I’ve pointed to several. But lets see if I can find an official legal list.
Apparently the supreme court has determined the legislature has violated the constitution 382 times. And that’s just the legislative side of the federal government.
Violation of the constitution isn’ “breach” of it worthy of revolution, especially since you have the remedy of judicial review. And, youre remedy is self-executing - if the judiciary has declared a law unconstitutional, problem solved - it isn’t balid any more.
If what you contend is right - that the violation of the Constitution is right (as determined by the judiciary, of course) - is a revolution-able act. So, when the court in Marbury v. madison that a writ of mandamus couldn’t be authorized by Congress (because it was unconstitutional), the party who had it right was eligible to revolt?
I’ve pointed to several. But lets see if I can find an official legal list.
Apparently the supreme court has determined the legislature has violated the constitution 382 times. And that’s just the legislative side of the federal government.
Violation of the constitution isn’ “breach” of it worthy of revolution, especially since you have the remedy of judicial review. And, youre remedy is self-executing - if the judiciary has declared a law unconstitutional, problem solved - it isn’t balid any more.
If what you contend is right - that the violation of the Constitution is right (as determined by the judiciary, of course) - is a revolution-able act. So, when the court in Marbury v. madison that a writ of mandamus couldn’t be authorized by Congress (because it was unconstitutional), the party who had it right was eligible to revolt?
Absurd.
[/quote]
No, after judicial review there wouldn’t be the need for revolt theoretically.
BUT you are relying on the federal government to restrain the federal government.
Additionally, the supreme court admittedly gets them wrong some times. It’s why they have on occasion overturned their own decisions. for example did people have the right to revolt when the supreme court overturned the civil rights act of 1875?
Not to mention that it takes years and many times decades to overturn some laws, during which time, rights are violated.
No, after judicial review there wouldn’t be the need for revolt theoretically.
BUT you are relying on the federal government to restrain the federal government.[/quote]
Yes, you are - that is exactly what the Constitution itself proscribes: you have bicameral legislature (and yes, a constitutional actor) along a president (yes, a constitutional actor) that also resolves these constitutional questions. You have representation to deal with these issues, something we didn’t have with England. Read the document - it’s fascinating.
No, after judicial review there wouldn’t be the need for revolt theoretically.
BUT you are relying on the federal government to restrain the federal government.[/quote]
Yes, you are - that is exactly what the Constitution itself proscribes: you have bicameral legislature (and yes, a constitutional actor) along a president (yes, a constitutional actor) that also resolves these constitutional questions. You have representation to deal with these issues, something we didn’t have with England. Read the document - it’s fascinating.[/quote]
No, ultimately the constitution and the people are the restraining factor. And no, judicial review is not part of the constitution.
No, ultimately the constitution and the people are the restraining factor. And no, judicial review is not part of the constitution.[/quote]
Ultimately, yes - but the people first act through the means provided n the Constitution: elected representatives.
And, yes, judicial review is part of the Constitution - it was part of the argument in the Federalist Papers (made by Hamilton). In addition to reading the Constitution, read these as well.
so you admit that violating the 10th amendment voids the supremacy clause?[/quote]
There’s nothing to admit - if something violates the 10th Amendment, it violates the Constitution itself via that provision, not other provisions.
[/quote]
So, a law that violates the 10th amendment doesn’t have to be obeyed by the states, regardless of the supremacy clause.
No, ultimately the constitution and the people are the restraining factor. And no, judicial review is not part of the constitution.[/quote]
Ultimately, yes - but the people first act through the means provided n the Constitution: elected representatives.
And, yes, judicial review is part of the Constitution - it was part of the argument in the Federalist Papers (made by Hamilton). In addition to reading the Constitution, read these as well.
[/quote]
I’m actually in the process or reading the federalist papers, maybe a quarter of the way. I can only read so much at a time because they are incredibly repetitive.
So, a law that violates the 10th amendment doesn’t have to be obeyed by the states, regardless of the supremacy clause.[/quote]
Yes, they have to obey until a higher sovereign determines its constitutionality. If the state wants to challenge its constitutionality, no problem, but until that determination is made, the Supremacy Clause requires fidelity to it.
So, a law that violates the 10th amendment doesn’t have to be obeyed by the states, regardless of the supremacy clause.[/quote]
Yes, they have to obey until a higher sovereign determines its constitutionality. If the state wants to challenge its constitutionality, no problem, but until that determination is made, the Supremacy Clause requires fidelity to it.
[/quote]
Is this “higher sovereign” the supreme court? because the court is part of the government, not above it.
The only “higher sovereign” is the people. And it is ultimately up to them. And they most certainly have the right to redress claims if they feel the system isn’t doing it’s job well enough. To slow, won’t hear the case, or is just plain wrong.
You can’t be serious in claiming all laws must be obeyed until the political process fixes it.
So, that underground railroad thing was treason huh?
But where is judicial review in the constitution?[/quote]
Inferred as a natural consequnce of Article III, where the Supreme Court’s power “extend[s] to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution”.
Is this “higher sovereign” the supreme court? because the court is part of the government, not above it.[/quote]
Could be - but also the other branches, which are constitutional actors.
Incorrect - the federal government is supreme (in certain areas) - see the Supremacy Clause.
The people are certainly the highest sovereign, but since “the people” (and not a portion of the people) ratified the Constitution, only “the people” retain this authority.
But where is judicial review in the constitution?[/quote]
Inferred as a natural consequnce of Article III, where the Supreme Court’s power “extend[s] to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution”.
[/quote]
Is this “higher sovereign” the supreme court? because the court is part of the government, not above it.[/quote]
Could be - but also the other branches, which are constitutional actors.
Incorrect - the federal government is supreme (in certain areas) - see the Supremacy Clause.
The people are certainly the highest sovereign, but since “the people” (and not a portion of the people) ratified the Constitution, only “the people” retain this authority.
[/quote]
So a portion of the people can’t break away? Like in the American revolution?
Judicial review is above law. It’s not there.[/quote]
This plain dumb. “In law” and “in equity” means that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction as to both money damages and equitable relief (non-monetary relief, like injunctions, etc.). That is what that means, Einstein.
And, if you are so hot to trot on the fact that powers only exist through “express provisions”, I welcome you to point me to the “express provision” providing for states’ right to secede.
So a portion of the people can’t break away? Like in the American revolution?[/quote]
Well, they can - if they can invoke the right of revolution. That is a different issue than “the people” deciding constitutional matters as the rightful sovereign.
Judicial review is above law. It’s not there.[/quote]
This plain dumb. “In law” and “in equity” means that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction as to both money damages and equitable relief (non-monetary relief, like injunctions, etc.). That is what that means, Einstein.
And, if you are so hot to trot on the fact that powers only exist through “express provisions”, I welcome you to point me to the “express provision” providing for states’ right to secede.
[/quote]
Going by your definition there isn’t one. All men have the right to revolt though.
Especially given that the voiding of the contract would be revolution.