I can say, a recent post of mine revealed some differences of opinions, and while I maintain some of those are wrong, I have a broader question. When was the last time the Supreme Court looked at a law restricting 2nd? Actively ruled? The reason I ask, is what happens when the Supreme Court fails, and it is the system allowing a violation of our rights? I'm recalling my school civis, and I can not remember how one goes about challenging the supreme court once they have ruled.

The Supreme Court generally rules on laws. There are exceptions, such as the Miranda ruling, but when the Court rules on the Second Amendment, it’s usually because some law is being challenged, and no law, no ruling. For example, if Congress and the President acted to repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934, and suddenly no registration requirements or other restrictions existed on the possession of suppressors, hand grenades, machine guns, etc., the Supreme Court couldn’t say, “You can’t do that; the law must remain in effect.”

Someone might, of course, file suit saying just that, as has been done or threatened over the President’s power to pardon criminals, but I know of no basis for the Court’s power to override the Legislative and Executive branches in a case like that.

If, however, the Court upholds a law as being constitutional and not a violation of the Constitution or other fundamental rights, then that’s the end of the process until the law itself is changed. The only exception I’m aware of is if the Court agrees to review the law again at a later time and changes its mind. That has happened before, but it’s relatively rare.

At least that’s my understanding; if anyone knows different, I’d be very interested to learn why.

quote:

Originally posted by fatmanspencer:
what happens when the Supreme Court fails, and it is the system allowing a violation of our rights? I'm recalling my school civis, and I can not remember how one goes about challenging the supreme court once they have ruled.

Let's assume that in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 the Supreme Court had ruled that the 2nd Amendment is not applicable to the states, only to the Federal Government (it actually ruled the opposite).

That would mean that unless a state had it's own version of the "2nd Amendment" (which many do) the state would be free to regulate all firearms however it wished. In other words, if the Supreme Court had said the 2nd didn't apply to the states, and the state itself had nothing in its state constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms, the state legislature could pass a law saying it was illegal to possess any firearm for any purpose whatsoever.

If the Supreme Court had ruled that way there would be no way to challenge it. That's the point of a Supreme Court. A later Supreme Court with a different makeup might decide to do away with that ruling for whatever reason, but when the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional question there is no way to "overrule" them.

Had my above example actually happened, you could of course amend the Constitution in such a way that prohibited states from regulating firearms. But amending the Constitution is a long and hard road.

quote:

Originally posted by fatmanspencer:
I'm recalling my school civis, and I can not remember how one goes about challenging the supreme court once they have ruled.

They taught that in my Civics Class...but that was back in the 60s

You actually don't challenge their ruling...if you mean "Appeal" their ruling; because they are, by definition, The Highest Court in the Land. If you disagree with how they ruled, your next step would be to change the law through the Legislature

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 9mmepiphany,

The recourse, as we see with President Trump's appointment, is to change the makeup of the Court.

FDR not liking the Court's makeup tried to "pack" the Court by add more justices. He'd then be able to appoint people that would support him. You can see where this could go.

Last, is what happened with the Cherokee Act. The Court ruled the act was unconstitutional. "The Supreme Court's ruling, however, was neither followed by Georgia nor enforced by the U.S. government. President Andrew Jackson, sensitive to Georgia's claims of independence at a time when the states wielded considerable power, had no interest in enforcing the Court's decree." President Jackson reportedly said:"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”