Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hey, Democratic Underground! Thom Hartmann called you out! [View all]ellisonz
(27,711 posts)27. He's wrong.
Article III.
Section. 1.
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 Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
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;--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.
Section. 1.
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 Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
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;--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.
The recognition of the purview of "judicial review" is clearly stated in the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court decides what laws are Constitutional to the extent that Congress, States, and the President do not pass Amendments to modify the Constitution thereof; this lawmaking process endowed by the United States Constitution has been exercised 27 times since ratification! I don't know what is so confusing about this to Thom Hartmann, but this isn't exactly rocket science.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
He really makes a lot of sense; very intelligent and articulate man. I don't,
K Gardner
Mar 2012
#26
He is a journalist. Journalists name their sources when quoting those sources.
Vincardog
Mar 2012
#61
It points directly at the opinions he is disagreeing with, that is what civilized people do. None of
Vincardog
Mar 2012
#65
Please show me where that says "has the power to decide the constitutionality of laws passed by
Vincardog
Mar 2012
#62
is nowhere expressly conveyed. Right there it is settled law. ellisonz is howling at the moon
Vincardog
Mar 2012
#66
Don't you think that if after all this time the power of judicial review was not express...
ellisonz
Mar 2012
#67
The Constitution grants Congress the power to restrain the SCOTUS. Have you caught the Congress
Vincardog
Mar 2012
#68
Excuse me. I thought this whole thread was a constitutional argument. Think anything you want to.
Vincardog
Mar 2012
#71
Just because our government does not choose very often to pass an Amendment...
ellisonz
Mar 2012
#72
Last time I read it, the Constitution said that any authority not explicitly granted as belonging
Vincardog
Mar 2012
#74
If our government was not wholly owned by the fascist corporate machine I may agree with Thom.
Lint Head
Mar 2012
#23
He's correct. SCOTUS even decided that they had the power to unconstituionally appoint a pResident.
Zorra
Mar 2012
#29
Hartmann sounds like one of those wingnuts convinced that income tax is unconstitutional
muriel_volestrangler
Mar 2012
#39
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. But then that is why we get called out I guess.
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#56
Well, it looks like he'll be responding to some of the questions this weekend.
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#78
I knew he isn't right wing; it was his insistence on his unique interpretation
muriel_volestrangler
Mar 2012
#79
I don't recall you making a thread of it the many times that Thom has praised DU readers. nt
Gold Metal Flake
Mar 2012
#40
Not a Hartmann fan myself. When I listened to him more than three years ago, it was....
Tarheel_Dem
Mar 2012
#52