- Guide to the left - link
- Permalink Reply by on
- I would like to expound on this a bit further if I may.Since the Constitution, as you stated, does not contain the language allowing the president to write 'legislation', and if fact specifically forbids it by way of the explicit grant to Congress of this power, any action undertaken by the president to make 'law' by executive order would not be law at all. Art. VI Clause 2 provides, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
Therefore, any 'acts' of congress with are NOT pursuant to the Constitution are NOT law at all."Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 17:380Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic ... That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
-- James Madison, 1799
- Permalink Reply by on
- Interesting site - on Constitution Pol Science 201 =
- Permalink Reply by on
- A Constitutional Republic puts restrictions on "what" can be voted on. the Constitution provides what the limited authority is in that regard. All else not specified (10thA) is to be determined by the People.A Constitutional Republic is where the constitution LIMITS the effects of majority rule by limiting what the majority can determine.A representative democracy has no such limits; majority rule only - regardless of the issue. This virtually eliminates the protection of the minority; a modern day example is income confiscation and redistribution for the public majority's view of the "general welfare".Yes, each State's People send representatives to the central government (House) elected 'democratically'. However those representatives were intended to be limited on what issues they actually would be representing the People on. It would be the same principle if they were chosen by drawing straws. However, the People and the States choose to choose, based on criteria they set forth.The Original Constitution provided a way for the nations population to speak on items NOT included in the enumerated authority via ammending the Constitution itself, either expanding or contracting those authorities.Senators were originally the representatives of the States to the Federal government and that method of choosing was up to the People and the States, and Senators were only to vote on those issues within the same enumerated powers of the Constitution.With the 17thA, Senators became the exact same as the House reps, directly chosen by the people. This moved us away from indirect representation (by Soveriegn States) and towards democracy.The 16thA had the same effect, allowing for income confiscation and redistribution by congress, rather than enumerated based on population, with the People and the States deciding how to pay the bill. Now, other States could vote democratically in congress to force other states to adopt various taxation schemes, diminishing soveriegnty and lessen representation in regard to mehtods of taxation.Under the guise of "direct" voter representation, we morphed into a system more consistent with a democracy (majority rules). the so-called 'voice of the People' literally became a way for the minority to be forced to the majority will, as the SC has/had interferred with what is allowed or not Constitutionally for the Republic and its soveriegn citizens and States.Regardless, the original constitution only provided for direct election of House reps. Senators were chosen by the States, and even the electoral college was contructed to further remove the central government from direct democracy, majority rule.So, the point I been making is that we were intended to be a Constitutionally limiting Republic, not the representative democracy we havessentially become.Its not semantic - its principle and intent.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Again in your case, it's merely your unsubstantiated opinion.Your next to last paragraph comment indicates to me that you refuse to recognize the differences between a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. Two different things as I noted that both define us accurately.You claim that a representative democracy is wrong and I say YOU are wrong. Your definition presumes that such a democracy in a constitutional republic is NOT one of limiting power. That's not accurate. Did you read anything of the political science professor source I furnished and posted excerpts from to BACK MY OPINION?Your daffy-nition of what a constitutional republic is is YOURS ONLY and not accurate. A constitutional republic is not defined by the majority rule standard you have imagined.A constitutional republic refers to a form of government, where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and which governs in accordance with existing constitutional law. It is a government of laws not of men. You and I may not like those laws, but so what...that doesn't mean we redefine the terminology for our convenience, which is what you appear to have done. Since the governing body is elected and their decisions are subject to judicial review the state is named as republican.(1)And that comment starting with "Under the guise of "direct" voter representation" reveals your "sour grapes" position. You seek to use any from of governance with the word "democracy" in it as no good and assign it your personal "whipping boy" status. And a republic defined is an entirely different from/system of government. It's purose in fact, which you do not appear to realize, is to control the majority and protect the rights of the minority, all of them. Accurately defined it is a constitutionally LIMITED government of the representative type, not the direct type, which is created by a written constitution and adopted by the people and changeable by amendment via their representatives in government and it consists of three separate and distinct components. An Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branch.(2)And still with all your protestations, some of which I haven't bothered to address, you won't invest any time at all to back up your unsubstantiated opinions. If you won't give me that much respect, I'll not waste my time continuing this exchange. No point to it.References:
- Permalink Reply by
- What is the point of this discussion? Art.IV sec. 4 states the "United States will guarantee a Republican form of Government......" A Republican form of Government has many definitions throughout history. Latin translation ispublic matter, that's pretty vague, open to a lot of conjecture. When asked what kind of government the new U.S. had B. Frankiln said."a Republic if you can keep it" Other definitions include " a representative government ruled by law [in our case the Constitution]. The word Democracy is not mentioned once in the Constitution and I believe that it was a purposeful omission. But whatever was intended and what has evolved are two different animals and a true definition can be varied,not worth the effort IMO. Also, IMO the safeguard of majority rule and minority rights was dealt with as best as possible in our [constitutional] Republic but nothing is perfect. The president has certain veto powers,the Congress has override powers..... We have morphed into some hybrid form of government not worth trying to define other than in generalities, but we are not a democracy with "majority rules" considering, for one, the president can be elected without a majority of popular votes [15 previous presidents if I'm not mistaken].
- Permalink Reply by
- Well doc, you rely on what? The opinion of others who agree with you -LOLIf you think I am going to waste time in a pissing match of conflicting "authority" you are wrong. Thats your MO. I could, if inclined find an equal volume of "authority" to counter yours.That is a WOT IMO. You are playing sematics.I absolutely understand the differences between a representative democracy and a Constitutional Republic. If we were intended to be a representatitive, majority rules, democratic representative nation, the 10thA would not exist.The Constitution was intended to LIMIT what the democratic majority representatives are authorized to decide on a national basis. All else left to the soveriegn states and the people of those states.In my state, our Constitution also is the limiting authority on what the "majority" can rule on. Same principal.Basic rights, that the State could not infringe on where also included in the Bill of Rights as protections from a State majority on those issues.Bottom line. It was intended that authority for NY, for instance, to impose on Arizona, its will as expressed by its majority, via its representatives, was limited in scope.The proof? Article 1, section 8. Not the preamble to it, not the final clause; but the enumerated list that rests between.Welfare, charity, saftey nets, insurance, healthcare etc, etc do not reside reasonably in that portion of the limited authority to decide by majority rules IMO.Of course, the original intent has been severely perverted from my pov. And thats why we have the chickens coming home to roost. Strip out all the crap from the budget that does not reasonably meet the criteria/restriction of A1, S8 and you actually have a balanced budge and no debt accumulated.So why is it there? Because we operate more like a democracy, thats why. Public opinion is trumping Constitutional restriction, without ammending the Constituion, as provided, to expand such authority.Majority rules. And that is self evident, not my opinion.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Too bad that you frame a reasonable discussion as a pissing match. A debate, as you well know, hen written reuires substatiation of opinion to validate is as anything other than CONJECTURE. YOU FAILED! I urged you to post authority for YOUR OPINION. You elected not to. If that's your excuse every time Iwon't waste time engaging in debate with you.Our discussion was one of origins in US federal government and governance, NOT what abuses of power by our assorted elected officials and partisan high court interpretations of law have brought us to TODAY. All your criticisms and your final conclusion is wrought in such a view. Irrelevant to the original discusion EVEN THOUGH I AGREE!When this nation was created everything was a theoretical application and, imo, based upon a presumed future recognition of founding intent in general and acceptance of responsibilities in particular. Did that work out as planned? No. But to suggest that this form is a direct democracy in order to position yourself so you can criticize it for the reasons you wish is being dishonest. If, on the other hand, you believe this is a direct democracy form, I have taken the time to prove you wrong and anyone reading my annotated response to you can see that. With your attitude of assumed righteousness, if you posted on a hostile mixed site the leftards would eat you alive on your unsubstantiated opinion.I'm done with you on this one.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Your definitions are your opinions, not facts. Take your debate definition concerning substantiating data - thats simply not true. Much like in a trial, both sides providing "expert" witnesses with opposoing views on the exact same issue. A pissing match. Cancel each other out and 'proves' nothing.What you have done here is rephrase my views, in order to create a faux point for you to debate.I said we are operating more like a direct democracy every year, effectively. Not that we ARE one.Based on my actual argument (restated above) - a discussion of original intent and principle, and how that has been progressively eroded, is the raodmap for how we got to my alledged point. Entirely appropriate.You see things from a chair in a progressive state, surrounded by "leftards", one person living on top of each other. Westeners have an entirely different perspective of life.And thats the actual point. Exactly why the Federal government was designed to be severely limited in scope, rather than any form of majority rule dictating daily life, the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness to other parts of the Country or individuals.I say that the majority is restricted by the limited authority of the Constitution. You seem to believe that what those limits are, was intended to be ameliorated by whatever the majority of persons via their representatives want at any given time.The literal structure of the Constituional Republic was to avoid that. Only the House of Representatives was designed to constantly reflect the direct majority in Congress. The Senate was intended to be the states interest protector in Congress - an important balance. In a way, a congressional method on the front lines to protect 10thA soveriegny from the popular, volitile House majority (the expediancy house of Congress).And obviously, the other two branches were meant to provide additional balance.The 17thA is what changed the equation and is actually what we are arguing here. Popular, democratic selection of Senators v the original construction.It is your perogative to rely on professors, lawyers, intellectuals or other 3rd party sources for you opinion. That does not make your opinion 'false". It simply illustrates where you are drawing your opinion from.Where my opinion comes from is of no relevance actually, any more than where yours comes from. You are stuck on "authority" and "being right". Thats the righteous attitude.My opinion is what it is - whether you agree, disagree or think its less weighty than yours is of no consequence whatsoever. You are the one who continually is attempting to place your view as more "valid" than those you debate.I just state my opinion and pov, and I am willing to let it sink or swim with any observers who happen by the discussion.You are one who wants to make it a "contest", not me.Thats your perogative.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Eugene, I would qualify it by say a 'modern' republic is one wherein there is a representative democracy acknowledged. We fine-tuned ours to be a constitutional republic by ratifying our Constitution. That act gave us sovereign status among other nation states so we could sign treaties and generally deal with them on equal footing politically and internationally. The historical truth, that can be reasearched and validated, is that the framers...those who would ratify our Constitution, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were loudly making clear their sound reasons for preferring a republic as the proper form of government. We necessarily in an attempt to make finite points get into hair-splitting semantics here, which is also part of the problem I think between Atlas and myself in that a republic is the FORM of government, BUT a representative democracy if the FORM of governance! A Words Mean Things distinction that I think has been lost here.
Governance is the methodology for management of the government. They do NOT carry the same meaning. Governance and government, as to forms, do NOT mean the same thing.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
CCLXXXVIII. Charles Pinckney in the United States Senate.1Knowing that it was the intention of the Constitution to make the President completely independent of the Federal Legislature, I well remember it was the object, as it is at present not only the spirit but the letter of that instrument, to give to Congress no interference in, or control over the election of a President. It is made their duty to count over the votes in a convention of both Houses, and for the President of the Senate to declare who has the majority of the votes of the Electors so transmitted. It never was intended, nor could it have been safe, in the Constitution, to have given to Congress thus assembled in convention, the right to object to any vote, or even to question whether they were constitutionally or properly given. This right of determining on the manner in which the Electors shall vote; the inquiry into the qualifications, and the guards necessary to prevent disqualified or improper men voting, and to insure the votes being legally given, rests and is exclusively vested in the State Legislatures. If it is necessary to have guards against improper elections of Electors, and to institute tribunals to inquire into their qualifications, with the State Legislatures, and with them alone, rests the power to institute them, and they must exercise it. To give to Congress, even when assembled in convention, a right to reject or admit the votes of States, would have been so gross and dangerous an absurdity, as the framers of the Constitution never could have been guilty of. How could they expect, that in deciding on the election of a President, particularly where such election was strongly contested, that party spirit would not prevail, and govern every decision? Did they not know how easy it was to raise objections against the votes of particular elections, and that in determining upon these, it was more than probable, the members would recollect their sides, their favorite candidate, and sometimes their own interests? Or must they not have supposed, that, in putting the ultimate and final decision of the Electors in
Page 387 | Page image
Congress, who were to decide irrevocably and without appeal, they would render the President their creature, and prevent his assuming and exercising that independence in the performance of his duties upon which the safety and honor of the Government must forever rest?...
- Permalink Reply by on
- Now you are free - no longer a OFFICER OF THE COURT [AKA licensed Lawyer]. If one represents themselves and requests a jury trial [OF YOUR PEERS] meaning of engineers if you are an engineer and the issue is of an engineering question . . . Most will refuse. So, now we go to the instruction of the Judge to the Jury abut how the laws and how they work in this case - self representing can object - the Judge has no authority or power to determine the law - that is the reserve of the JURY based on hearing the facts. The purpose of trails is to determine guilt of innocence in criminal cases - in a civil case it is for the jury to decide which party is in the right and which one is in the wrong. The Judge has no right or power to interfere in the case under a jury.situation.If this is tried the judge get very red and angry and threatens contempt charge but will not pursue same, if you are a licensed Attorney you better not go before him with a non jury trial again or you will lose. I have not interest in pursuing the numerous cases that have used these methods but I am sure that there are many. I have used it in traffic court - any fine over $20.00 can request a jury trial . Judges get hot but oh well - better him mad than me.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Founders left that decision for the Independent States to handle - there is no Constitutional tort power in Article III - in fact the Federal Courts appear to only have power over Article I section 8 limits, the power of Judicial review is usurped IMO. Notice there is no mention of The British Common Law in the Constitution so where does the power of case law Theory gain authority in the Federal Government? There is no authority for the Federal courts using Stare decisis precedents.Where is the authority for the Supreme courts to enforce the bill of rights on the Sovereign States? Where is the power for the Court to legislate from the bench? No such powers exist IMO - I am aware that is not what you learned in law school - however law school spends most f the time on case law theory and argument based on the history of other cases. That is allowed at the State level if the State Constitution and laws permit such silliness - It is a different matter at the Federal level for they have limited powers and those can not be expanded by statute or precedent from State courts.Our founding fathers could have put loser pays in the Constitution but did not. I trust their wisdom more than yours. You have fallen for the big lie - the founders - Framers - Ratifiers did not the government do what ever was not in the Constitution - They limited the Federal government to specific items it could do and nothing more without a Article V amendment.So if the item is not specifically stated as a power under Article I Section 8 then it can not be done without usurping. Common law was used in some States but never in the Federal government until after the Supreme court usurped and allowed the Congress and Executive to usurp. You know the M & M cases were not a granted Constitutional power.Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
- Section 1 - Judicial Powers
- Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
- Section 3 - Treason
- Permalink Reply by on
- In Mass., a lawyer does not have First Amendment rights. I'm not sure I would have bothered going to law school had I known that. Not being licensed in Massachusetts, lets me regain them.Juries are no longer of your peers. In yesteryear. the villages were small and everyone knew everyone else. They knew who was the local thief and the local town drunkard. Today, if you say you know or knew the defendant in a criminal case or one of the parties in a civil case, you are excluded from the jury.Jury nullification is what you mentioned above. A lawyer faces sanctions for telling a jury about nullification, that is, that they do not need to apply the law if they don't like it. Some lawyers manage to get around that in certain jurisdictions in front of certain judges.I believe in jury nullification.Judges often usurp the powers of a jury. This is why I am against judicial immunity. If we have to be responsible for our conduct, they should also be responsible for theirs.It's a shame, no so-called leader is educating the public. As a one-man band advocating the abolition of judicial immunity, I can say the media either suck or are stupid. Unfortunately, I thinking stupidity is prevalent.A damn shame.
No comments:
Post a Comment