…looks like a huge improvement over the one he’ll be replacing:
Before earning a Harvard law degree magna cum laude (and helping found the Harvard Latino Law Review) and clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Cruz’s senior thesis at Princeton — his thesis adviser was professor Robert George, one of contemporary conservatism’s intellectual pinups — was on the Constitution’s Ninth and 10th Amendments.
Then as now, Cruz argued that these amendments, properly construed, would buttress the principle that powers not enumerated are not possessed by the federal government.
I doubt if Kay Bailey even understands what those amendments mean, or why they’re in the Constitution at all. Good riddance.
This is good news.
Would it be a fair assumption that this Senator would support Commercial space?
I’m just amazed Hutchinson is keeping her word about not running again.
Between the 9th and the 10th together I don’t understand how anyone can hold a contrary opinion (other than through simply ignoring their existence, of course).
The one thing the 9th and 10th could really use though is some sort of enforceability clause, such that any State Government would automatically have standing to challenge any Federal law contrary to the enumerated powers.
Not sure how you’d enforce the 9th Amendment. “There are other human rights (that presumably have primacy over government powers), but they’re not listed here”. A nice attempt to preempt “that’s not in the Bill of Rights so it must not be a right” arguments, but if you want it to be any more useful than that: who gets to decide what those other rights *are*?
The mechanism for enforcing the 10th Amendment is the court system, and you don’t even need a state government’s help: any citizen harmed by an unconstitutional Federal law has standing to challenge it. The trouble is that once the Supreme Court is derelict in its enforcement duties, what do you do next? Pass the “No, we actually weren’t kidding about non-delegated powers” Amendment and hope that this time it gets enforced?
Would it be a fair assumption that this Senator would support Commercial space?
If he sticks with the GOP apparatchik in Texas, then he’ll likely play both sides. JSC brings lots of jobs to Texas’ largest city. That’s a constituency that can’t be ignored and still win big elections. Thus, the old GOP machine that produced our current Senators Hutchinson and Cornyn would be for NASA. However, there are commercial space programs in Texas and others than can be attracted here. Many people are starting to withhold donations to the state GOP and just give their donations directly to candidates. Hopefully this guy will figure it out.
“who gets to decide what those other rights *are*?”
That’s always been my question. You hear people throwing the word around all over the place..right to health care, right to be able to get married, right to life…..
And I don’t think the general populace has any idea of how to test whether something is a right (human or civil) or not. I know I have only a rudimentary test. I’ve often considered taking a college course that covers such things but I’m not certain such things exist.
If the populace did know, and if they applied the test a LOT of demagoguery would be laughed at and go right down the tubes.
any citizen harmed by an unconstitutional Federal law has standing to challenge it. The trouble is that once the Supreme Court is derelict in its enforcement duties, what do you do next?
The Supreme Court has no such duty. The right to interpret the Constitution is not granted to the court by the Constitution. Therefore, it is reserved for the states or the people. The Supreme Court’s supposed “duty” to interpret the Constitution was an un-Consitutional power grab by a Chief Justice. Prior to that, the Supreme Court was (as the Founding Fathers intended) a relatively unimportant branch of government, the weakest of the three by far.
Unfortunately, almost no one knows that these days.
McGehee, after the way she behaved when the Democrats controlled the house, combined with the spanking she received in the governor’s primary last year, I don’t think she has a whelk’s chance in a supernova of getting elected to a fourth term, especially after her reneging on her promise not to run for a third term. She’d probably have a difficult time being elected dogcatcher here now.
“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”
You might as well say that Judges don’t have a right to interpret the law. Of course they do. That’s their job, it’s what being a judge means. Part of interpreting the law is recognizing when laws are contradictory and determining which applies.
For that matter, part of interpreting the law is determining when something is a law. The Constitution is what tells us when something is a law, and having a judge toss out a case because the “law” at hand violates the Bill of Rights is no different than having a judge toss out a case because the “law” was a bill that never passed Congress.
“A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.” – Federalist 78.
This wasn’t a unanimous viewpoint, but it was the prevailing one, not wasn’t an idea invented decades later.
I should know better than to jump around text and edit my phrasing piecemeal. Read “not wasn’t” as “it wasn’t” or “not” as you prefer…
As a Texas resident, all I can say is AMEN! Now if we can just get Cornyn to go away too…
You might as well say that Judges don’t have a right to interpret the law.
You are missing the point, roy. Of course the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the Constitution. Where the controversy arises is whether they have the only right to interpret the Constitution — or whether the other co-equal branches are also entitled to interpret the Constitution as they see fit, and within the scope of their powers.
That is, does the Supreme Court have the right to tell the Executive and Legislative branches what is constitutional? Can the Supreme Court tell the President exactly what authority he does and doesn’t have in wartime under Article II? Can (and here we come to the nub) the Supreme Court tell Congress what laws it can and cannot pass? Can it tell the President which laws he must enforce, and which he may not, or must not?
While both branches since Andy (“John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it”) Jackson have acquiesced in the Supreme Court assertion of that right, it’s by no means accepted by all occupants.
Of course the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the Constitution.
Of course it does *not*, Carl. Look up Marbury vs. Madison (1803). That was the case in which Chief Justice John Marshall created the concept of “judicial review” out of whole cloth. It did not exist prior to that time. How could the Supreme Court suddenly acquire a “right” it had not had up to that time?
Again, this is something every school child should know. The fact that almost no one knows it is directly related to the decline of the Republic.
Why do you and Roy think it’s necessary to have someone to interpret the Constitution (or any other law), anyway? Is the Constitution written in Greek, Iroquois, or some other language you don’t understand?
If I see a sign that says, “Stop,” I don’t need a judge the interpret the law for me. If I see a document that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,” I don’t need an interpreter. I need someone to interpret the Ten Commandments for me because I don’t read Hebrew, but I am quite capable in English.
Note, “interpret” does not mean “change the meaning of the words to fit political ends,” which is what the Supreme Court actually does and what I suspect you actually mean.
Where the controversy arises is whether they have the only right to interpret the Constitution — or whether the other co-equal branches are also entitled to interpret the Constitution as they see fit,
No, Carl, that is not the controversy at all. The controversy isn’t whether *all* branches of government have the right to redefine the Constitution but whether *any* branch has that right.
The fact that we even ask such questions is another sign of how far we have fallen. To the authors of the Constitution, there would have been no question about it. The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, was intended to be a set of iron handcuffs on the power of government, which they trusted not at all.
Pssht, come on, Ed. Go listen to one of the best originalists out there, Scalia. He will tell you that a judge’s job is indeed to interpret law, ideally well-written law.
You don’t think you need a judge to help you interpret the law that says “stop at the STOP sign,” but that’s just because you haven’t been charged recently by a policeman with failing to stop at one — because your front wheels never reached 0 cm/s precisely, or didn’t do so at the front edge of the white stop line instead of halfway through, or whatever. Under those cirx you do want the chance to argue with the State what the meaning of the law is, and you want an arbiter who (1) didn’t write the law in the first place, and (2) wasn’t the one who charged you with breaking it, i.e. the representative of the executive. Enter the judge.
I think you’re overinterpreting what I mean by “interpret” — thus unintentionally proving my point. You’re thinking it includes reading between the penumbrae and emanations so much that you can invent rights and whatnot out of whole cloth. But that’s not my intention at all. I meant just what Scalia means when he talks on the subject, the plain common-sense sorting out of definitional ambiguities in a logically consiistent fashion so that everyone understands precisely what the law means in practice. Those who would invent rights to health care or abortion by “interpreting” the Constitution are merely abusing the word “interpret.”
Go listen to one of the best originalists out there, Scalia. He will tell you that a judge’s job is indeed to interpret law, ideally well-written law.
Argument from authority. Logical fallacy.
If the Constitution says one thing and Scalia says another, why should I give primacy to Scalia?
Under those cirx you do want the chance to argue with the State what the meaning of the law is, and you want an arbiter who (1) didn’t write the law in the first place, and (2) wasn’t the one who charged you with breaking it, i.e. the representative of the executive. Enter the judge.
Carl, you’re not doing yourself any favors with this analogy, because the arbiter in this example would *not* be a Federal justice (unless the stop sign happened to be a Federal property).
You’re making one giant leap from “you need an arbiter” to “the Supreme Court has to be the arbiter.”
If you want to justify a Federal power grab, you need to do better than that.
I meant just what Scalia means when he talks on the subject, the plain common-sense sorting out of definitional ambiguities in a logically consiistent fashion so that everyone understands precisely what the law means in practice.
How does that translate into “the other co-equal branches are also entitled to interpret the Constitution as they see fit”?
Once again, Carl, the power to interpret the Constitution is not granted anywhere in the Constitution. Thus, it is specifically reserved to the states or the people *by the Constitution itself*.
As soon as you grant any branch of the Federal government powers not specifically granted in the Constitution, you are inventing the sort of penumbra you say you didn’t intend.
As for the Supreme Court’s plain common-sense sorting out of definitional ambiguities in a logically consistent fashion, was that in the new Green Lantern movie? That might occur on Oa but it certainly hasn’t happened on my planet. 🙂
You know the GOP bench looks EXTREMELY strong for 2016. You have:
Rubio
Ryan
Cantor
McCotter
Cruz
West
Bachmann
I just hope we can last that long and that the hideous Socialism that’s been introduced by Obama Pelosi and Reid can still be undone by then.
I’m not sure.
The longer we wait to expunge that stuff and adjust Government gimmees like Social Security Medicare, Medicaid, etc. The bigger the riots will be when we are finally forced to do it (see Greece).
The basic formula for fixing these things was introduced by Bush II and reinforced by Ryan:
For present recipient, leave it alone and take the financial hit (we can deal with that); for everyone else it gets scaled back or changed (e.g. personal accounts for SS). The younger you are the more it changes for you.
Interpreting natural language is an unambiguous problem, solvable without any human input? That’s fantastic. But before we replace all the judges: let’s see your source code.
Carl wasn’t saying that the Supreme Court is the arbiter over Stop signs. That’s not what an analogy is.
The Supreme Court is the arbiter over federal laws and the Constitution, both of which are more complicated than (and thus in need of at least as much interpretation as) “Stop”.
Interpreting natural language is an unambiguous problem, solvable without any human input? That’s fantastic.
No, I did not say that. Do you think Supreme Court Justices are the only human beings in the country?
This post is written in natural language. Were you able to “solve” it? Did you need a Supreme Court Justice to read it?
There is nothing particularly ambiguous about statements like “Congress shall make no law requiring establishment of religion.” Any high-school graduate should be able to read and understand the Constitution. Anyone who can’t should not receive a high-school diploma.
Supreme Court Justices, on the other hand, are demonstrably *unable* to read the Constitution of the United States without distorting its meaning.
How, exactly, is that an argument for giving them unlimited, unchecked power?
One last comment:
I think that what’s most baffling me here is that, apart from the “I suspect” clause where Edward comes just short of accusing me positions of positions I do not hold, what *is* the practical difference in our three positions?
Suppose someone manages to slip an “everybody must join my religion” (to use Edward’s hopefully unambiguous example) law into the 4000 page 2030 Health Care For Poor People And Puppies bill, it gets voted and signed into law before everybody notices, and a few eager zealots start trying to enforce it before the repeal makes it through Congressional procedures. Or pick your own obviously-unconstitutional law example from history; there have certainly been enough of them, since if anything the Congress has been more derelict than the Supreme Court about such concerns.
Are the courts supposed to say “gosh, this is obviously unconstitutional, but we have ‘no such duty’ to ‘interpret’ the constitution, so off to jail you go”? Are they supposed to say “well, those ‘co-equal’ legislators said it was constitutional, so our hands are tied”? Or are they supposed to read the Constitution and use it to decide which laws are valid?
Nope. Just the only ones who the Constitution gives supreme judicial power over federal law.
And yes, of course they often get it wrong. That’s what I said in my first comment!
The Supreme Court is the arbiter over federal laws and the Constitution,
According to Carl and Roy, and according to Chief Justice John Marshall — but NOT according to the Constitution. And not according to anyone prior to 1803.
Putting the political opinions of a Chief Justice above the Constitution of the United States creates a government of men and not of laws, which is a bad thing. If the Supreme Court Justices can “interpret” the Constitution to give themselves powers not granted in the Constitution, then they can do anything.
both of which are more complicated than (and thus in need of at least as much interpretation as) “Stop”.
Please speak for yourself, Roy. I do not need an interpreter to read the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution does not contain a single word that the average American cannot understand or find in a dictionary.
Your argument is similar to the old religious argument that only priests should have the power to interpret the Bible. In that case, however, the argument is based on divine authority and inspiration. The Supreme Court does not claim divine authority or inspiration.
It used to be the case that being able to read the Constitution — without the aid of a Supreme Court Justice — was a requirement to vote in many parts of the country.
Today, of course, we are more enlightened and believe that everyone should be allowed to vote, even if they have no idea who or what they are voting for.
The basic formula for fixing these things was introduced by Bush II
Huh??? The Bush II formula was “increase government spending faster than any President since John F. Kennendy, then increase it some more!”
On what planet did Bush reduce government spending?
Of course the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the Constitution.
Of course it does *not*, Carl. Look up Marbury vs. Madison (1803). That was the case in which Chief Justice John Marshall created the concept of “judicial review” out of whole cloth. It did not exist prior to that time. How could the Supreme Court suddenly acquire a “right” it had not had up to that time?
Again, this is something every school child should know. The fact that almost no one knows it is directly related to the decline of the Republic.
Amen. Part of the essence of what it is to be American. How unfortunate that ignorance of what America means is so widespread.
Nope. Just the only ones who the Constitution gives supreme judicial power over federal law.
Sigh. If you believe that, quote the section of the Constitution where it appears.
You can’t, because it isn’t in there.
Nope. Just the only ones who the Constitution gives supreme judicial power over federal law.
It’s the difference between the rule of law and the rule of men. Americans fought a war of revolution against the British because they thought the King was a despots — and the British monarch at that time had far less power than the Supreme Court does today.
Are the courts supposed to say “gosh, this is obviously unconstitutional
Now, you’re suddenly defining the Supreme Court to be “the courts.” It is not “the courts,” it is only a court. There are powers granted to Federal Courts (including the Supreme Court) and powers reserved to the state courts. This is called Federalism.
There are powers granted to Federal Courts (including the Supreme Court) and powers reserved to the state courts. This is called Federalism.
So are you saying that it is the state courts who should decide (within their own jurisdiction) if federal laws are constitutional?
So are you saying that it is the state courts who should decide (within their own jurisdiction) if federal laws are constitutional?
That would be allowable, under the 10th Ammendment.
Edward Wright Says:
>>The basic formula for fixing these things was >introduced by Bush II
>Huh??? The Bush II formula was “increase government spending faster than any President since John F. Kennendy, then increase it some more!”
>On what planet did Bush reduce government spending?
Ed, by “these things” I was referring to entitlements, as ought to be clear from my post.
More specifically:
He wanted to change Social Security to allow younger people to invest their money, rather than throw it into the SS black hole. People already on SS would see the program unchanged. Basically the same paradigm that Ryan used in his plan:
Leave it alone for people already on it: modify it for the younger group.
Edward Wright Says:
“Nope. Just the only ones who the Constitution gives supreme judicial power over federal law.
Sigh. If you believe that, quote the section of the Constitution where it appears.
You can’t, because it isn’t in there.”
Right here:
Section 1 – Judicial powers
“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.”
This established the SC as the *supreme* court of the US government. Top court. All other courts are inferior.
Section 2 – Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
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; ………. and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Modified by the 11th Amendment in a way not pertinent to your challenge.
Note: All cases, in Law…arising under this Constitution.
Seems to me this includes suits that say “The law Congress just passed violates the Constitution” which is, itself, a law. Someone gets to decide if it does or not. Since it’s a suit it would eventually be the SC (after rising through the court system and if it’s presented to the SC and if the SC takes it).
If your beef is the term “interpret”, I suspect a clarification of what you think bad interpretation means vs what Scalia meant. I suspect Scalia means that these are complicated questions and you have to do some serious thinking.
Lastly, you have said what the SC ought not do. Why not tell us what you think it is allowed to do?
“This established the SC as the *supreme* court of the US government. Top court. All other courts are inferior.”
Oops..should have written that all other Federal courts are inferior.