When judges confront a case where one side relies on a federal statute and the other on the Constitution, they must choose the Constitution as the higher law and put aside the act of Congress. The judiciary’s power to interpret the Constitution derives from its responsibility to decide cases and controversies under federal law. [...] According to Jefferson, “the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

So what's the bottom line: a court ruling can put aside an act of Congress only for the parties in that particular case? If, say, the court rules that the Constitution overrides the Controlled Substances Act for Joe Smith, I have to bring my own case to get an analogous ruling for me? Sounds nutty.

So what's the bottom line: a court ruling can put aside an act of Congress only for the parties in that particular case?

No. If the SCOTUS decides an act of congress is unconstitutional, it applies to everyone.

Congress's only recourse is to rewrite the act, or -- congress and the executive can refuse to enforce the SCOTUS opinion.

congress and the executive can refuse to enforce the SCOTUS opinion.

Does "refusal to enforce" include continuing to enforce laws that SCOTUS rules Congress had no authority to enact? If so, in what meaningful sense can SCOTUS "put aside an act of Congress"?

So what's the bottom line: a court ruling can put aside an act of Congress only for the parties in that particular case?

No. If the SCOTUS decides an act of congress is unconstitutional, it applies to everyone.

Congress's only recourse is to rewrite the act, or -- congress and the executive can refuse to enforce a SCOTUS opinion that a specific law is unconstitutional.

Does "refusal to enforce" include continuing to enforce laws that SCOTUS rules Congress had no authority to enact?

Yep, both fed/state/local govts routinely enforce unconstitutional 'laws'. ---- It is up to the courts then, -- to refuse to prosecute and have trials of such 'laws'.

I'm surprised our naysayers haven't put in their two cents...

John Yoo is the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. A former Bush Justice Department official, he is the author, most recently, of Point of Attack: Preventive War, International Law, and Global Welfare (Oxford 2014).

John "Testicle Crusher" Yoo also believes it is lawful for the president to order the crushing of a child's testicles in a vise to encourage the watching parent to give up information.

Judicial Supremacy Has Its Limits ---- The Court’s decisions are not binding on the executive and congressional branches.

Unable to refute the above fact; -- nolu attacks the author for his views on presidential (ballbreaking) powers.

Poor nolu, reduced to ballbreaking hype...

Judicial Supremacy Has Its Limits ---- The Court’s decisions are not binding on the executive and congressional branches.

Unable to refute the above fact; -- nolu attacks the author for his views on presidential (ballbreaking) powers.

The claim is complete, total, utter bullshit, attributed to one asshole.

Ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2, 120-121 (1866).

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.''

Judicial Supremacy Has Its Limits ---- The Court’s decisions are not binding on the executive and congressional branches.

And your quote below agrees with the above. --- Even though you don't know it, poor dolt...

Ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2, 120-121 (1866).

" ----- the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.''

Judicial Supremacy Has Its Limits ---- The Court’s decisions are not binding on the executive and congressional branches.

And your quote below agrees with the above. --- Even though you don't know it, poor dolt...

Actually, you are a hopeless idiot. However, it it makes you feel better to liv e in the fantastical world of the tpaine Court of the Imagination, by all means continue to blather your bullshit.

The case in point resulted in a unanimous decision overruling the claimed authority of the Executive Branch.

And valid legal text on Constitutional Law will readily verify that you are full of shit, which is never a surprise. To select just one, there is Kathleen M. Sullivan and Gerald Gunther, Constitutional Law, 17th Edition, Foundation Press, 2010 which demonstrates that SCOTUS constitutional decisions are binding on the Congressional branches.

At 21:

3. Are Supreme Court interpretations binding on Congress? Article V provides that Congress may initiate an amendment to the Constitution, and the amendment process can be used to overturn a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court. But may Conggess effect such an overruling by statute'? DICKENSON v. UNITED STATES, 580 U.S. 428 (2000), answered that question no. Chief Justice REHNQUIST wrote for the Court: "In Miranda v. Arizona, [384 U.S. 436 (1966)], we held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect's statement made during custodial interrogation could be admitted in evidence. In the wake of that decision, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3501, which in essence laid down a rule that the admissibility of such statements should turn only on whether or not they were voluntarily made. We hold that Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress.

"[The] law in this area is clear. This Court has supervisory authority over the federal courts, and we may use that authority to prescribe rules of evidence and procedure that are binding in those tribunals, [although Congress] retains the ultimate authority to modify or set aside any judicially created rules of evidence and procedure that are not required by the Constitution. But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution.

The] law in this area is clear. This Court has supervisory authority over the federal courts, and we may use that authority to prescribe rules of evidence and procedure that are binding in those tribunals, [although Congress] retains the ultimate authority to modify or set aside any judicially created rules of evidence and procedure that are not required by the Constitution. But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution.

Read much, you idiot? The article in effect agrees with the above quote:---

" --- While the Constitution does not grant the federal courts the final word, it implicitly gives the courts a right to interpret the Constitution. As Chief Justice John Marshall famously observed in Marbury v. Madison, which established the power of judicial review, “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” When judges confront a case where one side relies on a federal statute and the other on the Constitution, they must choose the Constitution as the higher law and put aside the act of Congress. The judiciary’s power to interpret the Constitution derives from its responsibility to decide cases and controversies under federal law."

"But the Constitution does not vest the courts with the exclusive right to interpret its meaning. It nowhere says that the Court’s reading of the Constitution bears superiority over the other branches of government."

But the Constitution does not vest the courts with the exclusive right to interpret its meaning. It nowhere says that the Court’s reading of the Constitution bears superiority over the other branches of government.

John "Testicle Crusher" Yoo.

Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution.

A real legal text on Constitutional law.

In the real world, Hillary does not get to decide whether tell the court to stuff it up its ass regarding the email on her private server. The Court decides.

Ditto for Richard Nixon and the tapes brought to light by Alexander Butterworth.

Marbury v. Madison as remained good law since 1803. That fact that you (and John Yoo) don't like it has not overturned it.

Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. A real legal text on Constitutional law.

So you claim..

In the real world, scotus does not get to decide whether to tell the congress to stuff it up its ass regarding the meaning of the Constitution.

0ur constitution speaks for itself.