Biden/Congress and the Supreme Court

[tvc184]

Marxist don’t give a rip about the court or the peoples opinions.
Don’t be surprised by anything these evil *******s do

You are correct but I have never seen them be able to overturn a Supreme Court decision by simply passing the same law. As an example, after Miranda was passed, the US Congress made a law that said Miranda was not required. Yes that went back to the Supreme Court and yes it was thrown out again.

[RiverRat1]

About the same odds as gas station owners lowering gas prices so Americans don't suffer.

That's a must watch video. BTW

[OldRiverRat]

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.

This is true but congress still has the ability to amend the constitution which would in effect over rule the Supreme Court
This, of course, could never be accomplished for this particular situation but it is an avenue for skirting the sc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sqiggy]

This is true but congress still has the ability to amend the constitution which would in effect over rule the Supreme Court
This, of course, could never be accomplished for this particular situation but it is an avenue for skirting the sc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don’t believe that will happen. To amend the constitution, they have to have 3/4 of the states to ratify it. Don’t think 36 states will fall in line.

[flywise]

You are correct but I have never seen them be able to overturn a Supreme Court decision by simply passing the same law. As an example, after Miranda was passed, the US Congress made a law that said Miranda was not required. Yes that went back to the Supreme Court and yes it was thrown out again.

Yep I understand but these folks will do anything to keep and expand their evil. They might pass another law and of course it won’t stand. They know this so they will expand the court and I’m guessing it won’t be long before they start that process

[tvc184]

This is true but congress still has the ability to amend the constitution which would in effect over rule the Supreme Court
This, of course, could never be accomplished for this particular situation but it is an avenue for skirting the sc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

CertaInly.

There could be a constitutional amendment to make all guns illegal for private ownership or do away with the right to an attorney or they can have an amendment where police don’t need a warrant to enter your home. Literally everything is up for grabs.

All they have to do is convince 292 of 435 members of the House of Representatives, 67 of 100 senators and then have 38 states ratify it.

[rtp]

Yeah, well, Biden’s a liar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Playa]

Yes it can be done, but it is a 2 step process. Step 1: amend the current SC and open up new seats, ie “court packing”. Fill it with liberal justices. 2) pass new Roe v Wade law, where newly packed court will uphold.

[CaptainDave]

Perhaps I'm not following this correctly.

The SC decision essentially stated that the right to an abortion is not a right afforded by the Constitution. In other words, it's simply not a constitutional right. This effectively pushed regulating abortion back to the legislative branch and the States.

With that said, couldn't either house of Congress theoretically draft federal policy on abortion if they wanted to? Obviously, such legislation wouldn't pass both houses, but it's the job of Congress to write/create laws; not the court system. I'm not talking about amending the constitution.

It seems the Dems love to use the courts as it allows them to circumvent the legislative process and blaming the SC on this decision is a convenient excuse.

[WItoTX]

Perhaps I'm not following this correctly.

The SC decision essentially stated that the right to an abortion is not a right afforded by the Constitution. In other words, it's simply not a constitutional right. This effectively pushed regulating abortion back to the legislative branch and the States.

With that said, couldn't either house of Congress theoretically draft federal policy on abortion if they wanted to? Obviously, such legislation wouldn't pass both houses, but it's the job of Congress to write/create laws; not the court system. I'm not talking about amending the constitution.

It seems the Dems love to use the courts as it allows them to circumvent the legislative process and blaming the SC on this decision is a convenient excuse.

You are correct. Basically its pushed abortion back to a states rights issue. Which in my book, stripping rights from the federal government is almost always a good thing.

FJB.

[tvc184]

Perhaps I'm not following this correctly.

The SC decision essentially stated that the right to an abortion is not a right afforded by the Constitution. In other words, it's simply not a constitutional right. This effectively pushed regulating abortion back to the legislative branch and the States.

With that said, couldn't either house of Congress theoretically draft federal policy on abortion if they wanted to? Obviously, such legislation wouldn't pass both houses, but it's the job of Congress to write/create laws; not the court system. I'm not talking about amending the constitution.

It seems the Dems love to use the courts as it allows them to circumvent the legislative process and blaming the SC on this decision is a convenient excuse.

I do not believe it would overcome the 10th Amendment and the states’ rights.

Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that the policing powers belong to the states. Doctors, EMTs, nurses, etc., are licensed by the state, not the federal government. I do not think the federal government has the authority to make such a ruling on abortions. Would they try? I think they will try anything.

[Dusty Britches]

....

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.

Thank you for that example. And in this instance, Clarence Thomas said, paraphrased, that a individual should not have to petition the government for permission to use a constitutional right.

I think his statement could have a far bigger impact than on just the Second Amendment.

[GLM]

HHS secretary said there are having discussions on having abortion clinics on federal land in states that restrict abortions. Doesn’t federal lands have to follow the state laws that they reside in?

[MadHatter]

HHS secretary said there are having discussions on having abortion clinics on federal land in states that restrict abortions. Doesn’t federal lands have to follow the state laws that they reside in?

I'm gonna say no.
Just like CO, you can burn a doobie just about anywhere except National Forest.
100% legal across the state but not on federal land.