This is not to say every single decision in history has not been complied with though, but since the Supremacy Clause was brought up, it also states ever court in the Country is bound to follow a SC decision. So who will the court's side with, such as a federal AM based on Romer, or the SC who strikes it down, both are a Supremacy clause conflict then??