- Nathan, I’m happy to say I know you weren’t suggesting anyone quite. I regret that something I wrote would cause you to think for even a moment that I would question your tenacity. Never my friend, never.Again thanks for the Montesquieu excerpt. Like I said I’ve not read him. For some reason he intimidates me. I can’t give a reason but he just does. I understood the excerpt you posted so I’m encouraged to go sifting thru his work now.
- No worries, Jon.
I have been unable to find my hardcover so I've have been reading Spirit of Laws here:
http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol-02.htm
- Permalink Reply by on
- The post went down the rabbit hole again?Let me add this to the thread as it is a current problem that seems to have no end and no answers.
OPEN THE COFFIN OF POLITICS. Speak of programs that occurred because they were needed. These could have been done by the individual states as the Constitution requires. The clean water act is a real mess and has been since first passed, the limits are unreal and costs of water has increased many times the inflation rate. Not to mention the mess they have created over water rights.
Parks are a business of states, the federal government has no claim or right in the Constitution to own land in the States and not pay taxes. (see Sagebrush Rebellion 1970-1980s) Let us review the other Progressive (liberal socialist) accomplishments - Medicare and medicaid bankrupt and filled with bad management, Department of Education resulting in the rapid degradation of learning over 50% of the high school graduates are functional illiterate and can not do simple math. When schools were built by the towns they served they got the job done with a tenth of the dollars per student - oh maybe turning the teaching profession over to the unions had some effect?
Then let us go onto the post office system, this is a Constitutional allowed Federal function which includes Post roads (national highway system). They have done real well; have they not? Next we can go to railroads, the Federal Government took over the Amtrak system 30 or more years ago stating that they would just finance it's recovery and then sell it back to the private system - did not happen but the unions kept their jobs. Maybe this is what will happen to the Auto industry, save union jobs and lose billions per year.
I can go on and on but the point is made. Progressive Socialist operations of owning or "controlling industries" just does not work. England tried it and abandoned the concept under the Thatcher Government in the 80's. France has tried it since the revolution and is now giving up on the idea and turning conservative. The treasured Free medical system of Switzerland is only good if you are included in the political class or the rich which get very good care, however the regular citizens receive something less.
Like always Progressive-ism - Socialism rewards the political class and the rich over the hoards of just workers. Communism had it's super rich they were the 10 % that belonged to the "PARTY". Europe and the entire EU is turning to Conservative business methods to rebuilt their industries and economies. China has built a economic powerhouse in Hong Kong by limiting income taxes to a fixted rate and so did Russia (not a progressive system like America).
- Permalink Reply by on
- Every citizen has an equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream. The Constitution which encouraged Capitalism as the economic engine to drive our economy provides the best opportunity for all of us to achieve this dream. This requires that we all have equal protection from our government. So that we can maximize our potential without unfair burdens imposed on us by our government. The United States is the most affluent society in the world. We have achieved this through Capitalism and the protection of the Constitution. Left unrestricted our government would grow into bureaucratic nightmare of corrupt National Socialism. Socialism has in most all cases lead to failure, due to bankruptcy of the national currencies of all of those countries that did not have the wisdom of our Founding Fathers to prevent them from falling into this trap. Ignorance of the Constitution, the vision of the founding fathers, and merits of capitalism is seducing many of our citizens to want to”Change our Government” I am afraid of the unintended consequences of what this change will lead to.I am a Republican because I believe that the Republican Party offers the best support of the Constitution as visualized by our Founding Fathers. That is not to say that all Republicans have this Conservative vision, nor does it mean that there are no Conservative Democrats. The last great Democrat Conservative John F. Kenney once said “ask not what your government can do for you but what you can do for your government”. This concept seams to be totally lost in the Democratic Party today. The Democrats have fallen into intellectual idealism which disregards the frailties of men, the corrupting influence of power, and the fact that too many people would prefer to grant their welfare to the government, than take responsibility for themselves and their family. All of these things will eventually bring failure and bankruptcy to the policies that they so proudly proclaim is the “change our country needs”.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Democrats are owned lock stock and barrel by the following factions: Unions, environmentalists, socialists, Communists, Progressives, Liberals, Educators, government workers, welfare "TAKERS" and ice cream eaters in general. All of these factions must be feed daily from the bounty of the taxpayers with the Political class taking their share off the top of course.Free enterprise and capitalism does not exist in any of our States [even Texas]. All must be licensed, permitted, approved, limited, and controlled so the EPA and other regulators can have their say and take a piece of the profits. Yes, I am afraid what made us great is now hidden under a blanket of protections for the government and their factions. As, you point out earlier the Federalist 10 says it all.
- Permalink Reply by on
- You are right on the money Lock it is a sad Epitaph for our country but our eagerness and ardent interest in pursuit of the perfect union has lead the willing to the slaughterhouse of big government the Christan need to help others has destroyed the greatest nation on earth. It is a funny twist of fate I would say.
- Permalink Reply by on
- ok 3rd try.. i'll assume that means clarification is needed.Jackson/Madison apparently took office and eliminated the offices of 1/2 the federal judges because they had proven to be activist judges... making law. No time wasted on impeachments, or bureaucracy. Just eliminate the office and stop the checks.Newt's argument is that nobody could possibly know better than those 2 what is constitutional, and is defending the constitution. So, what do y'all think?
- Permalink Reply by on
- great.. but it's necessary for me to correct myself. (sometimes i have to wonder what my fingers are thinking.)not Jackson/ MadisonI think it was Jefferson and Madison
- Permalink Reply by on
- To all, I was part of the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 70's and 80's here is a link to show what we tried to do but the Federal Government won after we fought a good fight.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Newt's argument is that nobody could possibly know better than those 2 what is constitutional, and is defending the constitution. So, what do y'all think?
Hmmm...I do not have the speech in front of me to peruse so, accepting your premise to be correct, I would have to say that is a stretch on Mr. Gingrich's part and he would have known it to be such. No one or two individuals could be said to 'know better' than anyone else what is and/or is not constitutional. While I respect Mr. Madison [and Mr. Jefferson] and acknowledge that he played a significant part in shaping the Constitution, in all honesty one cannot give him predominance of opinion on the matter. What of Mr. Rutledge? Mr. Pinkney? All the other representatives, both mentioned and not, who crafted the document? One must, for the sake of intellectual honesty if no other, take into account the efforts of everyone who took part. While one or another may have preeminence in position [chairman of committee etc], to give such authority to any one member is, IMHO, disingenuous. The records of the convention are, unfortunately, rather sketchy. Most scholars rely on Mr. Madison's notes. No problem there except that one must recognize they are, necessarily, from a certain perspective. With all due respect to Mr. Madison who I believe was an upstanding and honest man, one would be naive to think that personal issues of interest and perspective did not have an effect on the man (he was just a man after-all); not to mention the fact that he was not a part of some of the most influential aspects of the proceedings [either debates or committees]. That being said Mr. Madison's notes are reliable to the degree that they are informed by fact but when it comes to what was meant by any part of the constitution........a much closer investigation is, IMHO, required; if, that is, one wishes to be fully and factually informed of the true meaning and intention of those who took part in framing the highest law of the land.
As always, just my opinion on the subject at hand.
- Permalink Reply by on
- on topic begins at 5:18the judiciary act of 1802The United States Judiciary Act of 1802 (2 Stat. 156) was a Federalstatute, enacted on April 29, 1802, to reorganize the federal court system. It restored some elements of the Judiciary Act of 1801, which had been adopted by the Federalist majority in the previous Congress, but was repealed by the Democratic-Republican majority earlier in1802.The Act restructured the circuit courts into six circuits, and assigned one Supreme Court justice to each circuit. Unlike the 1801 Act, no new circuit judgeships were created, so the justices were faced with having to return to the practice of "riding circuit" to hold court in each district within their circuit, along with the local district judge, during the majority of the year. No circuit courts were created for the judicial districts of Kentucky, Tennessee, Maine, or the territories, although the 1801 Act would have done so.Since the circuit courts were now to consist of only two judges, the Act permitted them to certify to the Supreme Court any question of law on which the two could not agree. Also, the district judge was not permitted to hear appeals of his own decisions, so appeals from the district courts were decided by the circuit justice alone. But the most important part of the Act was the provision that a quorum of only one judge was needed to convene a circuit court. As a result, Supreme Court justices could often rely on district court judges to convene circuit courts. With circuit riding largely optional, Supreme Court justices were no longer saddled with what they had previously felt was a tremendous burden. The Act's flexibility proved crucial to the demise of circuit riding, which essentially disappeared by 1840.The Act also created additional district courts by dividing the District of North Carolina into the districts of Albemarle, Cape Fear, and Pamptico, and by dividing the District of Tennessee into the Easternand Western Districts of Tennessee. No new judgeships were created for these courts, however; the district judges in North Carolina and Tennessee had to hold court in each district within their state, and the North Carolina judge also had to sit on the circuit court (which, however, continued to sit for the state as a whole, not in the separate district court districts).The Act established a United States District Court for the District of Columbia, although this court is not the direct predecessor of today's court bearing the same name.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Gingrich I am not a fan of. That being said.Nice read. I agree that no one individual put forth the Constitution. It was through committee and debate that we have what we have (or had) today.I have had the honor to sit committees for debate and decision making for a larger group of people. There is always a guiding light, if you will, of a few individuals that mold and shape the out come to meet the needs.The creation of our Constitution was not unique in its formation. Only unique in its end result. A group effort was achieved. No group has walked the face of the planet without direction of leadership. IMO, I would place Madison and Jefferson as the torch bearers leading the way.“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” - Margaret MeadThe Few, The Proud,Semper Fi
- Permalink Reply by on
- both well said. My participation in the meetings Pody describes has been in the role Nathan is defending. I agree with both, but maybe lean to Pody's position.But - you've made me re-read my post and finally I see that you all are answering my question as it was asked - not as I was focusing my thoughts. (dam fingers)I'm no fan of newt either, but have long believed he's often the smartest man in the room. My main interest, which I haven't presented well, is the idea. Although part of that topic is whether Jefferson/Madison and their conclusions are relevent, it's secondary in my intended question.Is the idea a good idea, and constitutional? I tend to think it may be great to get rid of the 9th circuit... but what would the ongoing residual effects be? Every future swing in ideology results in mass elimination of federal judges? Is that bad?
No comments:
Post a Comment