Will it pass?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

The judicial branch has no business dictating how the legislative branch does it's buisness.

They do this every time they rule a law unconstitutional.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court has the power to judge the laws, but not how the law was "passed", even if the passage mechanism may not itself have been implemented in a constitutional way?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

They do this every time they rule a law unconstitutional.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court has the power to judge the laws, but not how the law was "passed", even if the passage mechanism may not itself have been implemented in a constitutional way?

they rule on the content of a law when they rule it unconstitutional.

they would be ruling on the process the legislative branch used (not the content of the law itself) if they did what you suggest.

so yes, i'm saying the judicial branch of government has no say in how the legislative decides to do it's buisness.

if a majority of the house makes a rule, it takes a majority of the house (not the supreme court) to change that rule.

what you're suggesting (the judicial branch deciding how the legislative should operate) is what's actually unconstitional.

[joeydb]

I'm only saying that because it is also the Constitution that determines how the powers are divided among the branches and what limits are on those powers.

It is possible for the legislature to adopt rules or parliamentary procedure that would in itself be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court would have to be the one to rein that in because the legislative branch will not do that for itself.

Usually it's the Supreme Court through judicial review. The President ideally would not sign a bill into law when he thinks the procedure to get it to his desk was unconstitutional. That's not going to happen here.

The branches by design do keep an eye on each other with regard to the constitutionality of their actions.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I'm only saying that because it is also the Constitution that determines how the powers are divided among the branches and what limits are on those powers.

It is possible for the legislature to adopt rules or parliamentary procedure that would in itself be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court would have to be the one to rein that in because the legislative branch will not do that for itself.

Usually it's the Supreme Court through judicial review. The President ideally would not sign a bill into law when he thinks the procedure to get it to his desk was unconstitutional. That's not going to happen here.

The branches by design do keep an eye on each other with regard to the constitutionality of their actions.

this is the incorrect assumption that leads to the wrong conclusion.

rules the legislative branch adopts to govern itself aren't subject to review by any other branch of government. a single senator recently stopped the senate in it's tracks for a week. no one that i'm aware of questioned the constitutionality of senate rules that allow this.

and for a good reason.

the constitutional crisis would occur when the judiciary inserted itself into the process of making laws instead of simply reviewing the law itself.

[AeWingnut]

I believe Social Security is unConstitutional

and this bs reform ain't even close

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

I believe Social Security is unConstitutional

and this bs reform ain't even close

meh.

i'll start to worry after you receive your judicial appointment.

[SOREHOOF]

They may be able to argue that it's "passage" was unconstitutional. I took out a personal health care policy today. It's called AR-15. Pelosi said something about kicking down doors, and I thought that was offensive. I took it as a threat. Not only to me but to anyone who understands what freedom is, or that it is our birthright, and we are compelled to protect it, at all times at any cost it must be defended.