Should the Supreme Court have the final say about the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress?

Question

The Supreme Court is made up of unelected men and women. The Supreme Court in the past has ruled in favor of ideals which most no longer see as just, moral or constitutional; slavery, segregation, internment etc.

Perhaps the ruling of a law as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court should not be the final word.

Perhaps the law should go back before the representatives of the people, Congress, to determine its constitutionality.

Crabby, Can you show me where this (primary) job of ruling on constitutionality is in the um...Constitution? I thought their job was overseeing the lower courts. I know about Marbury vs. Madison and the federalist papers. You might also want to reread the Tenth Amendment and see if it mattered. By the way, before you try defining "General Welfare" remember, unlike the chicken and the egg, in this case we know which came first and which came after.

Thank you Kwilfort, Taxpayer and those with opposing views without barbs.

Answer 1

No. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret laws not make them or strike them down. It is undemocratic for appointed officiasl to be able to over rule decisions made by a government lawfully elected by the people.

Answer 2

Yes. Absolutely. Because that is the way our government was set up. I would think that a true patriot would have taken civics and American history classes in school, read the constitution and understood what it says and how the concept of judicial review developed.

The supreme court is not all powerful. They can not review laws that are not in controversy and have not been brought before them after an entire series of rulings. They cannot review and rule on laws that don't test constitutional issues. But if a law is controversial. But once a law has been chanllenged on constitutional ground and lower court rulings are in some way unsatisfactory, then the supreme court weighs in. Once they have, there decision becomes law of the land until either the constitution is changed or a new case causes the court to change its mind.

After 200 years, there are no amendments that were adopted speciifically to override a supreme court decision. (but there are a handful that were adopted because the supreme court sat on its hands and did not rule). There have been reversals of supreme court decisions.

But every amendment and every reversal are on the side of expanded rights, fairness and justice. We have never adopted amendments to limit a persons rights and the supreme court has never reversed itself to turn back the clock of freedom and justice.

What all of this means is that people who do not understand our freedoms, and think that they are in the majority, and that the majority always wins, even when that does an injustice to the minority, go around wondering why they can't punish the people they do not like and then blame the very system of government that insures the freedoms they enjoy.

And so it goes

Answer 3

The Supreme Court has also overturned unjust laws passed by Congress. Just because they get things wrong sometimes doesn't mean there aren't ways to change the Constitution.

The Court upholds an oath to defend the Constitution. When two people disagree about it, they go to the courts. That's the way it has to work. If the courts didn't have the final say, it would mean nobody could challenge anything Congress did in the first place. We'd be much worse off that way.

Answer 4

On the whole I believe the Supreme Court justices take their positions with considerable thought and good intent. The only exemption I would entertain would be Chief Justice Taney (The crafter of the Dredd Scott decision). A black eye in the history of jurisprudence.

BTW The Supreme Court is not the final authority. Congress can override, later the Court can reverse itself, or Bush can use a signing statement to trump all.

Answer 5

Because they are unelected and serve for life, one would think they would be free from political pressure. The framers of the constitution set it up this way to oversee the shenanigans congress can get up to. Congress is fickle - whatever nonsense comes into their heads, they can pass a law about it. The Supreme Court is the adult supervision. I don't always agree with the court's decisions, especially now, but it is a good system of checks and balances. Leave it as it is.

Answer 6

Perhaps you should LEARN how th esystem actually works. The Supreme Court is not the "final word" you portray it to be. Their (primary) job is to rule on constitutionality, yes. That's their role in our system.

But if Congress sees fit, they can revise a law to be in accord with the Constitution--and frequently does. If Congress--or the American people--don't agree to a sufficient degree, they can pass a Constitutional Ammendment. Granted, that's very difficult to do--intentionally so, to prevent such binding changes from being made on the basis of short term or narrow interests.

Answer 7

The concept of judicial review is valid.

But, it is not the last word. The people - Congress, and the various state legislatures - can ammend the Constitution in response to a Supreme Court ruling.

Answer 8

Um, it already does this. There's a reason why there are 3 seperate institutions. It prevents tyranny. The advantage of the Supreme Court is that while they are appointed, they often vote based on long term views and not the current status quo.

Congress doesn't base their laws on constitutionality. Just whatever will benefit the current adminstration or the pet projects of special interest groups. The regular attack on Roe v. Wade is just one example.

Answer 9

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the courts findings, it still remains one of the three arms that are part of our democracy.

There must be a separate entity that rules on constitutional law. Leaving that aspect up to congress would be not only chaotic, but would redefine every phrase of the constitution every four years.

Answer 10

Yes. It is called "separation of powers". No one branch of government has ultimate control. It it designed to curtail extremism.

The People are the ultimate authority and can trump the Supreme Court by amending the constitution.