- Mangus - This is from the " Hertitage Guide to the Constitution " -Since 1787, the central meaning of " judicial Power " has remained remarkably consistant: neutrally deciding a case by interpreting the law and applying it to the facts, then rendering a final and binding judgement. The most important cases in Article III are those " arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. " This clause compliments Article VI, which provides that " this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuence thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land. " There was a general understanding that this language, and the very nature of a written Constitution ordained by " The People, " authorized judicial review of the constitutional validity of government actions.In " Marbury v. Madison," Chief Justice John Marshall repeated Hamilton's analysis and the held that Congress, by forcing the Court to assume original jurisdiction over an action involving a Writ of Mandamus ( an order compelling action by an executive official ), had plainly violated limitations on such jurisdiction prescribed in Article III. The Court expressly cabined it's power to examining " judicial " issues of law rather than " political " questions committed by the Constitution to the executive branch's discretion.( My words ) You can see in this decision in Marbury, Justice Marshall does not give a wide stance on what the High Court can adjudicate, and frankly, I do not understand why this case is given the credit or blame for the problems we face in judicial review. It is the Dred Scott case in 1857 that bastardized the original intent, and it was the first case that strayed out of the confined area that Marshall wrote in his opinion in Marbury. One can even say it is the first instance of P.C. interferring wih an unbiased judgement of the Court, and adding their own political biases into the Laws of the Land.The McCulloch case ( 1819 ) which I have mentioned in the past, which opened up the restrictions of the " expressly delegated " terminology of the 10th Amendment like the jaws of life machine opens up a car door, was not abused in such a way to commerce as was feared by Madison until 1905, in the Lochner case, which I also mentioned earlier, that dealt with labor laws.The Heritage Guide then goes on to explain the powers of the SCOTUS only started to be abused outside the parameters set by Justice Marshall and the Constitution, as it is written, in the late 19th century, when they seemingly gave themselves omnipitent power over every aspect of our lives. Do you think it a coincidence that is when the first progressive President, Teddy Roosevelt came to power ? Why the Legislative Branch has not been forced by the People to mandate restrictions as originally written, we have to address in our overall movement. We are only now in a position to make an Article V Amendment, as the 22nd was executed, since those days, and the ability to drink alcohol in public, without fear of being poisoned by Methonol alcohol was a much easier issue to get passed than the ones we are attempting. . And I, like you, pray that all of these issues are addressed by the People once again. We must gain the White House and the Senate to ensure Ruth " Buzzy " Ginsberg is replaced with a conservative. With the decisions of Chief Justice Roberts on emminent domain and healthcare, we may wish to take a shot across his bow as well !See part 2
- Permalink Reply by on
- Part 2 - The original arguements at the 1787 convention concluded that the supreme court should not have the power of " A Councel of Revision ", which could overturn an executive branch order or revise or veto legislation.The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the original number of justices to six, but even today, there is no limit on how many Justices can sit on the High Court. FDR wanted to increase the number to 11 so to cement his New Deal acts in place. The Congress shot that down, but the court did change numbers twice, in 1801 ( Judiciary Act of 1801 ), when the federalists wanted to takeover the entire intent of the convention only finished 8 years previously, and then again later in 1801, in the first act of President Jefferson and the new Congress after the Revolution of 1800. The Act also gave the SCOTUS appeallate jurisdiction over federal questions growing out of litigation in State Courts, thus cementing national power. This Resolution also limited the powers to adjudicate only cases of law, rather than fact. This innovation was aimed at calming residual fears of national judicial power overturning local jury findings.The first Chief Justice, John Jay, even refused George Washington's request to render an opinion on treaty interpretation. In the Marbury case, Justice Marshall reinforces the notion of limited abilities of the SCOTUS. He did so by refusing to enter into a political dispute on the grounds that Congress could not Constitutionally grant to the Court powers not authorized by the Constitution - in this case, the power to issue a writ of mandamus. Underlying Marshall's reasoning is the idea that the Constitution itself is the law to be INTERPRETED by courts, and that courts cannot decide, " questions in their nature political, " or to force coequal branches to perform political or discretionary acts. The Judiciary Act of 1801also established Circuit Court judgeships, which expanded with the population.The number of Justices, which I mention previously, changed again during the Civil War era, when Lincoln changed the number to 10, to support his war policies, then to seven to deprive President Jackson of several appointments. In 1869, the number returned to nine and has only been challenged by FDR.As my final aguement for my case, I would give Sec. II, of Art. III, and the Supremecy Clause inj Art. VI, Clause 2 - it delineates the scope of the federal judicial power by listing nine seperate kinds of cases and controversies to which the judicial power of the United States may contend. By far the most important is the catagory encompassing " all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitutuion, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. " This is often referred to as the, " federal question " jurisdiction, and, although that is something of a misnomer, it is a convenient label. George Mason, at the Convention, argued that he could see no limitations on judicial powers usingthis language whatsover. James Madison, then a federalist, did not dispute Mason's claim, but rather, he asserted, " The judicial branch should correspond with the legislative. "While the nine catagories seperate the issues, they place no boundaries on judicary discretion. Though Marshall reinforced the limitations, confining them to political issues - how broad can that brush be ? He also uses the term " interpret " when talking about ruling on a case. How else is it possible to adjudicate any issue ? There are no limits on these limitations ! As in cases involving the Commerce Clause, how many dots have to be connected to anything to be connected to commerce ? The same thing can be said about the phrase, " for the common good ". To think that progressive Judges and Justices are not going to interpret issues to the left, and conservatives to the right is just not debatable. Given the wording in the Supremecy Clause, Art. II, Clause 2, the entire judicial proceedure is an unending circle of supreme power." The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ( which includes all legislature and executive orders as well as court decisions - all by default and definition of laws ) 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of the Land of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. "The SCOTUS is the " Court of Final Jurisdiction ", as a rule, though any court can claim the honor of being this if the case is not appealled. Their rulings are the Law of the Land. ( the laws being restricted to the jurisdictions of lower court rulings ). The Constitution and The Laws of the Land are one, and inseperable. Many anti-federalists warned of potential problems, but the arguement that the courts were the best of the three branches to have this power was unanimous.Mangus, you have written several arguements all claiming the constitution does not give the judicial branch the right to interpret words, but that is their job - they could not do it without interpreting all the seperate contexts involved. Without their power, we would be in a constant state of civil war. In my memory, you are the only person to argue the Courts do not have the power to interpret words. And the words themselves in the original arguements, have been bones of contention since the beginning. Please read my article on how close the voting was for ratification.
- Permalink Reply by on
- John,Much of what you present would I agree with . . . I do not have time right now to respond in time so I will delay a detailed reply until I have sufficient time to provide a response that is deserved by your more than detailed submission. Let me just submit a quick question - if words do not have specific meaning set in time and place of use then what is history and why not just submit to total anarchy?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Mangus,If justice is to be the real goal of the courts, and in a perfect world they would be. Ours comes closer than any other, but the X factors the judge has to consider involves at least six contexts of the definition of even simple words. It is not a black and white issue, ever, and thank God for that.This would also be my arguement for precedent case law being helpful in a manner. These cases do bring into focus any possible new definitions of words and the contexts of the surrounding facts of the case at hand. To be able to use a case two decades old or more makes zero sense, and these should be archived. I mention the Heritage Guide so often because they do put things in the perspective of the times of the Framers as well as the current changes, as well as 11 other contexts of each pertainant word used in a case of note. I trust the 150 conservative brains they chose to work on this project more than anything I could decypher.The fact that we accept the courts decisions without violence is what seperates us from the rest of the world, and in all of history for that matter. Progressives come and go, as do the conservatives. That keeps a healthy balance. This trip around the block was just a little longer and more off track than the average cycle. We will get back - we have already started with the state rebellions.
- Permalink Reply by on
- John here is Federalist 78 and it explains that the court is inferior to both the Executive and the Legislative.Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
- Permalink Reply by on
- This applies in a overall sense of the Constitution - a good read . .
- Permalink Reply by on
- More for thought about the actual laws passed and enforced . . . are they Constitutional and if not are they laws at all?USURPED POWERS AND HAMILTON 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 viod 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
- John,Much of what you present would I agree with . . . I do not have time right now to respond in time so I will delay a detailed reply until I have sufficient time to provide a response that is deserved by your more than detailed submission. Let me just submit a quick question - if words do not have specific meaning set in time and place of use then what is history and why not just submit to total anarchy?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Mangus,If justice is to be the real goal of the courts, and in a perfect world they would be. Ours comes closer than any other, but the X factors the judge has to consider involves at least six contexts of the definition of even simple words. It is not a black and white issue, ever, and thank God for that.This would also be my arguement for precedent case law being helpful in a manner. These cases do bring into focus any possible new definitions of words and the contexts of the surrounding facts of the case at hand. To be able to use a case two decades old or more makes zero sense, and these should be archived. I mention the Heritage Guide so often because they do put things in the perspective of the times of the Framers as well as the current changes, as well as 11 other contexts of each pertainant word used in a case of note. I trust the 150 conservative brains they chose to work on this project more than anything I could decypher.The fact that we accept the courts decisions without violence is what seperates us from the rest of the world, and in all of history for that matter. Progressives come and go, as do the conservatives. That keeps a healthy balance. This trip around the block was just a little longer and more off track than the average cycle. We will get back - we have already started with the state rebellions.
- Permalink Reply by on
- John here is Federalist 78 and it explains that the court is inferior to both the Executive and the Legislative.Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
- Permalink Reply by on
- This applies in a overall sense of the Constitution - a good read . .
- Permalink Reply by on
- More for thought about the actual laws passed and enforced . . . are they Constitutional and if not are they laws at all?USURPED POWERS AND HAMILTON 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 viod 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
- Reply by onIt's a fine opinion Mangus, but it was penned by Hamilton, who wanted a clone of the British Government here. The only changes he wanted was there to be no Monarch. He even wanted the Senate to be as the House of Lords, large landownrs and appointed for life. His views on religious freedom in Britain at the time he thought sufficient as well. God help us if Hamilton's view of the newcountry were adopted in whole !
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison switched sides in many arguments over the decades. I have some debate threads on these issues if anyone desires I can make them available. Some are better than others but all are of interest and contain some very good sources.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The politicians of this age went so far as to play devil's advocate against their own arguements, as to further convince their peers and the people of their true opinions. Ths technique is only one of the reasons I love the Founding Fathers. They created their own spin against their original premise, then beat it down using reasonable arguements. Not that there was never slight of hand - this is a truth which dates back before written history in politics, but the difference between then and now can be defined by the lack of ethical standards in government today.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Exactly,That is why the Federalist papers contain conflict with themselves and then the anti Federalist papers conflict with both. classical debate requires a equal adversary to cause the two sides to fully explore the subject at hand. Many can not handle the stress of real debate as they do not understand logic and in fact introduce false premises which should never be addressed as they are defective at presentation. The frustrated do this as they see the weakness of their position and know defeat of the premise is inevitable so anger and name calling becomes the only action they can put up.Those that read the history of our FF & R know full well that there were long heated debates that ended in physical fights. Most think that the documents were done and signed into law in 1776 they have no idea that it was not until 1787-8 that all was debated out and fully ratified. Many of these conflicts have been used to cloud issues so that the courts and the other branches could USURP using the logic of unintended consequences. Clarity is like a bell it can be run with authority or it can be just tinkled softly until all the bell sounds are just ignored.
- Permalink Reply by on
- From my read of the Federalist papers....they never abandoned the Conferation.....which also contributed to articles and limited powers.....or is this off topic....being the first time I've posted here.......Semper Fi
- Permalink Reply by on
- Paladin - You are absolutely right. Madison, Hamilton and Jay ( and Jay should be a passing though for all intents, in these op-eds ), took all of the founding documents, as well as the British Common Law, the Magna Charta, the writings of Locke, Burke and Hume, The Declaration of Independence, and the arguements of the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses into consideration in their opinion pieces.I have my own thoughts on " The Federalists ". All three authors were federalists, literally, and the anti-federalists had no voice in this effort. But, the way they were written, the views of the anti-federalists were incuded - the had to be, or ratification would have never happened. The op-eds were written almost entirely to convince the Virginian delegation to allow a central government to usurp any of their sovereign State powers. Madison and Edmund Randolph were the lone voices of Virginia for this, and they were sincere believers that the central government would be less tyrannical to the citizens of the nation than the individual States. Jefferson, Patrick Henry ( though he ever quite made it to the final whistle ), Richard Henry Lee, and George Mason were the most vocal in opposition and distrust of the Northern States, ( which proved true, as three times the New England States tried to secede from the union before the Civil War over those same differences .) Those are some of the most infuential and rich people of their time, and Virginia had been the leader in pushing for self governance, declaring a full month before the Declaration of Independence, their own personal independence. Washington proved beyond doubt to be a consumate politician by staying out of this debate. As I mention previously, Madison was a sincere believer in his colleagues from the North and their stance on a central government, but after only three years of Whig rule, he quit in disgust and joined Jefferson in pushing for State's rights.In my opinion, The fight between the Northern and Southern Colonies, soon to be States after the Articles of Confederation were ratified, is as interesting as the fight with the Crown, just not as bloody.Welcome to the debate BTW.
- Permalink Reply by on
- John, well put -Palidin - you see a very different attitude here - we are here to help each other understand what the world has studied for 225 years and they have not found a better way yet . the FF & R were very smart well educated people of which about 150 in the government were Lawyers - oh well nothing changes very quickly when you really look at the Human behavior patterns.
- Permalink Reply by on
- John; Thank you.....I know that many Tories considered the Revolutionary War as a Civil War......and what is even more interesting is how the New States treated those Tories.....with benevlance....the very roots of this countries great compassion for people that live under tyranny.....I know that the FF studies massive amounts of material, including the various Indian Nations and thier "political" system.....Cicero(the elder)...Cato... and others and of course Locke.....very intelligent, very well educated group....how they reached a collective agreement is amazing in my opinion......Semper Fi
- Permalink Reply by on
- Paladin,Simple - they fought a lot - just read the letters they wrote to each other and the speeches they made. Debate was a gentlemanly thing to do in those days now we are called progress blockers. ha ha ha
- Permalink Reply by on
- Mangus: puts a very vivid picture in my mind......Jefferson v Hamilton....cousins but they really didn't like each other.........and they where true gentlemen if I may add....honest, truthful, respectful with patriotic double shot of enthusiasim...wouldn't you loved to have been there.......Semper Fi
- Permalink Reply by on
- Let me insert a portion of a debate I had with some that believe they are the only group that is interpreting the Constitution in the proper manner - all that disagree with them or express another view point are demonized and called names. They on the other hand are nothing IMO but strawmen without a valid premise that can stand serious debate . . .Never said you must trust the attorneys - that is your statement so who is dishonest?I am presenting the facts that are on the ground like them or dislike them no matter to me but all must address reality if they desire to restore the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION -I did not say to disregard history just include it all in your OPINIONS if you desire to be convincing - You have not yet found the historical meaning of Natural Born in the time of King George now have you so how can you say you presented the history and the truth for you have not,I find it interesting that you and PH attack all that have deferring OPINIONS of the Constitution than yours - No one has called any of you names yet you attempt to discredit any challenger of the holy grail - Why? if your OPINIONS are 100% solid you should present a real connected well presented and documented statement that proves your point of view. The fact is you can not because you are starting from a predetermined position and are blinded to any other result or conclusion.History is what I encourage you to look for and please keep inside the four corners of the Constitution - if you have an issue with what it actually says then you should IMO simply go to the dictionaries of the time and find the actual meaning of the words at that point in time. There are many source for meanings of the time but I do not see any of you using them which tells me you think the FF & R did not state in clear terms what they meant. It is you and others that dance on the heads of history to distort the true meaning of the Constitution as written not as interpreted by distortion and stretching.So, please proved some solutions we all know the issues of usurpation and tyranny - you complain and complain but never present a way to restoration. You all are like the Preacher that keeps defining historical sin but never speaks of how sinners can stop. Progress is earned not defended.
- Permalink Reply by on
- State Nullification first comes to mind. Jackson with his fight with S.C. resulting in the State Nullifing Jackson.....after an almost two year fight, S.C. recanted, appeasing Congress and Jackson, settling the dispute, yet once the agreement was reached. S.C. renulilfied...still on the books to this day Even more interesting is that Congress actually "censured" Jackson..only time in history it ever happened.....Madison, infers not quite supporting State Nullification because it could in all likelyhood lead to the ulitimate option.....States right to withdraw from the Union....and as we all know...that very war was fought and lost resulting in the 14th amendment, and eventually the 17A resulting in no State Rights...Most resently the USSC Nullified Arizona and their right to enforce State and Federal Law....Feds withdrew all funding for that support....resulting in a oblique State Nullification......with the exception of State legislative Senatorial appointment...pre-17th amendment State Rights.....so final statement....by Congress passing first the 14th amendment then the 17 amendment ursuped State Right of self governance, which as warned by the FF results in tyranny....long process to get here but here it is......Semper Fi
- Permalink Reply by on
- paladin 10 - Nullification is only one of the cornucopia of state's rights which are only now being thought of as real power by these 50 sovereign nations we call states. The definition of state in 1787 was a sovereign entity, synonymous with country. There can be no doubt on this issue after researching real history, from the words of the Founders themselves.Why the states willfully gave up their powers when the court decisions ripped them from the individual original status is a question for the ages. The one answer I want is how to get them back. An Article V Amendment, nullificatin, simple legislation at the federal level, or court decisions can all work individually, and all would be in the context of the Framer's words in the Constitution for a change !Just to address one large point on the discussions on the constitution here - the vast majority of opinions here are moot points and there are no true or false, or black or white answers. The more one reads the words of the Founders, this becomes more apparent. I just want to encourage as many members here to express their thoughts on any of these debates. I would ask for all to put a reasonable effort into research for your arguements, for or against. As one who has been raked over he coals several times on different sites just for playing devil's advocate with my own arguements, I can tell all that the pain subsides quickly and it has never been lethal. And to echo everyone's wishes, don't go personal.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I went to the begining of this discussion and re-read.....so I wil speak from practical experience with case law....I spent most of my adult life as a Law Enforcement Officer.....I've had more criminal law classes then most Attorney's....along with that is the practical experience of enforcing laws while attemptring to protect everyones civil rights.....can get somewhat shaded at times.....enforcing laws that one feels are not within the confines of the Constitution is frustrating and circular....damned if you do, and crucified if you don't....The reason for that is as Mangus states "build a foundation of case upon case where they have build a power were none exsist".....Not only does this suspend Constitutional Intent...it disheartens the general public seeing those that can afford attorney's to get away with all manner of crimes...further victimizing the public.....the Constitution was written by very intelligent men in layman terms so laymen could understand it......yep we can argue over intent but it should be in laymen terms.....I don't know where or how that simple idea got lost but I can assure you that a lawyer had something to do with it......:) Roe v Wade...should have stopped in Texas...State issue.....besides the case was bogus from the very beginning.....Roe was not real name...wade is name of prosecutor..."Roe" wanted an abortion from a "rape" which she never reported, so she was turned down from a Texa legal abortion clinic, she then went to a "illegal abortion clinic" which the police shut down the day before...."roe" filed suet.....Texas Court ruled against her....she appealed....the opinion rendered in her favor, however, never mentioned her "rape" nor her visit to the closed clinic.....she ended up having the baby( she had 3 already) during the appeal process.....by USSC's opinion is based on no Constitutional Law, suspended State Rights to make law within the State, for the State.....I see nothing in Article III giving the USSC to hear such a case......and many before and after....even the 11th Amendment does not give them that power.....My personal opinion for what it is worth...and I'll be in agreement with Mark R. Levin "Men in Black" the present state of affairs within the United States can directly be attributred to the USSC and it's activism, non-Constitutional opinion...opinions that the general public take as from the "burning bush" because these justices are suppose to protect our rights....."It is easier to fool a person, then to tell them they have been fooled" Mark Twain.......Semper Fi
- Permalink Reply by on
- P10,You know that I agree that the courts overreach every day . . especially the Federal courts.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Mangus: yes and you have my 110% support in getting the activist judges out and relpaced with judges of sound constitutional understanding and beliefs, willing to render opinions based on Constitutional restraints......Semper Fi
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is from a GT on another site but it is mostly Fox . . and goes to the issue of the topic . . Judicial actions that Usurp . . .FROM FOXNEWS 08/30/12A federal court has ruled against a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November.A three-judge panel in Washington ruled Thursday that the law imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.The decision involves an increasingly contentious political issue: a push, largely by Republican-controlled legislatures and governor's offices, to impose strict identification requirements on voters.The ruling comes in the same week that South Carolina's strict photo ID law is on trial in front of another three-judge panel in the same federal courthouse. A court ruling in the South Carolina case is expected in time for the November election.Now more than ever, our State legislators and the Governor's office need to step up and do what's right. Three unelected morons have said that Texas cannot use any ID requirements to limit voter fraud. This is apalling and unconscionable. These thugs in black need to go take a dip ... in the nearest sewer. That's where their partisan "ruling" belongs. Perhaps ruling is the wrong word. It imparts a legal standing to the OPINION that it probobly doesn't deserve. The federal judiciary has no business telling the State of Texas how to run an election. The Constitution (remember that pesky instrument guys) says that the State has the say on when and where and under what terms elections will be held. Article 1, Section 4 says:"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." Nuff said.....Yes, the Voting Rights Act might get in the way, but the State has the authority and means to impose nullification. The voting Rights Act effectively takes away the "States Rights" in the above section and confers them on the federal government, as if they need any more fingers in State business. It is time for Texas to nullify the judges OPINION and get on with having an election. If the feds don't like it ... tough. WE MUST PUT THE FEDERAL MINIONS IN THEIR PROPER PLACES! NO EXCEPTIONS!
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is a very good discussion of Equality of race, acts, events, and values . .
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- There is no greater mind today in politics, economics and conservative values than Thomas Sowell. He is my mentor and the man who changed my life. It is such a great loss that he as such personal animosity for the hypocracy of politics, but who can blame him really ? A position in the Cabinet of Mitt Romney would bring fiscal sanity back to America. As a black man, his common words used in explaining the folly of the left in playing race cards and using bogus stats cannot be denied by any racist group, at least with any credibility. White America must be awakened by someone such as Sowell.
- Permalink Reply by on
- From an other site but apples to this topic - so I thought I would share . .Comment by 15 minutes agoI just posted the portion of Jefferson's "writings" that includes a letter to the prosecutor of a case about to be heard in front of the judge who came up with the theory of judicial review. Here's a portion of the letter in which Jefferson asks the prosecutor to let the judge (and the public) know what Jefferson thought of judicial review.(1807-1815) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_Part1 Beginning on Pg 53."DEAR SIR, While Burr's case is depending before the court, I will trouble you, from time to time, with what occurs to me. I observe that the case of Marbury v. Madison has been cited, and I think it material to stop at the threshold the citing that case as authority, and to have it denied to be law.""I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, & denounced as not law; &: I think the present a fortunate one. because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad therefore. if, in noticing that case.you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive, that the doctrines of that case were given extra judicially & against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive."If I understand this right, Jefferson's position was that he would not comply with any court decision that exceeded his understanding of the Constitution. That's pretty amazing when we today are told by the schools, media and politicians that the supreme court gets the final say on the Constitution.What's even more amazing is that isn't what Chief Justice Roberts' wrote in his recent Obamacare ruling. Within he reminds us that the ultimate decisions rest with us."We (the Court) possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."As always, check it out for yourself; if your convinced then tell your kids about it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Mangus: One important consideration about laws;......Can they be enforced? If the law can not be enforced then it serves no judicial good for the public or society. Most laws are classified two ways, civil or criminal. Civil laws are about 96% of all laws and totals most of all court reviews and the judicial review. Criminal law on the other hand require a much more stringent civil rights code as set within the Bill of Rights. Law Enforcement can not enforce all the criminal laws, there are just to many of them, police are not able to be everywhere, all the time, contrary to wishes of many people. My opinion is that the Bill of Rights was a result of the criminal actions of the English Government and is based on Gods Criminal Code of Natural Law and not on any civil violations of the King.....I believe that the Bill of Rights, if violated is a criminal act and not a civil act.....which brings me to this point.....any laws passed by congress that does not fit the standards of the Constitutional restrictions is an unlawful law and not subject to enforcement.....if, in fact it were to be enforced would be false imprisonment or gross derelection of oath of office....again, my opinion, civil law, in reality is not Constitutional and no amendment covers such civil "law".....or the enforcement ability of such civil violations....Our F/F considered the King and his government as criminals and responded with criminal charges in the Declaration of Independence....but again...there are so many laws on the books that most are unenforceable even i they were Constitutional, there is no agency that has the man power, time or resources to enforce them.....Bottom line...american citizens are not obligated under the Constitution to obey UnConstitutional opinion, mandates or congressional (un)laws....or the USSC that opinionates such as laws, and above all...STATES are especially not obligated to obey such unlawful laws........just my humble opinion....semper fi
- Permalink Reply by on
- I would take this opinion a couple steps further. Most of the laws on the books, both criminal and civil are outdated. They have been pre-empted by newer laws governing the same issue. It is in this area that the ABA loves and uses these dozens of precedent case laws, still active and arguable in a court of law because of the simplest of details between the cases, and argues them ad naseum, or until the defendant goes bankrupt fighting the charge.. These are usually caused by the different circumstances of the times of the older cases.One of the great ideas that Newt's Contract with America had in it was a promise to take out of play two thirds of all these laws on the books and make litigation more clear and less frequent. He never had a chance to start that movement. The one area I would disagree with you on in the arena of civil law is contract laws between States and Countries. In 1787, dealing with the interstate issues of the 13 States and few international treaties was easily doable. Everything now is tied in with international partnerships. This does not mean we could not archive most of the old mandates as I stated above, and make the waters less muddy.As far as your last statement goes, that is applicable to criminal laws as well as civil. As one SCOTUS Justice put it, " Just because an issue is legislated successfully does not make it law. " This of course will come with the obligatory ruination by court proceedings of everyone but the most wealthy, but it is a price we must be willing to pay if we are to make a stand.
- Permalink Reply by on
- No 14th no 16th and no 17th amendment and the points are moot . . as the States will have the powers of police and civil law - Treaties and international relations are Federal Article I section 8 powers. See Article III and the courts will have no power if the 14th is gone - no more reach through.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The first three Articles of our Constitution are made speciically to show the ( proposed ) seperate and equal powers of each branch. Art. III leaves no doubt that:" The judicial power of the Unitd States shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish "This has to include the power to rule on every word in every Article in the Constitution. As I have said many times in the past, the Constitution is a foundation for the seperation of powers. It is the cement, and the frame of our house. The laws made, the executive fiats given, and each adjudicated case previous to the one on trial at that time, make up the drywall, shingles and other sections of our house which makes it home. The DOI, The Federalists, and even cases dating back to before we were a nation under British Common Law and he words of Locke, Hume and Burke are also still used as ligitimate material to be used in arguements in every Court in the nation. It is the whole of these in total which make up our Constitution. When " The Constitution " is used in it's framework stage only, after it's ratificationin 1791, after the Bill of Rights were adopted as stated in the stipulations written in Virginia's and New York's yea votes pre BoR contracts, it gives the perception that everything which does not appear to be exactly in line with this short blueprint is not constitutional.It is impossible to misunderstand this simply worded mandate. " Shall " in law means must do, not may do or choose to do. The SCOTUS was made THE absolute final adjudicator of all laws of the land. The seperation of cases which the SCOTUS decided to hear in the first hundred years is I believe more in line with originalist thinking. That is only just my opinion and the opinion of any others who may agree with that assessment. The wording in all other clauses in all other Articles and Amendments can not be seperated from the supreme power granted this Court to decide which cases they could hear. I am in the process of writing an article on Justice Scalia's beliefs on this issue, in his own words. I do believe the vast majority of us here believe Scalia to be the most originalist voice we have on that Bench today. It leaves no doubt in his mind, as in Jefferson's, that even bad opinions must be accepted. Half the country believes the conservative interpretations and decisions also to be odious to their ways. We have been two distinct trains of thought since day one. I don't see that changing." We are a nation of laws not men ", said Washington to the people. That statement alone makes any arguement saying changing the wording of anything can over-rule the decisions of the Supreme Court wrong. We have several recourses which we may choose to take, and all of them valid as talked about here lately, but with Obama able to make a progressive majority on the High Court for several years in a short time, I am only saying we should have back-up plans or we will likely go straight to violence as a recourse. Anything written is still debatable at the SCOTUS level later, and it should be obvious that they will redefine one syllable words without conscience. It is not right, but it is most certainly constitutionally correct. We must respect that as we try and change the ruling with the Framers tools, included in the framework.
- Permalink Reply by on
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 appellate Jurisdiction, 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 as the Congress may by Law have directed.Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.Again I find no language authorizing the Courts to hear any case outside the stated limits - these are the only powers and they limit power not authorize expansion of Judicial Review or the granting of legislative review that expand any laws outside Article I section 8 - I guess someone needs to share with me where they have gained more power than stated.
- Permalink Reply by on
- We have debated this ad naseum. You will never find wording in the original FRAMEWORK o the Constitution, as ratified. You will not concede precedent case laws are part and parcel of the Constitution of the United States simply because it is not written by James Monroe. I am sorry, but I have said this a dozen times, probably more - every court decision, piece of legislation, or executive fiat is as much of our Constitution as the original words. It was meant to be thus forever. We can only change things bak the same way it was misconstrued in the first place.As I have said many times - do not take my word for this, ask anyone who has passed the Bar Exam or sat on a Judicial Bench. Watch C-Spanj - 80% of the arguements there are from precedent case laws. This idea did not simply appear and it was not invented here. Our judicial system is based on British Common Law, which has used precedent case laws since the Magna Charta.You will not find two thirds of any of todays problems addressed in the framework penned by Monroe. Cases are won and lost by the best precedent case arguements. Pick up any text on Law and you will see case laws and links to many other related case laws. Each one a part of our founding document.Again - the simple wording of Article III, sec. 2 cannot be misunderstood. The Supreme Court decides what is and what is not constitutional. If we are successful in enacting a Art. V Amendment, the SCOTUS will still have the power o deem it unconstitutional. All they have to do is state the grounds on which their decision was made. As we have seen, common sense need not apply to many of their opinions. The Constitution as written in 1787 is used as a reference point as is several other things, from the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, to the words of Locke, Hume and Burke, written well before the birth of this nation. Justice Scalia puts it like this. We have a duty to look at as much evidence, from as many applicable sources as possible, and apply the most rational decision in each individual case. No one case is a cookie cutting mold.When the Framers gave this Court the Title of Arena of final jurisdiction, no more appeals possible, then obviously nobody has the authority to over-rule them. As one Justice said, " We are not all powerful because we are supreme, we are supreme because we are all powerful. " As unAmerican as some of the decisions coming out of this institution seem to us, as conservatives, there is no better answer to the question of who gets to make the final decision. Somebody has to do this, and the Executive Branch would give the POTUS Monarch like powers, and the Congress is much too inefficient and even more corrupt.
No comments:
Post a Comment