should supreme court have power to overturn unconstituitional federal law?

Answer 1

It already does, that is exactly what it's job is...

Answer 2

Its called Judicial Review and the whole point they exist.

To drive it home, ask yourself the opposite: What could happen if they did not have that power?

Congress could then wirte laws, and the President place into effect, that would trample all over your rights as a citizen, in the interest of the majority. If the Supreme court couldn't stop it, since it trampled on your rights, then you would be stuck.

Extreme Example: suppose in the name of making a safe world, all music that is not classical music will no longer be allowed to be played anywhere in the US. If the majority of Congress and the sitting president decided that was a good idea and put into effect a federal law; who would you turn to argue that this "law" was trampling on your rights?

If that seems silly, then replace the term music with religion. Same point applies

The fact that the Supreme Court has Judicial Review prevents the "Tyranny of the Majority" that democracies in the past have had occur. Meaning, without JR, the majority could decide what every they want without ramifications as to the rights of anyone else. A bad state of affairs if you ask me.

Answer 3

The Supreme Court isn't really given that power by the Constitution, but I think it's important so that the Judiciary can balance out the powers given to the Executive and Legislative branches. Or else there would be no government body to check laws made by the Legislative and signed by the Executive branch.

Answer 4

Yes. That is why they are there, to ensure the executive branch or the legislative branch does not press an agenda which is unconstitutional. The legislative branch can override an executive veto of a bill, but the Supreme Court, when someone appeals a decision through court to the Supreme Court, can rule that bill unconstitutional, so a new bill would have to be introduced into the cycle, which is not unconstitutional.

Answer 5

Absolutely. The whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to enforce the Constitution and to act as a check on the other branches of the government.

Answer 6

They DO have that power, in fact that's their primary job.

The thing is, they don't automatically review laws as soon as they're passed. There has to be a case, which must be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. Until someone is arrested for breaking a law, and has a lot of money to fight it, the SC never reviews a law.

This is why the ACLU exists, to provide money and lawyers to fight cases of laws they feel might be unconstitutional.

Answer 7

That is supposed to be their function but since the President and the Senate have made it clear that politics rule, no one can become a nominated much less approved unless they support abortion. There is no such thing as an independent Supreme court that provides the oversight and assures an impartial ruling on Constitutional law.

Answer 8

Look at it this way. The constitution prohibits bills of attainder. (That's where the Congress passes a law declaring you a criminal and sentencing you.)

Suppose Congress passes such a bill. You are arrested. You file for habeas corpus, saying the whole time, "I've been jailed under an unconstitutional bill of attainder."

What do you want the Supreme Court to say, "Sorry, bud, not our problem?"

Answer 9

Congress makes law, the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the law.

If they deem a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional, then the legislation needs to be amended by Congress and the President, not the Supreme Court.

Answer 10

yes, the supreme court should have this power (in my opinion of course). The courts are a relatively tame branch of governement and they need to have all the power possible to keep the checks and balances.

Answer 11

Yes, have you heard of the concept of "checks and balances?"

If they can't enforce the Constitution and overturn laws that are in conflict with it, then the Constitution is nothing more than a nice piece of paper that the law-makers and the president can choose to ignore. We really don't want that, right?