8 votes

SCOTUS Decisions and Constitutionality of Passed "Laws"

I continue to run into a severe misunderstanding of our Constitution and its impact on our "laws" at the Federal level. Both Ron Paul and Rand Paul are incorrect on this issue. That issue is the ability of the SC to determine the Constitutionality of laws. The prevailing wisdom is that SCOTUS has constitutional authority to "interpret" meaning of the Constitution through court decisions. According to this argument, SCOTUS is able to take, for example, Obamacare and declare it Constitutional even though it clearly is inconsistent with the powers under Art. 1, Sec. 8. Accordingly, we are somehow required to follow such rulings even though it is clearly not Constitutional and until either SCOTUS reverses its decision or Congress passes a new law, we must abide. Let me say this very carefully: THIS. IS. TOTAL. BULL-SHIT! It is a complete lie. SCOTUS has no such power to declare unconstitutional laws constitutional under any circumstance. They have no power to decide what the Constitution says and doesn't say - we already know what it says. I have heard Rand Paul state that once a law is passed, it becomes the law until it is challenged in the courts - BULL SHIT! Any law which is repugnant to the Constitution is VOID! It is invalid from the time of its passing and not from the time the court rules on it.

All of the branches of government are to "overturn" unconstitutional law and they never have to be obeyed under any circumstance.

Now, I will simply refer you to the two articles below written by a retired lawyer going by the name "Publius Huldah" to explain precisely why what I said is correct and evidenced in the Constitution and Federalist Papers.

Why States Must Nullify Unconstitutional Acts of Congress

Nullification: Smacking Down Those Who Smackdown The Constitution.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yeah you're right - a B.S.

The US Constitution for example prohibits Supreme court to construe rights of the govt. to deny or disparage other rights retained by people (9th Amendment).
For example everybody has the right not conclude a contract under coercion and has also the right to seek its anullation if the contract was coerced. So Supreme Court is prohibited to rule that the Congress has the right to coerce people into concluding the health insurance contract - by a tax or any other way. The rights of the governemnt to use taxation powers aren't unlimited and neither the US Constitution interpretation rights given by it to the Supreme Court. The US Constitution is binding supreme law of the land - "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." - Art. 6 of The US Constitution.
more I've written here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/242821/bill-of-rights-a-piece-of-to...

It's cute the way you think...

...that the constitution has served any official purpose since 1913.

HONEST RON 2012!
LEGALIZE LIBERTY!

That is because we don't

That is because we don't enforce it.