Is everyone OK...

[ZeSpectre]

Amen!

 

[glockman19]

They are appointed as not to be influenced by votes or dollars. Ironically it's the elected vote getting money raising politicians that are slowly voting our rights away.

I have more faith in the SCOUTS than I do in the Senate and House who are more concerned about the next election cycle.

And just a quick little quiz; guess who gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review...?

We The People.

 

[Kentak]

Constitutional amendments are not made or voted on by citizens
Go have that second cup of coffee

Done. You're right, of course. However, it is the elected representatives of the people who do. *If* there was a strong enough anti-2A majority among the voting populace, they could make it happen by electing like-minded representatives or lobbying them. That's what I meant.

K

 

[hugh damright]

It seems as though whenever the topic of power of judicial review comes up, people look beyond federal judicial review of federal laws, and seem to see a federal power of judicial review of all laws. It reminds me of Hamilton wanting to have a federal court in every State to negate their laws ... but that is not the plan that the Framers went with.

 

[amper]

It seems as though whenever the topic of power of judicial review comes up, people look beyond federal judicial review of federal laws, and seem to see a federal power of judicial review of all laws. It reminds me of Hamilton wanting to have a federal court in every State to negate their laws ... but that is not the plan that the Framers went with.

Ah, but that is in fact exactly the plan the Framers went with. Or did you not read the Constitution very carefully? The federal court system does not have immediate jurisdiction over every case. Intrastate cases must pass through the state judicial system until appealed to the federal system, but the federal system does in fact have the final say, even in cases of controversies between a State and a Citizen of that State.

Here is the text of Article VI:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

[ndolson]

We're so concerned about how our 9 kings are going to rule, and yet we don't seem to care that they are even allowed to rule. I thought the citizens were supposed to do that, through people we elect and hold accountable.

Someone else may have already mentioned this, but the whole point in having Justices that aren't elected and that are in for life are so that they can make their decisions without having to think about re-election or losing their jobs. I think that is a good idea.

 

[hugh damright]

Ah, but that is in fact exactly the plan the Framers went with. Or did you not read the Constitution very carefully? The federal court system does not have immediate jurisdiction over every case. Intrastate cases must pass through the state judicial system until appealed to the federal system, but the federal system does in fact have the final say, even in cases of controversies between a State and a Citizen of that State.

The Framers' Constitution did not create a SCOTUS with appellate power over all matters. I don't know how you are construing Article IV to mean that the US has appellate power over all cases. The judicial branch is framed by Article III:

"1. 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. [It does not say "between a Citizen and his State".]

2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before-mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Further, the States amended the Constitution to say that not only did the US judicial power not extend to matters between a Citizen and his State, it also did not extend to matters between a State and a Citizen of another State, with the 11th Amendment:

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

 

[joab]

it's a fair bet that they'll have (alas) "the will of the people" behind them.

If you believe that then I see where the three of us are disconverging

If politicians cared about what their constituents thought then Gore would not have been anti gun, there would be some sort of immigration reform in place and social security would not be circling the drain

Politicians feel that your vote is a vote of confidence for them to decide what is best for you, nothing more
They also know that all they have to do is bring in enough pork to satiate their local following to get rehired

 

[Neo-Luddite]

I have more faith in the SCOTUS than in the other two branches. As for them being compared to monarchs or kings, what of it? Whoever said monarchy was a bad thing--you just need the right monarch!

For what it's worth, they my bet is that they will let the ruling stand--and all that will happen is that DC will re-open its pistol registry and no longer require broken down storage in the home.

 

[Jim Diver]

A few things can over ride any decision by SCOTUS.. One being the people..

I don't give a crap what SCOTUS says.

 

[mljdeckard]

In a word, yes. I'm glad it's NOW and NOT ten years ago.

This needs a ruling sooner or later, it won't get any better than this time and case.

 

[amper]

It is not only Article VI's Supremacy Clause which establishes the federal appelate power over state courts, but also the beginning of Article 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;

What this means is that the federal court system has jurisdiction over any case where there is a question of a state law which is in violation of the principles of the United States Constitution, the United States Code, or any ratified Treaties.

This is codified in 28 USC 1257:

(a) Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term “highest court of a State” includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.


and also at 28 USC 1331:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Also, do not misinterpret Amendment XI. Amendment XI deals only with the ability of a citizen of one state to sue another state or a foreign state. Not only does it not even touch the question of a citizen suing his own state, it also specifically excludes mention of appellate jurisdiction over cases where a state might sue a citizen.

The Constitution is not, has never been, and was never intended to be, a perfect document, nor is state sovereignty absolute. These questions have been settled law for about 200 years.

Here's a good resource on the subject:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/14.html#11

 

[Wildfire]

9 days

I guess in 9 days we will all know if we need to USE our 2A or not.

 

[gc70]

The federal court system does not have immediate jurisdiction over every case. Intrastate cases must pass through the state judicial system until appealed to the federal system, but the federal system does in fact have the final say, even in cases of controversies between a State and a Citizen of that State.

Your linked article makes it clear that federal jurisdiction exists ONLY when a case involves a "federal question."

Or did you not read the Constitution very carefully?

?