- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:50 am to Flats
quote:Congress cannot pass a law nullifying a Constitutional Amendment.
But if Congress passes a law against it
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:53 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
I'm not sure what you are even asking here.
I'm asking what stops Congress from using this power:
quote:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:54 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Congress cannot pass a law nullifying a Constitutional Amendment.
Can they pass a law and except it from judicial review?
quote:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:55 am to jp4lsu
quote:
Wasn't the SCOTUS ruling really about doing this with an EO?
The only part of the overall decision that dealt with this issue specifically was Kav's concurrence, where he said the EO was illegal but it could be codified by Congress.
That's why the ruling was 6-3 against the EO
The other 5 who said the EO were illegal did not agree to his view that Congress could codify this language. They said you can't do this via EO OR via Congress.
quote:
and Congress I think could force the issue with a bill.
The 5-person majority did not accept his argument about Congress and established a clear Constitutional baseline. Congress cannot modify or violate that baseline.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 10:55 am
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:55 am to Flats
quote:Except the US Constitution from judicial review? No.
Can they pass a law and except it from judicial review?
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:56 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Roberts took that option away from Congress in his ruling
The Supreme Court can only rule on the Constitutionality of a law or EO.
The 5th clause of 14th Amendment specifically gives Congress the authority to protect the original intent and meaning of the Amendment.
Kavanaugh is right in his observation that Congress has already modified the application of the Amendment in the past, so Congress could negate Robert's bullshite.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 10:58 am
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:57 am to Chip82
quote:
For you LSU folks, Roberts application of the Common Law definition of jurisdiction negates the reality that Louisiana was never under British rule and that your court structure dependent upon "civil law" isn't valid.
As long as Louisiana has been a part of the United States, it's been under common law federally.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:57 am to Flats
quote:
Can they pass a law and except it from judicial review?
Yes, they can limit/except a law from Judicial Review
Unless it violates the Constitution. Then, they can't and the SpCrt can review it and strike it down
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:58 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Except the US Constitution from judicial review? No.
Then what does this mean?
quote:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:58 am to Chip82
quote:
The 5th clause of 14th Amendment specifically gives Congress the authority to protect the original intent and meaning of the Amendment.
That's not what the text says
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:59 am to Flats
quote:
Then what does this mean?
Go take a look at Marbury vs Madison
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:00 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Yes, they can limit/except a law from Judicial Review
Unless it violates the Constitution. Then, they can't and the SpCrt can review it and strike it down
So they can except a law from judical review unless SCOTUS doesn't like it? What's the purpose of this power that really isn't a power at all if you're correct?
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:01 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Go take a look at Marbury vs Madison
I'm not asking what a judge says it means. Judges make shite up to fit their own political preferences all the time. The text isn't really that complicated:
quote:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
That's spelled out a helluva lot clearer than "judicial review".
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
As long as Louisiana has been a part of the United States, it's been under common law federally.
Wrong...
When the 14th Amendment was rolled out, state courts were the only jurisdictions that determined citizenship.
The feds did not get involved in direct adjudications until 1875.
You can't overlay a new definition of jurisdiction over thousands of prior citizenship adjudications using state residency guidelines.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:05 am to Flats
quote:
So they can except a law from judical review unless SCOTUS doesn't like it?
No.
They can't if its unconstitutional, because the constitution clearly mandates how a right can be changed: Not by congress, but by Amendment
Otherwise, the next time Dems have a majority they could:
Pass a law banning all gun ownership by majority
And then every couple of years depending on who is in Congress, your rights get taken away or restored
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:06 am to Flats
quote:
I'm not asking what a judge says it means. Judges make shite up to fit their own political preferences all the time. The text isn't really that complicated:
First of all, Marbury is from 1803 and is one of the basic pillars of our nation
Second, its because the Constitution says it. They specifically lay out how a constitutional right can be changed
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:08 am to Chip82
quote:
Wrong...
quote:
When the 14th Amendment was rolled out, state courts were the only jurisdictions that determined citizenship.
The feds did not get involved in direct adjudications until 1875.
This adds nothing of rhetorical value to the conversation at large or in response to my comment.
quote:
You can't overlay a new definition of jurisdiction over thousands of prior citizenship adjudications using state residency guidelines.
Uh, yeah you can in our system. It's the Supremacy Clause + an Amendment to the Constitution.
Congress also had the power to do this without the 14A, and the adjudication of that litigation would be....via federal common law
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's not what the text says
That is exactly what it says. That is why it was included as a protection from federal, state and local abuses.
'are citizens of the United States and the States in which they reside."
The Cinese getting off of these planes are not residents of any state. Neither are illegal immigrants who are not legal residents.
Are you against the ultimate REPARATION of the 14th Amendment in granting citizenship to former slaves?
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:21 am to Flats
quote:
I'm asking what stops Congress from using this power:
I think everyone agrees that Congess can remove jurisdiction from district and circuit courts.
The problem for your point is that it seemingly does not apply to Supreme Court jurisdiction, simply because the Constitution spells out when SCOTUS has original and appellate jurisdiction.
Articl 3 Section 1 makes clear that the judicial power of the U.S. "shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." If Congress does not create inferior courts and/or if Congress does not grant certain jurisdiction to inferiror courts then that judicial power does not vanish -it is still a power granted to the Courts by the Constitution. Section 2 then states "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . " - this a case, like birthright citizenship, that arises under the Constitution (14th Amendment) would be a case that the judicial power of the U.S. has power/jurisdiction. In the scenario you are talking about, when inferior courts do not have jurisdiction over a case arising under the Constitution, the Article 3 judicial power does not disappear, it just goes to SCOTUS.
That is, at least, how I read it.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News