6 ms·

Where I'm from, our "supreme court" can overthrow congress legislation for not following the constitution. Is this the case here AND is this the case in the US

by s1k3s 2y ago

Where I'm from, our "supreme court" can overthrow congress legislation for not following the constitution. Is this the case here AND is this the case in the US (generally speaking)?

CapitalistCartr 2y ago
Yes, that's exactly how it works. The US Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional, and that's that.
- r00fus 2y ago
  Little known fact: Congress can actually legislate around that by removing the possibility of judicial review from the law itself.
  - staticman2 2y ago
    Congress cannot do that.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    Little known, I suspect, on account of being entirely false.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > on account of being entirely false Congress can absolutely limit judicial review by statute. (It can’t remove it entirely.)
      - r00fus 2y ago
        This is exactly what I meant, and is described in this pdf: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44967 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44967
      - westurner 2y ago
        Shouldn't that require a Constitutional Amendment? Such a law would bypass Constitutional Separation of Powers (with limited privileges and immunities) i.e. checks and balances. Why isn't the investigative/prosecutorial branch distinct from the executive and judicial branches though?
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Shouldn't that require a Constitutional Amendment? No, Article III § 1 explicitly vests judicial power “in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” [1]. > Why isn't the investigative/prosecutorial branch distinct from the executive and judicial branches though? What do you think executing laws means? [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/#article-3-section-3 https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/#ar...
        westurner 2y ago
        No, to change the separation of powers they need a constitutional amendment because that's a change to the Constitution, and amendments are the process for changing the Constitution. To interpret what was meant by Liberty and Equality as values, as a strict constructionist.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > to change the separation of powers they need a constitutional amendment because that's a change to the Constitution The Constitution literally says the Congress has the power to establish inferior courts. Congress setting what is justifiable is highly precedented. The words “separation of powers” never appear in the Constitution. It’s a phrase used to describe the system that document establishes.
        westurner 2y ago
        Can Congress grant rights? No, because persons have natural rights, inalienable rights; and such enumeration of the rights of persons occurs only in the Declaration, which - along with the Articles of Confederation - frames the intent, spirit, and letter of the Constitution ; which itself very specifically limits the powers of the government and affords a process of amendment wit quorum for changes to such limits of the government in law. Congress may not delegate right-granting privileges because the legislature hasn't right-granting privileges itself. The Constitution is very clear that there are to be separate branches; each with limited privileges and immunities, and none with the total immunity of a Tyrant king. A system of courts to hear offenses per the law determined by the federal and state legislatures with a Federal Constitutional Supremacy Clause, a small federal government, a federal minarchy, and a state divorce from British case law precedent but not common law or Natural Rights. And so the Constitution limits the powers of each branch of government, and to amend the Constitution requires an amendment. Why shouldn't we all filibuster court nominations? Without an independent prosecutor, Can the - e.g. foreign-installed or otherwise fraudulent - executive obstruct DOJ investigations of themselves that conclude prior to the end of their term by terminating a nominated and confirmed director of an executive DOJ department, install justices with with his signature, and then pardon themselves and their associates? The Court can or will only hear matters of law. Congress can impune and impeach but they're not trained as prosecutors either; so which competent court will hear such charges? Did any escape charges for war crimes, tortre without due process, terror and fear? Whose former counsel on the court now. What delegations of power, duties, and immunities can occur without constitutional amendment? Who's acting president today? Where's your birth certificate? You're not even American. What amendments could we have? 1. You cannot pardon yourself, even as President. Presidents are not granted total immunity (as was recently claimed before the court), they are granted limited Privileges and Immunities. 2. Term limits for legislators, judges, and what about distinguished public/civil servants who pick expensive fights for the rest of us to fight and pay for? You sold us to the banks. Term limits all around. 3. Your plan must specify investment success and failure criteria. (Plan: policy, legislative bill, program, schedule,) Can Congress just delegate privileges - for example, un-equal right-granting privileges - without an Amendment, because there is to be a system of lower courts?
- s1k3s 2y ago
  So basically it's the same as here, the supreme court (which is appointed, not elected) has power over elected officials? (Because they can decide what is constitutional or not) Edit: I have more questions but for some reason I can't reply to your replies :(
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the supreme court (which is appointed, not elected) has power over elected officials? In a well-designed system, both have power over each other. That is certainly true in the United States.
  - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
    >I have more questions but [...] There's throttling to prevent rapid back-and-forth commenting as that can devolve somewhat; might be that. Try clicking the "X minutes ago".
  - edmundsauto 2y ago
    The US Supreme Court can decide what is constitutional, and Congress can amend the constitution that is the basis for the USSC decision (with 2/3 vote). With the current makeup of Congress, it is unlikely so the USSC holds significantly more effective power than if it had a functioning Congress.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      US Congress cannot amend the constitution. State legislatures must ratify constitutional amendments. The two-thirds threshold you mention is for Congress to propose amendments.
      - edmundsauto 2y ago
        I fully admit that I don’t have a great civics teacher, now more than 20 years ago… but I don’t think this is true? Can anyone else weigh in here? Edit - wow this is actually true. From white house.gov: > An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

by s1k3s 2y ago

Where I'm from, our "supreme court" can overthrow congress legislation for not following the constitution. Is this the case here AND is this the case in the US (generally speaking)?

CapitalistCartr 2y ago

Yes, that's exactly how it works. The US Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional, and that's that.

r00fus 2y ago
Little known fact: Congress can actually legislate around that by removing the possibility of judicial review from the law itself.
- staticman2 2y ago
  Congress cannot do that.
- Gormo 2y ago
  Little known, I suspect, on account of being entirely false.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > on account of being entirely false Congress can absolutely limit judicial review by statute. (It can’t remove it entirely.)
    - r00fus 2y ago
      This is exactly what I meant, and is described in this pdf: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44967 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44967
    - westurner 2y ago
      Shouldn't that require a Constitutional Amendment? Such a law would bypass Constitutional Separation of Powers (with limited privileges and immunities) i.e. checks and balances. Why isn't the investigative/prosecutorial branch distinct from the executive and judicial branches though?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Shouldn't that require a Constitutional Amendment? No, Article III § 1 explicitly vests judicial power “in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” [1]. > Why isn't the investigative/prosecutorial branch distinct from the executive and judicial branches though? What do you think executing laws means? [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/#article-3-section-3 https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/#ar...
        westurner 2y ago
        No, to change the separation of powers they need a constitutional amendment because that's a change to the Constitution, and amendments are the process for changing the Constitution. To interpret what was meant by Liberty and Equality as values, as a strict constructionist.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > to change the separation of powers they need a constitutional amendment because that's a change to the Constitution The Constitution literally says the Congress has the power to establish inferior courts. Congress setting what is justifiable is highly precedented. The words “separation of powers” never appear in the Constitution. It’s a phrase used to describe the system that document establishes.
        westurner 2y ago
        Can Congress grant rights? No, because persons have natural rights, inalienable rights; and such enumeration of the rights of persons occurs only in the Declaration, which - along with the Articles of Confederation - frames the intent, spirit, and letter of the Constitution ; which itself very specifically limits the powers of the government and affords a process of amendment wit quorum for changes to such limits of the government in law. Congress may not delegate right-granting privileges because the legislature hasn't right-granting privileges itself. The Constitution is very clear that there are to be separate branches; each with limited privileges and immunities, and none with the total immunity of a Tyrant king. A system of courts to hear offenses per the law determined by the federal and state legislatures with a Federal Constitutional Supremacy Clause, a small federal government, a federal minarchy, and a state divorce from British case law precedent but not common law or Natural Rights. And so the Constitution limits the powers of each branch of government, and to amend the Constitution requires an amendment. Why shouldn't we all filibuster court nominations? Without an independent prosecutor, Can the - e.g. foreign-installed or otherwise fraudulent - executive obstruct DOJ investigations of themselves that conclude prior to the end of their term by terminating a nominated and confirmed director of an executive DOJ department, install justices with with his signature, and then pardon themselves and their associates? The Court can or will only hear matters of law. Congress can impune and impeach but they're not trained as prosecutors either; so which competent court will hear such charges? Did any escape charges for war crimes, tortre without due process, terror and fear? Whose former counsel on the court now. What delegations of power, duties, and immunities can occur without constitutional amendment? Who's acting president today? Where's your birth certificate? You're not even American. What amendments could we have? 1. You cannot pardon yourself, even as President. Presidents are not granted total immunity (as was recently claimed before the court), they are granted limited Privileges and Immunities. 2. Term limits for legislators, judges, and what about distinguished public/civil servants who pick expensive fights for the rest of us to fight and pay for? You sold us to the banks. Term limits all around. 3. Your plan must specify investment success and failure criteria. (Plan: policy, legislative bill, program, schedule,) Can Congress just delegate privileges - for example, un-equal right-granting privileges - without an Amendment, because there is to be a system of lower courts?
s1k3s 2y ago
So basically it's the same as here, the supreme court (which is appointed, not elected) has power over elected officials? (Because they can decide what is constitutional or not) Edit: I have more questions but for some reason I can't reply to your replies :(
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the supreme court (which is appointed, not elected) has power over elected officials? In a well-designed system, both have power over each other. That is certainly true in the United States.
- pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  >I have more questions but [...] There's throttling to prevent rapid back-and-forth commenting as that can devolve somewhat; might be that. Try clicking the "X minutes ago".
- edmundsauto 2y ago
  The US Supreme Court can decide what is constitutional, and Congress can amend the constitution that is the basis for the USSC decision (with 2/3 vote). With the current makeup of Congress, it is unlikely so the USSC holds significantly more effective power than if it had a functioning Congress.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    US Congress cannot amend the constitution. State legislatures must ratify constitutional amendments. The two-thirds threshold you mention is for Congress to propose amendments.
    - edmundsauto 2y ago
      I fully admit that I don’t have a great civics teacher, now more than 20 years ago… but I don’t think this is true? Can anyone else weigh in here? Edit - wow this is actually true. From white house.gov: > An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]