From the Business Insider:
In a statement responding to the court's ruling, [Rand] Paul summarily dismissed both the decision and the court itself, and even voiced doubts about whether or not the Supreme Court justices have the authority to rule on the Constitution.
Here's his statement:
“Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so," Paul said in the statement. "The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right."
“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare,” he continued.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-the-supreme-court-doesnt-get-to-decide-whats-constitutional-2012-6 [My bold]
Article III of the Constitution, Section 1:
Judicial powers
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.
_________________________________________________
Lots of people may express their personal interpretations of whether or not a law is constitutional. Lawyers make arguments on the issue in the courts, and ultimately before the Supreme Court. Presidents may issue signing statements expressing their views, and have asserted some Executive constitutional authority. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements]
It seems to me that Paul is simply wrong, and that the Constitution itself grants to the Supreme Court the ultimate authority to decide what is Constitutional. There is some judicial history mentioned in the Wiki article noted above, with regard to presidential signing statements.
I’d like to read an analysis by our Constitutional scholars on here—e.g., No.1 Marauder and Sh76.
Originally posted by vistesdThe Constitution itself doesn't make the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, but the history of the Constitutional process (including the Federalist papers) indicates that this was probably the intent.
From the Business Insider:
In a statement responding to the court's ruling, [Rand] Paul summarily dismissed both the decision and the court itself, and even voiced doubts about whether or not the Supreme Court justices have the authority to rule on the Constitution.
Here's his statement:
“[b]Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court dec ...[text shortened]... e to read an analysis by our Constitutional scholars on here—e.g., No.1 Marauder and Sh76.[/b]
Certainly, since the early 1800s, there has been little to officially challenge the proposition that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation.
Still, that doesn't mean the Supreme Court is always right. Paul may disagree with yesterday's decisions, but most liberals disagree with the decisions in Citizens United and Bush v. Gore. President Obama went so far as to criticize Citizens United during the State of the Union address.
As long as politicians don't do anything to actively undermine the decision, they're free to criticize it. Certainly arguing to legislative reversal of the PPACA is squarely within the bailiwick of a legislator like Rand Paul.
Originally posted by sh76The Constitution itself doesn't make the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, but the history of the Constitutional process (including the Federalist papers) indicates that this was probably the intent.
The Constitution itself doesn't make the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, but the history of the Constitutional process (including the Federalist papers) indicates that this was probably the intent.
Certainly, since the early 1800s, there has been little to officially challenge the proposition that the Supreme Court is the ultimate ar ...[text shortened]... tive reversal of the PPACA is squarely within the bailiwick of a legislator like Rand Paul.
Thanks for the clarification.
Certainly arguing to legislative reversal of the PPACA is squarely within the bailiwick of a legislator like Rand Paul.
That point I understand. Nor am I questioning anyone’s right to criticize, to support, to offer their opinion. My point (which really should be taken as a question, which is why I wanted to hear from you and No.1 in particular) is that within the Constitutional framework the statement by Paul that I marked in bold is simply incorrect. Legislation may be altered or replaced, etc. One might appeal to exogenous authorities (e.g., libertarian natural rights philosophy) vis-à-vis the whole framework itself, but there is no endogenous authority beyond the SC on the question of Constitutionality.
Originally posted by vistesdThen yes, Paul is incorrect in the sense that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional really does make it so.
[b]The Constitution itself doesn't make the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, but the history of the Constitutional process (including the Federalist papers) indicates that this was probably the intent.
Thanks for the clarification.
Certainly arguing to legislative reversal of the PPACA is squarely within the bailiwick of a ...[text shortened]... f, but there is no endogenous authority beyond the SC on the question of Constitutionality.[/b]
Originally posted by sh76Was the Supreme Court 'right' in Dred Scott v. Sandford? Or to put it another way, were they 'right' then, but 'wrong' now, or were they always 'wrong', despite their ruling at the time?
Then yes, Paul is incorrect in the sense that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional really [b]does make it so.[/b]
Originally posted by rwingettDred Scot was an immoral decision, but until it was reversed, it was the law of the land.
Was the Supreme Court 'right' in Dred Scott v. Sandford? Or to put it another way, were they 'right' then, but 'wrong' now, or were they always 'wrong', despite their ruling at the time?
Originally posted by rwingettIn an English court, if an appeal court rules contrary to an earlier decision, then in the opinion of the law the earlier (overturned) decision was always wrong.
Was the Supreme Court 'right' in Dred Scott v. Sandford? Or to put it another way, were they 'right' then, but 'wrong' now, or were they always 'wrong', despite their ruling at the time?
Originally posted by sh76The Supreme Court cannot make something moral any more than it can convince people something is Constitutional. They are nothing more than a reflection of the political flavor of the day. Today it is progressivism. Tomorrow it could be something else.
Dred Scot was an immoral decision, but until it was reversed, it was the law of the land.
Originally posted by sh76It is widely accepted that the ultimate review status of SCOTUS originates from Marbury v. Madison.
The Constitution itself doesn't make the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, but the history of the Constitutional process (including the Federalist papers) indicates that this was probably the intent.
Certainly, since the early 1800s, there has been little to officially challenge the proposition that the Supreme Court is the ultimate ar ...[text shortened]... tive reversal of the PPACA is squarely within the bailiwick of a legislator like Rand Paul.
I'd like to inject a couple of other tools to the mix, both of which have history in American jurisprudence.
1. Ruled by SCOTUS: Void for Vagueness
Laws can be considered invalid and ignored for lack of specificity
2. Nullification: By Jurors, or by judges. Commonly lawyers and judges don't like this, and even advise juries they are judges of the facts, not the law. Under common law, jurors judge the facts and the law, and can rule laws as unjust or unconstitutional.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by whodey"Today it is progressivism."
The Supreme Court cannot make something moral any more than it can convince people something is Constitutional. They are nothing more than a reflection of the political flavor of the day. Today it is progressivism. Tomorrow it could be something else.
Do you count Roberts' reasoning on the PPACA decision to be progressivism? Or is it a conservative opinion, which admits that the US constitution does not rule out progressivism?
Originally posted by JS357Yes, I would consider Roberts a progressive.
"Today it is progressivism."
Do you count Roberts' reasoning on the PPACA decision to be progressivism? Or is it a conservative opinion, which admits that the US constitution does not rule out progressivism?
Of course, many would disagree. It is akin to asking what a Christian is exactly. You will get a broad range of answers.
Originally posted by vistesdI'm no US constitutional scholar, but the bolded part of his statement quoted in the OP is correct. A couple isn't enough, it takes five to make something constitutional.
From the Business Insider:
In a statement responding to the court's ruling, [Rand] Paul summarily dismissed both the decision and the court itself, and even voiced doubts about whether or not the Supreme Court justices have the authority to rule on the Constitution.
Here's his statement:
“Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court dec ke to read an analysis by our Constitutional scholars on here—e.g., No.1 Marauder and Sh76.
As for the question of right/wrong, the SCOTUS is, by definition, legally correct. (Although that doesn't stop them from getting things wrong now and then 😉 )
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by whodeyWould you mind saying what it is about Roberts that leads you to consider him a progressive?
Yes, I would consider Roberts a progressive.
Of course, many would disagree. It is akin to asking what a Christian is exactly. You will get a broad range of answers.
edit: Never mind, I see you are pegged out on this subject.