TexasCHLforum.com

Jeff Barriault wrote:Who gets to determine the constitutionality of a law? The supreme court? What if they are wrong? When did we as Americans turn over all authority to them?

You need to understand that the Supreme Court does not review legislation and decide whether it is constitutional or not. The Supreme Court simply rules on cases brought before it. That means an aggrieved party must have "standing", meaning they are directly affected by the case. Once a case is brought before the Supreme Court, the court issues a ruling on the case that may have as a side effect the ruling that some aspect of the law cannot be enforced because it is unconstitutional.

This is entirely consistent with the Constitution.

Article 3 Section 1 establishes one supreme Court and makes it clear that other courts are "inferior". In other words, the Supreme Court has the final authority:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article 3 Section 2 establishes the courts jurisdiction:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. 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.

Once we realize that the Supreme Court does not do a "legislation review" but simply decides cases brought before it, the Constitution obviously gives them the judicial power to do so.

If you don't like that, then amend the Constitution. After all, if one wants to argue the Second Amendment must be respected and followed, seems to me that Article Three deserves the same respect.

AEA wrote:
My post "So What" may have been a bit misleading......

I propose that Texas follow (should have led again) Wyoming with a similar Legislation only to show support and resolution of the cause. Not likely to be enforced, but "on the books" for the record. A "Strong Statement" if you will.......

I disagree, it would be a bad law.

First, it would be meaningless in terms of actually advancing the cause.

But worse, some poor unsuspecting sucker would hear about the law, assume he is good, and find himself made an example of by the feds, becoming a felon and losing his lifetime gun rights.

If you want to make a statement, simply pass a resolution putting any kind of insulting, scurrilous, degrading, insulting language into it you think they deserve. But don't pass a meaningless law that can make unwitting people felons.