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
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Video & Multimedia
In reply to the discussion: Thom Hartmann: Democratic Underground Readers are Wrong on SCOTUS [View all]Fearless
(18,421 posts)14. You might find otherwise, by READING the Constitution
Article III Section 2 of the US Constitution reads...
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.
Sooooo.... what does THE FIRST SENTENCE talking about the judiciary mean? (The bold part, I mean.)
It means that cases brought before the court can challenge the validity of laws and that the Court has the power to rule on the Constitutionality of those laws.
The problem that Mr. Hartmann doesn't realize is that the Constitution is complicated! It was meant to stand as a living document, up for interpretation by the courts. In regards to judicial review, it was first done in Marbury v Madison in 1803 (look it up) and has been a part of the Court's interpretation of the Constitution since.
For more information on Article III Section 2, please review this federal document (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-9-4.pdf) before condescending to DUers.
Thanks,
Fearless.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
85 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
Thom Hartmann: Democratic Underground Readers are Wrong on SCOTUS [View all]
thomhartmann
Mar 2012
OP
The Court effectively asserted that it had the right to review the constitutionality of a law...
PoliticAverse
Mar 2012
#3
So Congress is bought and sold (agreed). And so is the SCOTUS. Where does that leave us? n/t
truth2power
Mar 2012
#72
Unfortunately, yes. I'm feeling quite depressed lately about the prospects of
truth2power
Mar 2012
#78
Or maybe you should blame those who WERE taught it but chose not to study it and master it.
RBInMaine
Mar 2012
#12
It is true that they placed the legislative branch in Article One to emphasize their especially
RBInMaine
Mar 2012
#11
Supreme Court members are voted into office by your representatives. Similar...
PoliticAverse
Mar 2012
#21
What generally happens, is the justices disagree on what constitutes a violation,
mzmolly
Mar 2012
#46
Seems pretty quiet... I've been working a lot myself and haven't had much time online lately though.
Fearless
Mar 2012
#66
There are very few exceptions that congress has made, such as the anti-injunction act.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#28
I think it is very cool of you to take the time to redress this silliness. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Mar 2012
#49
But that argument ultimately gives the reason they can strike down laws...
PoliticAverse
Mar 2012
#70
Sorry, but the argument presumes that anyone in power cares about the Constituion
rwsanders
Apr 2012
#83