tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-823719196374898491.post7798785922059801165..comments2023-12-19T07:29:42.437-06:00Comments on Dedicated Tenther: Defending our Liberty: Why Not SCOTUS?Dedicated Tentherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02169003228002700000noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-823719196374898491.post-32208135749892715432012-04-29T12:19:09.479-05:002012-04-29T12:19:09.479-05:00I may do a full post on the practicum of the State...I may do a full post on the practicum of the States re-asserting this authority (an authority which everyone granted they had until Marbury v Madison).<br /><br />The short version, however, would be this: yes, SCOTUS should still review for Constitutionality (as the Congress and President should have before them), but if they find something to be Constitutional when the States believe otherwise, the States would simply nullify that law within their own jurisdictions. If enough states passed such nullification laws (which would work by the state refusing to provide any resources to enforce any such unconstitutional laws, and provide any possible shelter against federal prosecution) then the law would be declared unconstitutional and stricken.<br /><br />Such a thing (now) would probably require a constitutional amendment.<br /><br />A better paradigm might be simply to repeal the 17th Amendment. Then the Senators would be selected by the State Legislatures, and would be representatives of the States. This would make it less likely such unconstitutional laws would pass in the first place, and give the States much more power to overturn them at a Federal Level if some did slip through.Dedicated Tentherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02169003228002700000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-823719196374898491.post-78996298957797880452012-04-29T09:21:26.002-05:002012-04-29T09:21:26.002-05:00Allow me to pose a question--what mechanism do you...Allow me to pose a question--what mechanism do you propose to allow for review of whether or not a law is constitutional, in place of using the Supreme Court? Clearly it cannot be Congress, and the Executive is also a poor choice (name a single unconstitutional law that passed with 2/3 majority in each house after a Presidential veto--I'm no legal scholar, but I doubt any such piece of legislature exists). I cannot dispute the main thrust of your argument here in terms of enumerated powers, but I don't see where the Constitution allows for an individual state to nullify a federal law--I may need to re-read the first few Articles, but I think only Congress can pass laws and only the executive has the duty/power to enforce, and thus individual states do not enter the picture at all. If that is the case, there must be a federal mechanism to do so, and the other two branches are inelligible. Since this is a Federal Republic and not a Confederation, real albeit limited power must rest with the central government, and that includes determination of what is and is not consistent with the governing charter. I would love to see a post on this topic--addressing how an extrajudicial determination of constitutionality would work, and if it is practical.Conservative Crankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06065347326281702034noreply@blogger.com