I am no legal scholar so pass no judgement Just make note that I think Marshall based Marbury v Madisonon Art III, section 2 "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;"
I am no legal scholar so pass no judgement Just make note that I think Marshall based Marbury v Madisonon Art III, section 2 "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;"
A SCOTUS empowered to determine whether or not a law of the congress is constitutional or not is a double edged sword, it can work for us as well as against us, it depends on the ideological makeup of SCOTUS.
Texas and other states are requiring Christian brainwashing in schools. That does not violate the 1st Amendment because it is not congress that are making the laws
And the same with speech,including books. States, corporations, companies, universities, people can do anything they want as regards speech, assembly religion
The constitution has holes large enough to drive a tank though, and I don't know of any remedy, especially not a constitutional convention, for the simple reason that the theocratic, racist, authoritarian states outnumber the liberty loving states.
Yes, true freedom or liberty requires a great deal of knowledge about whatever issues are at stake. Given that "The constitution has holes large enough to drive a tank though," we can only depend on intensive scholarship and clear explanations interpreting the resulting meanings.
The configuration of the U.S. Federal system is interesting because it was born against a backdrop of a minimalistic and fragmented common law system in the U.K. and infused with plenty of ideas that would appear in the French Civil Code within a few decades. The French Civil Code is the basis of most of Europe's legal systems.
The clause you cite would only be fully effective for the matters of original jurisdiction. It is also limited to "judicial power." Such power does not extend to the enforcement of judgments. How that may take place depends on the actions of the Executive and Congress in enforcement and funding.
Also, Congress can decide that the jurisdiction (and venue) of the lower courts and appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS under Article III, § 2, cl. 2, which provides that all jurisdiction not original is to be appellate, “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
A useful reform would be to restrict the venue of any case challenging the constitutionality of a statute to the D.C. District and Circuit. Congress could also restrict the scope of the jurisdiction to be binding for the parties of a case and only persuasive for any other case.
Countries like Germany deal with issues of unconstitutional statutes more through the legislative process. If the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) finds that a law violates the German Constitution, the ball lands back with the Bundestag, which needs to revise or repeal the law. This makes the elected representatives accountable and at the forefront rather than deferring to unelected courts.
It appears that those who remade Germany after its defeat, had learned from the mistakes and deficiencies in America. and created a better system.
IIRC, Germany did screw up and some laws that were enacted in the past,including under the NAZI regime have been left on the books. An American example is the Comstock Law
Absolutely, the only chance we HAD, was an Interstate Compact, but we have lost that chance, On Jan 21 a tyrant will take office and he promised that if they voted for him they would never have to vote again, with Steve Bannon out of jail, and sitting at his right hand and Project 2025 as his guide, control of Congress and the Judiciary, the constitution will be a dead issue.
Maybe, but at this point it's still TBD. What is clear is that the plutocrats have taken control of everything. They are successfully distorting the Constitution, though.
I am no legal scholar so pass no judgement Just make note that I think Marshall based Marbury v Madisonon Art III, section 2 "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;"
A SCOTUS empowered to determine whether or not a law of the congress is constitutional or not is a double edged sword, it can work for us as well as against us, it depends on the ideological makeup of SCOTUS.
Texas and other states are requiring Christian brainwashing in schools. That does not violate the 1st Amendment because it is not congress that are making the laws
And the same with speech,including books. States, corporations, companies, universities, people can do anything they want as regards speech, assembly religion
The constitution has holes large enough to drive a tank though, and I don't know of any remedy, especially not a constitutional convention, for the simple reason that the theocratic, racist, authoritarian states outnumber the liberty loving states.
Yes, true freedom or liberty requires a great deal of knowledge about whatever issues are at stake. Given that "The constitution has holes large enough to drive a tank though," we can only depend on intensive scholarship and clear explanations interpreting the resulting meanings.
The configuration of the U.S. Federal system is interesting because it was born against a backdrop of a minimalistic and fragmented common law system in the U.K. and infused with plenty of ideas that would appear in the French Civil Code within a few decades. The French Civil Code is the basis of most of Europe's legal systems.
The clause you cite would only be fully effective for the matters of original jurisdiction. It is also limited to "judicial power." Such power does not extend to the enforcement of judgments. How that may take place depends on the actions of the Executive and Congress in enforcement and funding.
Also, Congress can decide that the jurisdiction (and venue) of the lower courts and appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS under Article III, § 2, cl. 2, which provides that all jurisdiction not original is to be appellate, “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
A useful reform would be to restrict the venue of any case challenging the constitutionality of a statute to the D.C. District and Circuit. Congress could also restrict the scope of the jurisdiction to be binding for the parties of a case and only persuasive for any other case.
Countries like Germany deal with issues of unconstitutional statutes more through the legislative process. If the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) finds that a law violates the German Constitution, the ball lands back with the Bundestag, which needs to revise or repeal the law. This makes the elected representatives accountable and at the forefront rather than deferring to unelected courts.
It appears that those who remade Germany after its defeat, had learned from the mistakes and deficiencies in America. and created a better system.
IIRC, Germany did screw up and some laws that were enacted in the past,including under the NAZI regime have been left on the books. An American example is the Comstock Law
And a convention would surely be completely dominated by Big Money.
Absolutely, the only chance we HAD, was an Interstate Compact, but we have lost that chance, On Jan 21 a tyrant will take office and he promised that if they voted for him they would never have to vote again, with Steve Bannon out of jail, and sitting at his right hand and Project 2025 as his guide, control of Congress and the Judiciary, the constitution will be a dead issue.
Maybe, but at this point it's still TBD. What is clear is that the plutocrats have taken control of everything. They are successfully distorting the Constitution, though.