[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds

"They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again"

"Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip"

"Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy"

"As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular"

Posting Articles Now Working Here

Another Test

Testing

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Judicial Supremacy Has Its Limits ---- The Court’s decisions are not binding on the executive and congressional branches.
Source: National Review
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 27, 2016
Author: By John Yoo
Post Date: 2016-03-27 15:35:30 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 1424
Comments: 14

Judicial Supremacy Has Its Limits

The Court’s decisions are not binding on the executive and congressional branches.

By John Yoo — July 6, 2015 - National Review

---- the Supreme Court cannot finally determine any fundamental constitutional dispute. Claims of judicial supremacy have appeared before, ranging from the odious (Dred Scott’s defense of slavery) to the courageous (Brown v. Board of Education’s condemnation of segregation). But these views mistake the Court’s right to decide cases or controversies under the Constitution for supremacy in its interpretation.

Many of our greatest leaders have understood that, in a self-governing republic, the people and not the courts must settle fundamental constitutional issues. President Abraham Lincoln, for example, believed that Dred Scott only decided a controversy between two parties before the court and could not bind the president and other officials. “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court,” Lincoln wrote in his first Inaugural Address, “the people will have ceased to be their rulers.” Instead, the people will have “practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” Lincoln was right: the Civil War, not the Supreme Court, resolved the question of slavery.

While the Constitution does not grant the federal courts the final word, it implicitly gives the courts a right to interpret the Constitution. As Chief Justice John Marshall famously observed in Marbury v. Madison, which established the power of judicial review, “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” When judges confront a case where one side relies on a federal statute and the other on the Constitution, they must choose the Constitution as the higher law and put aside the act of Congress. The judiciary’s power to interpret the Constitution derives from its responsibility to decide cases and controversies under federal law.

But the Constitution does not vest the courts with the exclusive right to interpret its meaning. It nowhere says that the Court’s reading of the Constitution bears superiority over the other branches of government. As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams in 1804 to explain his decision to drop existing prosecutions under the Sedition Act, “nothing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them.” Indeed, the separation of powers means that the legislature and the executive also must interpret the Constitution in the course of performing their own unique functions. Congress should not pass bills that violate its understanding of the Constitution; the president should not sign bills that violate his.

Rather than give any one branch the final word, the Constitution creates three branches that can compete over its meaning. The separation of powers means not only that the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court are separate, but that they are also independent of one another. According to Jefferson, “the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

— John Yoo is the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. A former Bush Justice Department official, he is the author, most recently, of Point of Attack: Preventive War, International Law, and Global Welfare (Oxford 2014).

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: tpaine (#0)

When judges confront a case where one side relies on a federal statute and the other on the Constitution, they must choose the Constitution as the higher law and put aside the act of Congress. The judiciary’s power to interpret the Constitution derives from its responsibility to decide cases and controversies under federal law. [...] According to Jefferson, “the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

So what's the bottom line: a court ruling can put aside an act of Congress only for the parties in that particular case? If, say, the court rules that the Constitution overrides the Controlled Substances Act for Joe Smith, I have to bring my own case to get an analogous ruling for me? Sounds nutty.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-03-27   19:05:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: ConservingFreedom (#1) (Edited)

So what's the bottom line: a court ruling can put aside an act of Congress only for the parties in that particular case?

No. If the SCOTUS decides an act of congress is unconstitutional, it applies to everyone.

Congress's only recourse is to rewrite the act, or -- congress and the executive can refuse to enforce the SCOTUS opinion.

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-28   17:15:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: tpaine (#2)

congress and the executive can refuse to enforce the SCOTUS opinion.

Does "refusal to enforce" include continuing to enforce laws that SCOTUS rules Congress had no authority to enact? If so, in what meaningful sense can SCOTUS "put aside an act of Congress"?

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-03-28   17:47:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: ConservingFreedom (#3)

So what's the bottom line: a court ruling can put aside an act of Congress only for the parties in that particular case?

No. If the SCOTUS decides an act of congress is unconstitutional, it applies to everyone.

Congress's only recourse is to rewrite the act, or -- congress and the executive can refuse to enforce a SCOTUS opinion that a specific law is unconstitutional.

Does "refusal to enforce" include continuing to enforce laws that SCOTUS rules Congress had no authority to enact?

Yep, both fed/state/local govts routinely enforce unconstitutional 'laws'. ---- It is up to the courts then, -- to refuse to prosecute and have trials of such 'laws'.

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-28   18:37:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: tpaine (#4)

You're right - a law has no force if courts dismiss all cases brought under the law.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-03-28   18:59:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: ConservingFreedom, vicomte 13, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#5)

Thanks for the discussion.

I'm surprised our naysayers haven't put in their two cents...

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-28   19:10:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: tpaine (#0)

John Yoo is the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. A former Bush Justice Department official, he is the author, most recently, of Point of Attack: Preventive War, International Law, and Global Welfare (Oxford 2014).

John "Testicle Crusher" Yoo also believes it is lawful for the president to order the crushing of a child's testicles in a vise to encourage the watching parent to give up information.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-03-29   1:31:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: nolu chan (#7)

Judicial Supremacy Has Its Limits ---- The Court’s decisions are not binding on the executive and congressional branches.

Unable to refute the above fact; -- nolu attacks the author for his views on presidential (ballbreaking) powers.

Poor nolu, reduced to ballbreaking hype...

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-29   11:04:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: tpaine (#8)

Judicial Supremacy Has Its Limits ---- The Court’s decisions are not binding on the executive and congressional branches.

Unable to refute the above fact; -- nolu attacks the author for his views on presidential (ballbreaking) powers.

The claim is complete, total, utter bullshit, attributed to one asshole.

Ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2, 120-121 (1866).

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.''

nolu chan  posted on  2016-03-29   15:17:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: nolu chan (#9)

Judicial Supremacy Has Its Limits ---- The Court’s decisions are not binding on the executive and congressional branches.

And your quote below agrees with the above. --- Even though you don't know it, poor dolt...

Ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2, 120-121 (1866).

" ----- the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.''

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-29   16:16:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: tpaine (#10)

Judicial Supremacy Has Its Limits ---- The Court’s decisions are not binding on the executive and congressional branches.

And your quote below agrees with the above. --- Even though you don't know it, poor dolt...

Actually, you are a hopeless idiot. However, it it makes you feel better to liv e in the fantastical world of the tpaine Court of the Imagination, by all means continue to blather your bullshit.

The case in point resulted in a unanimous decision overruling the claimed authority of the Executive Branch.

And valid legal text on Constitutional Law will readily verify that you are full of shit, which is never a surprise. To select just one, there is Kathleen M. Sullivan and Gerald Gunther, Constitutional Law, 17th Edition, Foundation Press, 2010 which demonstrates that SCOTUS constitutional decisions are binding on the Congressional branches.

At 21:

3. Are Supreme Court interpretations binding on Congress? Article V provides that Congress may initiate an amendment to the Constitution, and the amendment process can be used to overturn a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court. But may Conggess effect such an overruling by statute'? DICKENSON v. UNITED STATES, 580 U.S. 428 (2000), answered that question no. Chief Justice REHNQUIST wrote for the Court: "In Miranda v. Arizona, [384 U.S. 436 (1966)], we held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect's statement made during custodial interrogation could be admitted in evidence. In the wake of that decision, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3501, which in essence laid down a rule that the admissibility of such statements should turn only on whether or not they were voluntarily made. We hold that Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress.

"[The] law in this area is clear. This Court has supervisory authority over the federal courts, and we may use that authority to prescribe rules of evidence and procedure that are binding in those tribunals, [although Congress] retains the ultimate authority to modify or set aside any judicially created rules of evidence and procedure that are not required by the Constitution. But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-03-29   20:11:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: nolu chan (#11)

The] law in this area is clear. This Court has supervisory authority over the federal courts, and we may use that authority to prescribe rules of evidence and procedure that are binding in those tribunals, [although Congress] retains the ultimate authority to modify or set aside any judicially created rules of evidence and procedure that are not required by the Constitution. But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution.

Read much, you idiot? The article in effect agrees with the above quote:---

" --- While the Constitution does not grant the federal courts the final word, it implicitly gives the courts a right to interpret the Constitution. As Chief Justice John Marshall famously observed in Marbury v. Madison, which established the power of judicial review, “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” When judges confront a case where one side relies on a federal statute and the other on the Constitution, they must choose the Constitution as the higher law and put aside the act of Congress. The judiciary’s power to interpret the Constitution derives from its responsibility to decide cases and controversies under federal law."

"But the Constitution does not vest the courts with the exclusive right to interpret its meaning. It nowhere says that the Court’s reading of the Constitution bears superiority over the other branches of government."

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-30   0:19:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: tpaine (#12)

But the Constitution does not vest the courts with the exclusive right to interpret its meaning. It nowhere says that the Court’s reading of the Constitution bears superiority over the other branches of government.

John "Testicle Crusher" Yoo.

Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution.

A real legal text on Constitutional law.

In the real world, Hillary does not get to decide whether tell the court to stuff it up its ass regarding the email on her private server. The Court decides.

Ditto for Richard Nixon and the tapes brought to light by Alexander Butterworth.

Marbury v. Madison as remained good law since 1803. That fact that you (and John Yoo) don't like it has not overturned it.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-03-30   0:37:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: nolu chan (#13)

The Constitution nowhere says that the Court’s reading of the Constitution bears superiority over the other branches of government, - is a statement of constitutional fact.

Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. A real legal text on Constitutional law.

So you claim..

In the real world, scotus does not get to decide whether to tell the congress to stuff it up its ass regarding the meaning of the Constitution.

0ur constitution speaks for itself.

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-30   0:55:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com