- Indeed they could be seen as such, sir. I prefer to think of them as 'worthy of concern and awareness'.
I have always found it advantageous to know one's enemies.Remember our 14th amendment arguments here it is again to limit States Powers and rights?
- Permalink Reply by on
- So many people think the 14th is no big deal but it gives the courts a way to obscure the and usurp the 10th amendment. That is why I have always supported revoking the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments which would restore the Article I section enumerated powers.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Far too many think the 14th is no big deal or worse, that it is a wonderful and beneficial amendment. I think mainly it's the misinterpretation of 14A that has been the problem but see no way of undoing the misinterpretation other than repeal.
I fully support repealing 14A, 16A and 17A.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, in the Federalist 17 and 45 respectively, explained during the ratification debate over the Constitution that the primary purpose of federalism and limits on national power were to better protect individual liberty. Madison described how this would work: if the proper division of power between the national and state governments was preserved, citizens whose liberties were threatened by one level of government could seek help from the other. Indeed, Madison argued that the proper division of power itself would discourage threats to our liberties because officials at both levels of government would compete for citizens’ affections. Thus, the main argument for federalism (and for real limits on national power to make it work) was not a romantic love of state government itself, but as a crucial means to preserve individual freedom. (This has failed today because the federal government has seduced the states with federal reserve notes I call them that because they are not money IMO but the seduction of the states has created an homogeneous government with all its power centered in Washington D.C.)The commerce clause provides that the “Congress shall have Power…to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” According to legal scholars Robert Bork and Daniel E. Troy, when the Constitution was ratified, “commerce” was understood as the “activities of buying and selling that come after production and before the goods come to rest.” The commerce clause was written to prevent the states from enacting protectionist tariffs that would restrict trade “among” or between the states, not to allow Congress to regulate all commercial activity.
The Federal Government has in the last few years looked to expand its powers by using the commerce clause to do everything from banning the carrying a gun with in 500 yard of a school, to regulating in inactivity of individuals by forcing them to buy an insurance policy.
What powers does the Federal Government really have to control the activities of people within a State using the commerce clause?
- Permalink Reply by on
- What powers does the Federal Government really have to control the activities of people within a State using the commerce clause?
Usurped.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Fully usurped and by all three branches.JDR you forgot the Necessary and Proper clause.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Quotes to help us understand the issues:
"
"On the contrary, Bork states '...only the approach of original understanding meets the criteria that any theory of constitutional adjudication must meet in order to possess democratic legitimacy. Only [original understanding] is consonant with the design of the American Republic' (143).
“The first subject Bork discusses is the concept of judicial review,
as established by the landmark court case, Marbury v. Madison.”
“’...the centrifugal forces in the new nation were so great that at
times Marshall and others despaired of the Union's survival. Congress
often behaved more like a bevy of ambassadors from separate nations
than a national assembly. The Federalist judiciary was the one strong,
centralizing branch of government. Marshall knew that and used his
powers accordingly. Jefferson knew it too, and was determined to
destroy the courts' independence. It is against this backdrop that one
must evaluate Marshall's performance.’”
“Bork then goes on to discuss the classifications of statues and the
necessity of making distinctions, when the law is concerned. ‘The
classifications...reflect compromises between legislators or
constituencies with different views concerning matters. For these
reasons different states have different laws...if there had to be
objective proof of...differences between the classifications of the
law, legislatures could not legislate (65).’”
“The concept of original understanding is certainly not propagated by
many legal professionals in our current era. ...the philosophy is
usually viewed as thoroughly passe, probably reactionary, and
certainly--'outside the mainstream'"(143). On the contrary, Bork
states "...only the approach of original understanding meets the
criteria that any theory of constitutional adjudication must meet in
order to possess democratic legitimacy. Only [original understanding]
is consonant with the design of the American Republic’(143).”
“The Tempting of America by Robert Bork”
Review by: Maureen Lorincz
http://web.syr.edu/~mrlorinc/psc129review1.html
“’In law, the moment of temptation is the moment of choice, when a
judge realizes that in the case before him his strongly held view of
justice, his political and moral imperative, is not embodied in a
statute or in any provision of the Constitution. He must then choose
between his version of justice and abiding by the American form of
government. Yet the desire to do justice, whose nature seems to him
obvious, is compelling, while the concept of constitutional process is
abstract, rather arid, and the abstinence it counsels unsatisfying. To
give in to temptation, this one time, solves an urgent human problem,
and a faint crack appears in the American foundation. A judge has
begun to rule where a legislator should.’"
- Permalink Reply by on
“As Robert Bork explains in this book, there are key differences between legislators and judges which make it vital that judges do not usurp legislative authority. When the judiciary creates the law instead of merely applying it, democratic representative government is replaced by judicial oligarchy. Because Supreme Court judges are unelected, appointed for life, and exercise a governmental power which is virtually unchecked, their decisions can threaten the rule of law when the justices choose to depart from the law in favor of their own moral philosophies.”
“'. . Legal reasoning, which is rooted in a concern for legitimate
process rather than preferred results, is an instrument designed to
restrict judges to their proper role in a constitutional democracy.
That style of analysis marks off the line between judicial power and
legislative power, which is to say that it preserves the
constitutional separation of powers, which is to say that it preserves
both democratic freedom and individual freedom. Yet legal reasoning
must begin with a body of rules or principles or major premises that
are independent of the judge's preferences. That, as we have seen, is
impossible under any philosophy of judging other than the view that
the original understanding of the Constitution is the exclusive source
for these exterior principles.’”
“Bork on the True Foundation of Judicial Decisions”
http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/bork.htm
“’The abandonment of original understanding in modern times means the
transportation into the Constitution of the principles of a liberal
culture that cannot achieve those results democratically.’"
“’Either the Constitution and statutes are law, which means that their
principles are known and control judges, or they are malleable texts
that judges may rewrite to see that particular groups or political
causes win.’"
“’When we speak of 'law,' we ordinarily refer to a rule that we have
no right to change except through prescribed procedures. That
statement assumes that the rule has a meaning independent of our own
desires.’”
“Living Constitution Makes Judges Kings”
http://www.dadi.org/ct_kings.htm
“’Those who made and endorsed our Constitution knew man's nature, and
it is to their ideas, rather than to the temptations of utopia, that
we must ask that our judges adhere.’
—Robert Bork, The Tempting of America”
“Judges Quotes”
http://www.policyofliberty.net/quotes4.php
Search terms used:
Judge Bork "The Tempting of America"
- Permalink Reply by on
- Madison warned, there are no limits to the behavior of tyrannical majorities.If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.His words were borne out when, by dint (pushed by force) of a numerical majority, bribery and executive intervention, the majority faction passed major legislation without a single bi-partisan vote and despite the opposition of a significant portion, if not a majority, of the electorate. The manner in which the misnamed “Affordable Health Care Act” was passed marks a first in the nation’s history.There is a form of tyranny that is the most dangerous, yet has been clocked in a vague, warm-and -fuzzy anti reality. It is the most threatening term found in the American political lexicon. Often used by the political left to describe our form of government it is called democracy... Direct democracy classically termed pure democracy as Alexander Hamilton said, "….a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity..."
Our Founding Fathers understood this and therefore gave us a republic. A representative form of government is limited by constitutional {contractual} law that protects the inalienable rights of the individuals. Americans vote for their leaders who enact laws to govern society. What they created was a liberal democracy, a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities. The Constitution stands in the way of the Congress passing laws that would violate the rights of an individual. The Bill of Rights codified restrictions on Congress and stands as the wall between our liberty and the whims of the majority. In an additional stroke of genius they gave us three branches of government, the legislative, the judicial, and the executive, designed to create and maintain a balance of power. Each branch of government could check the power of the other, what the Founding Fathers created was a government that was elected by the people the House of Representatives, The Senate appointed by the States. Appointed by President and approved by the Senate the Judicial. The check and balances created was to protect the right of the minority and protect the ravages of a direct democratic process from bankrupting the nation.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The problem that we face today is a government that has corrupted the original structure of the constitution the House the Senate and the Presidency are all elected by the people thus establishing a direct democracy that just as the founding fathers warned would and has bankrupt the nation.On July 1, the process was repeated. As part of a procedural vote on the emergency war supplemental bill, House Democrats attached a document that “deemed as passed” a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget. The procedural vote passed 215-210 with no Republicans voting in favor and 38 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against “deeming” the phony budget with out the required revenue, the was resolution passed.The state governments are essential parts of the system. Senators represent the sovereignty of the states;. They are in the quality of ambassadors of the states. [But suppose] that they [were] to be chosen by the people at large. Whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachments of the federal government?" : Fisher Ames of MassachusettsOne of the checks and balances built into our federal government was the appointment of State Senators. Unlike the House of Representatives that represent the people, and Presidency that represents the nation. The position of Senator was to be that of an Ambassador from the State to represent the State legislature.Senators were given a six year term of office with out the need of expensive and the corrupting influence of having to campaigning for their appointment, freeing them for the prestigious honor of being known as "world's greatest deliberative body". Their role of consenting to treaties as a precondition to their ratification, consenting or confirmation of appointments of Cabinet secretaries, Federal judges, other Federal executive officials, military officers, regulatory officials, ambassadors, and other Federal uniformed officers, as well as trying Federal officials impeached by the House, and to oversee the bills being proposed by the House of Representatives to insure that the contract (Constitution) between the State and Federal government was not being violated, and to prevent the House and President from obligating the State to programs that the State budget could not afford or was not in the best interest of their state. This role of the State Senators is barley being fulfilled today due to partisan bickering and the external influence of lobbies and special interest groups and party politics that hold the Senators hostage by financings their reelections?If it is the intent to repeal the 17th amendment then we must establish how the states will chose and ratify their appointed representative, Our system has become so corrupt that by 2010 the average Senate seat cost $7,974,859 to win, a candidate would not even approach the threshold of scandal until he had spent fifteen million dollars and one this year will spend fifty million. If there was once cause for concern in the muckraking stories of industrial tycoons and railroad barons buying Senate influence through contributions to the state legislators, then the generosity of lobbyists and activists that is today handed openly and directly to Senate candidates (overwhelmingly in favor of incumbents) should be a cause for outright alarm by everyone of both political parties today.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If it is the intent to repeal the 17th amendment then we must establish how the states will chose and ratify their appointed representative,
'We' must do no such thing, the States perform that function.
James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers No. 45: "The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures."
- Permalink Reply by on
- I would submit that the States should have the right to handle it as they see in their best interest? for it would be permitted for them to hold a vote by the legislature giving its agreement?The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)
No comments:
Post a Comment