- Reply by onJohn,I am of the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS THE RULE - BY - LAW where as your legal studies and references to law schools which I am familiar with base their entire existence on CASE LAW THEORY - they are trained that PRECEDENT change or alter statues [State and Federal] and even alter the CONSTITUTION FROM IT'S ORIGINAL FORM. This belief system is flawed in that the Constitution was written to stand for all time unmodified except through the Article V Amendment process.So, If the FF&R said what they meant and meant what they said - there is no such thing as FRAMEWORK there are words and the meaning of the wards at the time they were written not modified by time, place and use. What law schools teach then becomes RULE - BY - MAN as men in robes and suits can alter the CONSTITUTION at will. We all know that there is zero support in the actual words of the RULING DOCUMENT - the CONSTITUTION. So, to argue that the courts, the legislature or the executive can change the meaning of words and clauses is repugnant to the very existence of a written Constitutional Republic.I now will quote from a book by Hamilton Abert Long [Your American Yardstick] page 146 - 147It is noteworthy that the Virginia Resolution of 1798 pertaining to Federal laws, did not use any language such as the used in above quoted Wisconsin Resolutions: "void, and of no force." In the 1830's Madison wrote a lengthy manuscript: "Notes on Nullification" in which he emphasized that the Virginia Resolutions were not intended to attempt nullification of any Federal law therefore were not a precedent for the 1832 "Ordinance of Nullification" of South Carolina, which he considered unsound. He had also discussed this topic at length in a 1830 letter to Edward Everett and a 1832 letter to N.P. Trist. Madison knew, of course, what Hamilton had made entirely clear in 1787-1788 in the Federalist (especially number 78 also number 33) to have been the understanding fo the Framing Convention: That it is the Constitution only, as the "supreme Law of the Land," which can-and does automatically-make null and void any conflicting Act of Congress. This applies equally to the other things governmental, such as Supreme court decisions. The State Ratifying Conventions also understood this. The controlling principle is this: no legislature, or government, of a State has any power, under the Constitutional system, to nullify and Federal law, or Federal court decision, and the converse is equally true. this basic principle was noted in Federalist Number 34 by Hamilton (referring to a law as and act: " . . . there is no power on either side to annul the the acts of the other." Any annulling is by the Constitution.An Important consideration needs stressing at this point. It is that a protest by a State legislature against claimed usurpation, or abuse of power is entirely sound constitutionally and traditionally as one the peaceable remedies (within the Constitutional system) available to the State, in any such situation, as indicated expressly in the Federalist number 46 by Madison. Any such Protest by a State legislature, thus acting within the constitutional system, amounts of course to nothing more that a declaration of opinion of that body without in the least affecting the fact of constitutionality, or unconstitutionality, as the case may be, of the Act of Congress in question. Madison made the point expressly in his clarifying discussion in his above-mentioned "Notes on Nullification" with regard to the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799. The basic importance of this topic makes it deserving always of thoughtful consideration. [book published 1963].I hope this explains my positions and thoughts on the Courts and their Limited powers, JMHO
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Here is an example of a court using powers it does not have in the Constitution - will it stand on appeal? It is a negative right that does not exist in RULE - BY - LAW that is being enforced by the court. Your speech can not be free unless you also presents the opposition speech so they are equal - poor logic and poor attempt at Judicial legislation from the bench.
Judge prohibits N.C.’s pro-life licesnse plate
by B. Christopher Agee
A U.S. District Judge in North Carolina recently stymied the state's pro-life residentsinterested in purchasing a special license plate sharing the simple message: "Choose Life."Calling the design unconstitutional, the judge explained that North Carolina "offering ... a 'Choose Life' license plate in the absence of a pro-choice plate constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment."The same judge previously filed a preliminary injunction – which has now been made permanent – to stop production of the plates.Unsurprisingly, the case resulted from a lawsuit by the ACLU in 2011 seeking the inclusion of a pro-abortion alternative to the plate.An ACLU spokesperson called the ruling "a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom."As a former resident of the Tar Heel State, I beg to differ. Free speech does not exist only when all possible voices are heard.North Carolina also offers an "Animal Lovers" license plate. Judging by the logic of the lunatic left, the state should be in violation of the Constitution for not similarly producing a plate for drivers who despise animals – regardless of whether a market for such a product exists.Though the plates were set for production after being requested by at least 300 individuals, the judge's temporary injunction halted that process. Now that the injunction is permanent, reports indicate that state's attorneys are considering an appeal of the decision.In my opinion, our nation has descended into a moral bankruptcy from which I doubt we will ever emerge – at least in my lifetime.To be sure, this case is just one of countless indicators that traditional American values are largely dismissed by our current leaders. The judge's decision warrants some attention, though, because it highlights the left's moral relativism in dealing with abortion and other social issues.One cannot advocate for the protection of life without enduring the diametrically opposite view of those preoccupied with ending life. Not only is this the social norm in today's America; a district judge in North Carolina has ruled it is the law.B. Christopher Agee founded The Informed Conservative in 2011. Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Executive . . . holds the sword . . . The Legislative [Congress] . . . commands the purse . . . The Judiciary . . . has no influence over either sword or the purse . . . can take no active resolution whatever . . . liberty can have nothing to fear from the Judiciary alone, [as usurpers] but would have every thing to fear its union with either of the other departments . . . [in usurping power]
The Federalist (no. 78, by Alexander Hamilton
)
- Permalink Reply by on
- First, you already know how I feel about the disingenuous words written by the authors of " The Federalists ", made for one specific need for expediancy at any cost. Secondly, the entire foundation ofour nation is based on the three Branches being seperate yet equal. Obviously, the definition of equal has to be unwritten, as these are seperate duties and responsibilites we are talking about. Each editorial n the Federalists is devoted to turning the votes of the Patriot party members and the small state delegations. They are made specifically to not overlap into each other and cause concern for contradictory mandates.Hamilton also wanted to reduce the State's rights in every possible way, making the federal government the final arbitor in all things legislative, as did Madison ( pre-1794 ) and Washington, John Adams, Jay, John Hancock, James Monroe among many other of the most influential Founders at Philly, and in their time.I have mentiond my belief on Jefferson's absence, but what do we hear of Patrick Hery and John Henry Lee, and Samuel Adams and the rest of the hardcore Patriot party members ? Why could the Federalists not have Jefferson's name on some of them ? The time of secrecy was over - there is no real excuse, save my theory about the bloodless coup by the federalists from the start.Don't misunderstand me, these Founders all had the same goal of keeping the rights of their colonies equal in every way to the other ritish Empire colonial rule allowed. None wanted seperation from the Empire - it was forced upon them by an ego driven Parliament and King George III. These Framers are all great men and should be kept in our highest esteem, but State sovereignty as the Articles of Confederation declared them to be, was dead on arrival at Philly, and the major players knew it. Words are only as good as their author's sincerity. On the Judicial Branch - I have never heard or read one legal scholar say anything other than what I have said. The first three Articles of our Constitution are placed there purposely in the front to define each's powers over the other two.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I to have little use for the letters, speeches and writings having ANY effect on the Constitution - as I have said - It says what it means and means what it says - no language for any THREE CO EQUAL branches that I can read in any part of the entire document and I have read it hundreds of times. I read that Article I section 8 enumerates the specific powers and limits on government. Article I, 2 and 3 establish the limits on the the legislature, the executive and the Judiciary.I believe if you read more of the Framers Founders and Ratifiers you will find that they intended for the courts to be very weak as the Magistrates in the British era abused the powers given.Again the Article of Confederacy have no power or sway in the Constitution - for they are not even referenced.Again for the new readers here is the some total of the courts limited powers . . no statement of co-equal or even Judicial review.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial PowersThe 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 - The Judicial Branch
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials(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.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)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 appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places asthe Congress may by Law have directed.Notes for this section:
11th AmendmentArticle 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - TreasonThe Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.The Courts have no other authority in the Constitution to operate outside the stated duties and limits. I see no language that permits federal district courts to oversee State courts and Constitutions. It is like the Separation of Powers theory - it is not stated in language as each is limited by the applicable Article.So, IMO all such theories are mean illusions of powers not given. If they need the powers expanded then the Article V amendment process is the the proper vehicle - not statute, Stare Decisis, not Executive order - those are all just not permitted.
- Permalink Reply by on
- John here is why we find Americans in such deep trouble in trying to determine what the Courts and the Legislature/Executive are talking about -Further information: List of paradoxesA paradox is an argument that produces an inconsistency, typically within logic or common sense.[1] Most logical paradoxes are known to be invalid arguments but are still valuable in promoting critical thinking.[2] However some have revealed errors in logic itself and have caused the rules of logic to be rewritten. (e.g. Russell's paradox[3]) Still others, such as Curry's paradox, are not yet resolved. In common usage, the word paradox often refers toirony or contradiction. Examples outside of logic include the Grandfather paradox from physics and the Ship of Theseus from philosophy. Paradoxes can also take the form of images or other media. For example, M.C. Escherfeatured paradoxes about perspective in many of his drawings.[4]Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking[citation needed] or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with".[1] The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.[2] Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.[3]Academic Douglas Walton used the following example of a fallacious circular argument:
- Wellington is in New Zealand.
- Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand[4]
He notes that, although the argument is deductively valid, it cannot prove that Wellington is in New Zealand because it contains no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The context – that of an argument – means that the proposition does not meet the requirement of proving the statement, thus it is a fallacy. He proposes that the context of a dialogue determines whether a circular argument is fallacious: if it forms part of an argument, then it is.[4] Citing Cederblom and Paulsen 1986:109) Hugh G. Gauch observes that non-logical facts can be difficult to capture formally:Circular reasoning is often of the form: "a is true because b is true; b is true because a is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Circular Jerks is more like it ! Indeed, we live in a Bizarro world of Paradoxi." Every citizen must have insurance, but one does not have to prove he is a citizen. "Healthcare Bill: Passed by a Congress who did not read the Bill, signed into law by a President who smokes, managed by an obese Surgeon General, and paid for by a Country that is broke - what could go wrong ?
- Permalink Reply by on
- John,Could not agree more . . . are we just living the lie and willing to stick the next three generations with the TAB? Jefferson said that would be the most immoral thing to pass on debt to the next generation when you received it free and clear.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Read this about Judges are to make law is OK ??
B. Judges Are Lawmakers, Not Just Technicians
So what if the Missouri Plan lacks democratic legitimacy? While the
politicians in the legislative and executive branches should be democratically
elected, judges are not supposed to be politicians, are they? Judges, advocates
of the Missouri Plan argue, should be selected on their professional
merit, not their political popularity.52
The problem with this view is that it rests on a one-sided view of the
role of a judge. It emphasizes the judge’s role as legal technician at the expense
of the judge’s role as lawmaker. Of course, judging does involve the
narrow, lawyerly task of applying to the facts of a case the law made by
someone other than the judge (e.g., a legislature). But judging also involves
the exercise of discretion. Within the bounds of this discretion, the judge
makes law.
This point is not new or controversial. Our common law system – going
back centuries to England – rests on judge-made law.53 And judges do not
51. Id. at 154.
52. See, e.g., Honorable Jay A. Daugherty, The Missouri Non-Partisan Court
Plan: A Dinosaur on the Edge of Extinction or a Survivor in a Changing Socio-Legal
Environment?, 62 MO. L. REV. 315, 318-19 (1997) (“The Plan seeks to improve the
selection process and promote superior decision making from the bench by emphasizing
professional qualifications rather than political influence.”).
53. See, e.g., Maimon Schwarzschild, Keeping It Private, 44 SAN DIEGO L. REV.
677, 680 (2007) (“For many centuries in England, and well into the twentieth century
there and in other English-speaking jurisdictions, the law of tort and contract – the
2009] MISSOURI PLAN IN NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE 767
always find the law; sometimes they make the law and make it in accord with
their own political views. This, of course, is the basic reality exposed by
Legal Realism nearly a hundred years ago.54 And it is virtually impossible to
find anybody who disputes it today. That “we are all realists now” is so thoroughly
accepted as to be a cliché.55 “It is a commonplace that law is ‘political.’”
56
So honesty requires defenders of the Missouri Plan to acknowledge
frankly that judges are not merely technicians; they are also lawmakers. Just
as it is one-sided to denigrate the technical, lawyerly side of judging by
claiming that judges are simply “politicians in robes,”57 it is also one-sided to
denigrate the lawmaking side of judging by claiming that the political views
of a judge are irrelevant to his or her job as a judge.
heart of private law – was mostly judge-made common law, with statutes few and far
between. Even today, much of the law of tort is common law, and although contract
law in the United States is substantially governed by the Uniform Commercial Code,
the UCC itself is largely a codification or restatement of common law doctrines and
rules.”); James E. Herget, Unearthing The Origins of a Radical Idea: The Case of
Legal Indeterminacy, 39 AM. J. LEGAL HIST. 59, 64 (1995) (“unlike the continental
legal tradition, the common law tradition recognized and accepted as authoritative, the
proposition that judges make law”).
54. See, e.g., MORTON J. HORWITZ, THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN LAW,
1870-1960, at 169-212 (1992) (legal realism’s most important legacy was its challenge
to the notion that law has an autonomous role separate from politics); Michael
C. Dorf & Charles F. Sabel, A Constitution of Democratic Experimentalism, 98
COLUM. L. REV. 267, 274 (1998) (“[T]he program of unmasking law as politics [was]
central to American Legal Realism . . . .”); Thomas W. Merrill, High-Level, “Tenured”
Lawyers, 61 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 83, 88 (1998) (“We live in a post-
Legal Realist Age, when most legal commentators take it for granted that law cannot
be disentangled from politics and that legal judgment is driven by the political beliefs
of the decisionmaker.”); Frederick Schauer, Do Cases Make Bad Law?, 73 U. CHI. L.
REV. 883, 886 (2006) (“Now, having for generations bathed in the teachings of
Holmes and the Realists, we heed their lessons. We no longer deny the creative and
forward-looking aspect of common law decisionmaking, and we routinely brand those
who do as ‘formalists.’ It is thus no longer especially controversial to insist that
common law judges make law.”).
55. Brian Leiter, Rethinking Legal Realism: Toward a Naturalized
Link to total document:
http://law.missouri.edu/lawreview/docs/74-3/Ware.pdf
- Permalink Reply by on
- America uses the British common law as the base of our law in courts. It is all based on case law one case becomes the base law for the next case which leads to Stare decisis (settled Law). This is how the courts have usurped the Constitution in my opinion. They are allowed under this system to MAKE LAW not just review as the Constitution calls for.
My understanding of the Constitution is that only the legislature can create laws with the assistance of the Executive branch. Judges can not alter, change, add to , take away or create laws that is sole responsibility of the other two branches.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Mangus - Good luck getting any Judge to admit he / she is making law from the Bench. They know the truth as well as we do, it is just their progressive stance on any means to justify heir ends pre-empts any silly constitution. It's akin to catching the 8 year old with his hand in the cookie jar up to his shoulder, and still denying he stole those cookies. These 8 year olds have the final say unfortunately, at least until that decision is pre-epted by another.It is a fact that the brotherhood of Justices and judges lay more weight on the decisions past down from previous lawsuits than theydo from new legislation, executive fiats or Amendments. Their egos are beyond measurements on our earthly domain ! 80% of my fear of this re-election stems from the Justices he will seat. It will take populist movement like none since the original IMO.
- Permalink Reply by on
- We have now gone deep enough into the Swamp of the Constitution and the powers of the Courts by Richard A. Epstein - this is the other side of the coin IMO . . .
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Fiscal cliff has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that we are no longer a RULE - BY - LAW nation but we have gone to the Democracy side of the equation and are now a RULE - BY - MAN for the executive, the legislative and the Courts are just living in a total usurped Constitutional world - if the Congress wants the law then OK - if the Executive wants to just ignore enforcing laws and then creates new laws without legislative support - so what.Yes - citizens we are now living in a RULE - BY - MAN socialist democracy moving toward a dictatorship if you believe the worlds government history.
- Permalink Reply by
- Case Law: bag of maggots generated for the priveledged. I don't know when it really started but I feel it is a moot point right now. Whatever case or Justice opinion that set the course for nullification of Gods Law is long past. We talk about the "fiscal cliff" when we have been forced over the judicial review cliff many years ago. When this country was founded it was through the acts of civil disobiediance and rebels refusing to bow to Mans Laws for the English Privledged. What has changed....nothing, we have come full circle. The shadowy evil of opinions rendered by self appointed Constitutional guirdians render judgement on a country's history that the majority despise. Opinions so hypocritical and condensending that the moronic public lights candles on the alter of adoration for thier wisdom and compassion.A long series of opinions have set the stage of impotance for the true american patriot.....also it has set the stage of a priveledged class of either elected or appointed officials. These people are exsempt from their own rules or pardened by their brothers and sisters for acts that law abiding citizens would be doing jail time. We are now a country ran by criminals, elected by the priveledged to do the bidding of the criminal elite.....The is no law made by man that I must obey if it is in conflict with the Constitution. The court of public opinion supports such disobediance. Men and women of moral values, patriots and rebels are obligated under Gods Law to resist such acts of tyranny, by any means.....Case Law....hypocritical and priveledge.....elitism at it's finest...and inequality for all......semper fi
- Permalink Reply by
- P10 welcome back to your old flame thrower self . . You now that I agree with every word you posted . . the Courts are a problem and not a solution that is why Article V will put them back into the box of Article III where they have almost no power.
- Permalink Reply by
- Mangus: Sorry I got a little carried away.....how I despise the present system and most frustrating for patriots throughout our great country.....I've spoken to many folks in our age group.....these people are scared...disheartened by the abuse of power and the elitism so dominate in government. As I have stated many times along with you.....civil disobiendance at the local level can be infectious......I will continue to shod my feet with my rebel shoes and march on city hall or the county courthouse to rise up, take back our Republic......semper fi
- Permalink Reply by
- P10,Sorry my butt - I loved ever word of it I wish the rest of our Nation would get so educated as you so they can see how far things have gone the wrong way . . that is why so many here on CC have worked so hard to produce a Article V brochure that all can print out and use as a hand out - it explains that we the PEOPLE have the power not Courts, Legislators or Executives in DC - each state owns the power over the Constitution and all the defined RULE - BY - LAW items are contained within the FOUR CORNERS of the CONSTITUTION - not court room or Congress or the oval office.We will fight to take our Freedoms and Liberties back from those that rob us of property and rights from the Creator.
- Permalink Reply by
- Mangus, That is why Hillsdale College is offering the free online classes as well.
- Permalink Reply by on
- paladin10 - I also welcome you back from whatever you were in. I do not understand what the connection with elitism and case law is. If you are trying to say money buys court decisions then I am with you. It always has and always will. That is class warfare or reality, depending on your point of view..I am curious though, how would you suggest the courts do their job ? You mention moral values , public opinion.... I have searched the Constitution and can see nowhere in it any articles designating who has the powers of natural law. If the Constitution is the end all, be all reference for all cases, where is natural law in this picture ?As far as where precedent case law started, you can go all the way back to the Glorious Revolution in England. From that day on the english courts used precedent case law to set standards to go by. The Colonies came here with that same legal system, and the courts are still using cases adjudicated before our independence to decide guilt or innocence. They also use the Aricles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, The Federalists, and the Constitution for guidance. Then they are in theory supposed to use natural law and common sense in their equations. This is where the largest errors have been in our system - the seemingly disregarded natural laws of man are not being applied.
- Permalink Reply by
- Now maybe all will understand the importance of restoring the ORIGINAL Constitution and it's intents and meanings as of the time it was adopted. None of the laws passed or the Precedent case law created using the usurped powers has any effect in law. They by the nature of the usurpation are null and void because the usurpers did not have Constitutional power to change alter or create new rights or find new meaning to the various sections, clauses and amendments.
Any violation of oath of office by way of usurpation of power is the gravest of civic offenses. It is "treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people," as Alexander Hamilton correctly characterized any flouting of the people's fundamental law. ("letters of Phocion," 1784: regarding violation of the New York Constitution.) Any usurpation "is criminal and odious" as declared by President John Quincy Adams in his first annual Message to Congress 1825. Such condemnation of usurpation-either by misusing granted power, or by grasping power which has not been granted-is in keeping with the Federalist's denunciation of this most heinous offense by any public official as a defaulting public trustee, including especially any and ever Judge because especially charged with the particular duty of enforcing respect in practice of this basic law. (all from a book by Hamilton Abert Long).
So as you can surmise they Congress and the Courts are usurpers as they have created new laws where none existed and new rights where none had been before. So, if they usurped the powers and actions the actions and right are hereby voided in the real law.
- Permalink Reply by on
Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men,
we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents.
Without a prison, there can be no delinquents.
We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves.
When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a
blanket,
he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift.
We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property.
We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human
being
was not determined by his wealth.
We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians,
therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another.
We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know
how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things
that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.
John (Fire) Lame Deer
Sioux Lakota - 1903-1976
- Permalink Reply by on
Disagreement
First, I just want to say I do not understand why you placed this with the Article V ction in the re-formation section. The arguement of original intent, judicial review et al is a completely seperate issue.Second - Your exact words, " we do not have to rewrite anything " is completely wrong. Read the instruction manual. An Amendment is not a law, it is an entire premise. It has to be pre-empted by another Amendment, just as the prohiition one was. The second phase on the exact wording is especially important, and I would hope, if you want to lead the charge on this, would at least check out this fact. The word you repeat, " repeal " is used as a verb in the 21st Amendment. It did not make the18th disappear did it ? You cannot repeal an amendment by a simple vote. It is still in the Constitution, unless you do not consider amendments part of the consitution either. The Constitution was ratified before the Bill of Rights, or " The Federalists " were written. My arguement is based on pure common sense. If you cannot admit the open ended clauses of the general welfare for the people of the United States, or the common defense of the United States and the completely open wording on the Congress's ability to tax, or levy as they used in 1787, to tend to the general welfare, and the open ended Commerce Clause wording or the Supremcy Clause wording, we shall remain apart completely on original intent. There is no way possible to get into the heads of the Framers and my article come straight from Madison's notes. If you were a strict constitutionalist, you would know the federal gvernment was placed above the states, intentionally, and in several areas, which can be interpreted as being completely superior. These are the words and warnings from all the Patrick Henry's of the country.For the record, I also am a strict constitutionalist, in the mold of Anthony Scalia. There are too many examples of where the wording in the Constitution does not appear enough for any ourt to decide in a black and white manner. If things were that clear, we would not need a judicial branch. Did you even check to find the Judicial Act of 1789 ? It is in the Congressional Records. Sec. 25 will show you ver batum the words I typed, giving the SCOTUS three ways to review state court decisions and rule them uncostitutional or they can uphold them. THE UNITED STATES of America, or THE UNITED STATES is a singular pronoun. We the People is intended to mean the people as a whole of the union. The comma in the 10th Amendment, " To the States ,or respectively to the People, is intended to be used in the same manner. Once again, Patrick Henry and his brethren pointed this detail out before he ratification. Henry's et al intent was to have the Articles of Confederation revised - period.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- INTERESTING SITE AND A GOOD ARTICLE ON the tax raise of 2% 2013 working people are mad as hell
No comments:
Post a Comment