Biden has said he was going to Congress to try to get them to overrule the SC and get Roe vs Wade reinstated. I don’t know how all this works but is that a possibility? I mean if so, then what’s the point of having the SC or any other high ranking courts, if you just run to Congress when a decision doesn’t go your way and persuade Them to overturn the SC decision? Anyone with any knowledge of this that can shed some light on it?
-
-
No.Originally posted by marshman View Post -
So if not why did the news say this? Other than themOriginally posted by tvc184 View Post
Being the news?Comment
-
A legislature whether the US Congress, state, county or local jurisdiction, can enact a law to correct a deficiency from a Supreme Court decision. They cannot overcome that decision however.
An example is a case from our very own Lone Star State. The SC case was Brown v. Texas. In the early afternoon the police in El Paso saw Brown and another man walking away from each other in an alley in a “high crime area”. They stopped Brown thinking he might have made a drug deal but nothing was found illegal on him. Brown refused to give his name saying the police had no reason to stop him. He was arrested and convicted in City Court for failing to give his name to a police officer who had asked for it. He received a fine just like a traffic citation. He appealed to the county court and then all the way to the SC.
He lost every step of the way… Until he got to the SC. In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the officers violated Brown’s constitutional rights because they did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him (Terry v. Ohio) The application of the Texas law was therefore unconstitutional.
Since that law or the application of it by the police officers was found to be unconstitutional, the Texas legislature changed the law. The new law which is currently in place, is that only after you have been lawfully arrested, you have to give your name, address and date of birth. Under that current failure to identify law, you never have to tell the police your name, address or date of birth unless under arrest. If you do give any of those however, you cannot lie about it. That is actually a more serious crime than simply refusing to give your name after an arrest. NOTE: While the Texas failure to identify law only requires you to give your name to the police after you have been arrested, that does not mean in other circumstances that you don’t have to give your name such as if you were driving and stopped by the police. By law you have to present a drivers license. If you refuse to show your license and refuse to give your name, the police cannot lawfully arrest you in my opinion under the failure to identify law because you’re not under arrest at that moment. The easy answer to that for the police is that they cannot arrest you for not giving your name (since you aren’t under arrest) but they can arrest you for not presenting a drivers license. THEN you have been lawfully arrested and must give your name or be charged in another crime.
But Texas could not overcome the Supreme Court decision which still stands today. The point is that Texas did not and could not overturn the Supreme Court decision that the police must have a lawful reason to stop a person in order to demand a name. What they did was pass a law that “complied” with a Supreme Court ruling.
In this case being discussed, the Supreme Court ruling was the states must now have a “shall issue” law for handguns. I do not see how the United States Congress can overcome that decision with a new law. This ruling flatly said that you have a right to carry a handgun and a state will issue you a license. The decision did not demand what people call constitutional carry but they did demand that a state issue a license.Comment
-
Politics and sounding tough in his frustration. It is news because of president said it. I don’t think he nor Congress can you come up with a solution to get around the , each state will issue a license to people that apply ruling.Originally posted by marshman View PostComment
-
Congress could send the president a bill such as requiring a background check uneven for private sales, etc. I see no way he can get around the license issuing requirement however.Comment
-
I answered the wrong question. I was thinking of the gun decision.Comment
-
Just like the other situation I discussed, they cannot overturn the decision.
Since the licensing of medical procedures and professionals, the definition of what a person is and the laws on homicides is a state/10 Amendment issue, Congress would have to come up with a law they basically overturned that amendment.Comment
-
Thank you tvc. Great information you have posted. Much appreciated.Comment
-
You’re welcome.
In Jacobson v. Massachusetts the SC ruled that a forced vaccine was in the policing authority of the states. I believe that is why the US Congress cannot enact a constitutional law that forced all Americans to take a vaccination. That is not within their authority but each state independently can according to the current ruling. This is a quote from Jacobson.
It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine
I think that is what the current abortion ruling is and is going back to. States set medical conditions in most cases, not the federal government.Comment
-
-
This brings up another question....or two!Originally posted by tvc184 View Post
Take the 17th Amendment: Constitution says State Legislatures will select their Senators.
US Congress says that they are selected now by General Election by the 17th.
How can they change how Senators are selected when it's stated in the Constitution that the States Representatives pick their Senators and not by general election and then NOT be able to say that the US Congress has the power to change laws dealing with abortion?
I think I know the answer; because states ratified it, but would appreciate your take on that.Comment
-
That is correct.Originally posted by hpdrifter View Post
To rehash what people already know but changing the Constitution requires a 2/3rds vote from both Houses to propose an amendment and then ratification of 3/4ths of the states, currently 38 states.
An amendment is exactly that, an amendment or change to the existing Constitution.
Congress voted on the changes and 3/4ths of the states (36 since only 48 states) ratified it.Comment
-
A great example popped up today in the Campfire forum.Originally posted by marshman View Post
A man was sentenced to federal prison for the Stolen Valor Act.
You might ask, how does that relate to this topic?
Well the Stolen Valor Act was enacted by the US Congress and signed into law in 2005. I don’t remember the exact wording but it was something like, if you wore a US military uniform and you were not in that military, it was a crime.
The Supreme Court threw out that law because of the First Amendment. They said you can dress how you wish under freedom of speech.
Congress remedied that by enacting a new law that said (paraphrased) you cannot dress as a member of the military if you were never a member and then use that fake appearance to defraud another person. So dressing up in a military uniform and you were never in the military? Yes you have that right under the Tirst Amendment.
Dressing up as a member of the military when you weren’t and soliciting funds, getting discounts, etc.? That’s a felony.
So there is an example of Congress responding to a Supreme Court decision. Congress could not overturn the decision and the original decision still stands today, you can dress up how you wish. What they did however was to make it a crime to use that fake identity to cheat someone. I imagine that also covers using a fake DD 214 on a job application, using it to run for your local city Council, etc.
And back to your original question…
I can’t think of a law that Congress can pass that will overcome the Supreme Court saying a state shall issue a license and the person with such a license can carry in public.Comment
-
Marxist don’t give a rip about the court or the peoples opinions.
Don’t be surprised by anything these evil *******s doComment
Comment