US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Judicial Review

This is a discussion on Judicial Review within the Law and Justice System forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by Wry Catcher "In 1798, the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures passed a series of resolutions asserting that the states have the power ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Law and Justice System

Law and Justice System For those who want to speak about legal issues

View Poll Results: Is Judicail Review a proper function of the Supreme Court
Yep 4 50.00%
Nope 3 37.50%
What's Judicil Review 1 12.50%
If and only if I agree with their decision 0 0%
Voters: 8. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 02:02 PM
The2ndAmendment's Avatar
Aegis of Liberty
Member #42689
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: In a dependant and enslaved country.
Posts: 6,680
Thanks: 1,711
Thanked 1,860 Times in 1,313 Posts
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1482
The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court
The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by Wry Catcher View Post
"In 1798, the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures passed a series of resolutions asserting that the states have the power to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional. In response, ten states passed their own resolutions disapproving the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.[40] Six of these states took the position that the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional lies in the federal courts, not in the state legislatures. For example, Vermont's resolution stated: "It belongs not to state legislatures to decide on the constitutionality of laws made by the general government; this power being exclusively vested in the judiciary courts of the Union."[41]

"Thus, five years before Marbury v. Madison, a number of state legislatures stated their understanding that under the Constitution, the federal courts possess the power of judicial review."
Funny, because those very same states EMBRACED those doctrines not too long after during the Embargo under President Jefferson. Hypocrites.
__________________
There is only one logical practice of the Second Amendment, and that is that it shall not be infringed. Any other practice is an absurdity, for it contradicts the very purpose of the Second Amendment in its entirety; it is the ultimate form of popular recourse against tyranny, and thus no potential tyrants may restrict it. The Second Amendment is the Supreme Sovereign; to surrender the Second Amendment, is to surrender the sovereignty of self-government.

Edward Solomon, 2013
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to The2ndAmendment For This Useful Post:
Kevin_Kennedy (07-11-2013)
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 02:04 PM
RetiredGySgt's Avatar
Registered User
Member #5176
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 33,681
Thanks: 40
Thanked 6,501 Times in 4,010 Posts
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3198
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post
I'm still trying to discover where Article V of the United States Constitution allows the Supreme Court to amend that precious document.

Can you guys help me?

Article V:
Quote:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Be so kind as to provide a link to a Court ever adding or subtracting anything from the Constitution. They do have the express authority and power to rule on what is and is not Constitutional. or perhaps you can explain why Article III lays all disputes involving the US at their door? What does that mean? How about the express power and authority to determine what ALL US laws mean? That too is in Article III as I quoted. The check on this power is Congress.
__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 02:10 PM
RetiredGySgt's Avatar
Registered User
Member #5176
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 33,681
Thanks: 40
Thanked 6,501 Times in 4,010 Posts
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3198
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by CrusaderFrank View Post

So what power does should it have? Are they a court that can't rule on laws?
So if your claim, that prior the the establishment of Judicial Review in 1803, that the Courts had no powers or functions?

Do you know how the courts had functioned and were intended to function before 1803?
Quote:

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;
Article III Section 2.

Perhaps you can explain what that means?
__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 02:24 PM
The2ndAmendment's Avatar
Aegis of Liberty
Member #42689
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: In a dependant and enslaved country.
Posts: 6,680
Thanks: 1,711
Thanked 1,860 Times in 1,313 Posts
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1482
The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court
The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by CrusaderFrank View Post

So what power does should it have? Are they a court that can't rule on laws?
So if your claim, that prior the the establishment of Judicial Review in 1803, that the Courts had no powers or functions?

Do you know how the courts had functioned and were intended to function before 1803?
Quote:

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;
Article III Section 2.

Perhaps you can explain what that means?
It means precisely what it says, in plain language:

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (and other inferior Article III courts) is LIMITED to those laws arising under the Constitution, which is a compact between the States. The Supreme Court cannot rule on those laws outside the limitations of the Constitution, and must therefore dismiss the charges, as such proceedings would infringe on the rights of the Sovereign States, the parties to the Constitution, who established and ordained the charter (Constitution).

It's self declared intellectuals that have diabolical motives that would tell you the Constitution means anything OTHER than what it says.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=c...html&Itemid=27
Quote:
That the doctrine is applicable to the case of a contested power between the States and the General Government, we have the authority, not only of reason and analogy, but of the distinguished statesman already referred to. Mr. Jefferson, at a late period of his life, after long experience and mature reflection, says, “With respect to our State and Federal Governments, I do not think their relations are correctly understood by foreigners. They suppose the former are subordinate to the latter. This is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. But you may ask, If the two departments should claim each the same subject of power, where is the umpire to decide between them? In cases of little urgency or importance, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but, if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best.”

It is thus that our Constitution, by authorizing amendments, and by prescribing the authority and mode of making them, has, by a simple contrivance, with its characteristic wisdom, provided a power which, in the last resort, supersedes effectually the necessity, and even the pretext for force: a power to which none can fairly object; with which the interests of all are safe; which can definitively close all controversies in the only effectual mode, by freeing the compact of every defect and uncertainty, by an amendment of the instrument itself. It is impossible for human wisdom, in a system like ours, to devise another mode which shall be safe and effectual, and, at the same time, consistent with what are the relations and acknowledged powers of the two great departments of our Government. It gives a beauty and security peculiar to our system, which, if duly appreciated, will transmit its blessings to the remotest generations; but, if not, our splendid anticipations of the future will prove but an empty dream. Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, and violence, and force must finally prevail. Let it never be forgotten that, where the majority rules, the minority is the subject; and that, if we should absurdly attribute to the former, the exclusive right of construing the Constitution, there would be, in fact, between the sovereign and subject, under such a government, no Constitution; or, at least, nothing deserving the name, or serving the legitimate object of so sacred an instrument.

How the States are to exercise this high power of interposition, which constitutes so essential a portion of their reserved rights that it cannot be delegated without an entire surrender of their sovereignty, and converting our system from a federal into a consolidated Government, is a question that the States only are competent to determine. The arguments which prove that they possess the power, equally prove that they are, in the language of Jefferson, “the rightful judges of the mode and measure of redress.” But the spirit of forbearance, as well as the nature of the right itself, forbids a recourse to it, except in cases of dangerous infractions of the Constitution; and then only in the last resort, when all reasonable hope of relief from the ordinary action of the Government has failed; when, if the right to interpose did not exist, the alternative would be submission and oppression on one side, or resistance by force on the other. That our system should afford, in such extreme cases, an intermediate point between these dire alternatives, by which the Government may be brought to a pause, and thereby an interval obtained to compromise differences, or, if impracticable, be compelled to submit the question to a constitutional adjustment, through an appeal to the States themselves, is an evidence of its high wisdom: an element not, as is supposed by some, of weakness, but of strength; not of anarchy or revolution, but of peace and safety. Its general recognition would of itself, in a great measure, if not altogether, supersede the necessity of its exercise, by impressing on the movements of the Government that moderation and justice so essential to harmony and peace, in a country of such vast extent and diversity of interests as ours; and would, if controversy should come, turn the resentment of the aggrieved from the system to those who had abused its powers (a point all-important), and cause them to seek redress, not in revolution or overthrow, but in reformation. It is, in fact, properly understood, a substitute—where the alternative would be force—tending to prevent, and, if that fails, to correct peaceably the aberrations to which all political systems are liable, and which, if permitted to accumulate without correction, must finally end in a general catastrophe.
__________________
There is only one logical practice of the Second Amendment, and that is that it shall not be infringed. Any other practice is an absurdity, for it contradicts the very purpose of the Second Amendment in its entirety; it is the ultimate form of popular recourse against tyranny, and thus no potential tyrants may restrict it. The Second Amendment is the Supreme Sovereign; to surrender the Second Amendment, is to surrender the sovereignty of self-government.

Edward Solomon, 2013

Last edited by The2ndAmendment; 07-11-2013 at 02:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 02:26 PM
Wry Catcher's Avatar
Registered User
Member #20297
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 18,608
Thanks: 3,936
Thanked 4,170 Times in 3,124 Posts
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2128
Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute
Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by CrusaderFrank View Post

So what power does should it have? Are they a court that can't rule on laws?
So if your claim, that prior the the establishment of Judicial Review in 1803, that the Courts had no powers or functions?

Do you know how the courts had functioned and were intended to function before 1803?
From the LINK in the OP:

"Court decisions from 1788 to 1803[edit]Between the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 and the decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, judicial review was employed in both the federal and state courts. A detailed analysis has identified thirty-one state or federal cases during this time in which statutes were struck down as unconstitutional, and seven additional cases in which statutes were upheld but at least one judge concluded the statute was unconstitutional.[32] The author of this analysis, Professor William Treanor, concluded: "The sheer number of these decisions not only belies the notion that the institution of judicial review was created by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, it also reflects widespread acceptance and application of the doctrine."
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" The Boxer
"Inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes of circumstances, are often justifiable."
Daniel Webster

I support repeal of Citizens United v. FEC and I support campaign finance reform! See: Exodus 23.8
"THE LIFE OF THE LAW HAS NOT BEEN LOGIC; IT HAS BEEN EXPERIENCE"
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 02:29 PM
Kevin_Kennedy's Avatar
Defend Liberty
Member #11774
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 15,883
Thanks: 629
Thanked 2,605 Times in 1,766 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 909
Kevin_Kennedy has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by Wry Catcher View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post
I'm still trying to discover where Article V of the United States Constitution allows the Supreme Court to amend that precious document.

Can you guys help me?

Article V:
Quote:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
From the LINK in the OP:

"In 1798, the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures passed a series of resolutions asserting that the states have the power to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional. In response, ten states passed their own resolutions disapproving the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.[40] Six of these states took the position that the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional lies in the federal courts, not in the state legislatures. For example, Vermont's resolution stated: "It belongs not to state legislatures to decide on the constitutionality of laws made by the general government; this power being exclusively vested in the judiciary courts of the Union."[41]

"Thus, five years before Marbury v. Madison, a number of state legislatures stated their understanding that under the Constitution, the federal courts possess the power of judicial review."
Three of those states were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, who then turned around and adopted the very same arguments when Jefferson was President and imposed his embargo against Great Britain.

Massachusetts:

"It would be derogatory to the honour of the commonwealth to presume that it is unable to protect its subjects against all violations of their rights, by peaceable and legal remedies. While this state maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the state government."

"Resolved, That the act of the Congress of the United States passed on the ninth day of January in the present year, for enforcing an act laying an embargo, and the several acts supplementary thereto, is, in the opinion of the legislature, in many respects, unjust, oppressive and unconstitutional, and not legally binding on the citizens of this state."

Herman Ames: State Documents on Federal Relations

"A power to regulate commerce is abused, when employed to destroy it; and a manifest and voluntary abuse of power sanctions the right of resistance, as much as a direct and palpable usurpation. The sovereignty reserved to the states, was reserved to protect the citizens from acts of violence by the United States, as well as for purposes of domestic regulation. We spurn the idea that the free, sovereign and independent State of Massachusetts is reduced to a mere municipal corporation, without power to protect its people, and to defend them from oppression, from whatever quarter it comes. Whenever the national compact is violated, and the citizens of this State are oppressed by cruel and unauthorized laws, this Legislature is bound to interpose its power, and wrest from the oppressor its victim."

The States Respond to ObamaCare

Connecticut:

"Resolved, That to preserve the Union, and support the constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the Legislatures of the States, in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch over, and vigorously to maintain, the powers not delegated to the United States, but reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and that a due regard to this duty, will not permit this Assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect to the aforesaid unconstitutional act, passed, to enforce the Embargo."

Herman Ames: State Documents on Federal Relations

"Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task—it is their right—it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government." - Governor Jonathan Trumbull

Our state legislators? right and duty | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Rhode Island:

"That the people of this State, as one of the parties to the Federal compact, have a right to express their sense of any violation of its provisions and that it is the duty of this General Assembly as the organ of their sentiments and the depository of their authority, to interpose for the purpose of protecting them from the ruinous inflictions of usurped and unconstitutional power."

Herman Ames: State Documents on Federal Relations

So it would seem that these states merely opposed the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 only on political reasons, those being that they, being dominated by Federalists, supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, rather than actual legal principles. Otherwise, they wouldn't have turned around and adopted the exact same arguments that they opposed in 1798 during Jefferson's Presidency.
__________________
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty." - Frédéric Bastiat

Anti-WarFree MarketsLibertarianRothbardianVoluntaryist
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 02:44 PM
The2ndAmendment's Avatar
Aegis of Liberty
Member #42689
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: In a dependant and enslaved country.
Posts: 6,680
Thanks: 1,711
Thanked 1,860 Times in 1,313 Posts
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1482
The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court
The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by Wry Catcher View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by CrusaderFrank View Post

So what power does should it have? Are they a court that can't rule on laws?
So if your claim, that prior the the establishment of Judicial Review in 1803, that the Courts had no powers or functions?

Do you know how the courts had functioned and were intended to function before 1803?
From the LINK in the OP:

"Court decisions from 1788 to 1803[edit]Between the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 and the decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, judicial review was employed in both the federal and state courts. A detailed analysis has identified thirty-one state or federal cases during this time in which statutes were struck down as unconstitutional, and seven additional cases in which statutes were upheld but at least one judge concluded the statute was unconstitutional.[32] The author of this analysis, Professor William Treanor, concluded: "The sheer number of these decisions not only belies the notion that the institution of judicial review was created by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, it also reflects widespread acceptance and application of the doctrine."
What the question should be is:

Should the Supreme Court be the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution?

Well clearly the Supreme Court can NOT overturn the verdict of a Jury; however, ignoring that particular subject, let us continue:

Clearly the power of judicial review in inherent to the Court, as it must first judge whether or not the Court has JURISDICTION over the case.

However, should the Supreme Court get the final say in this matter? No, how can the agent of the States be superior to the States themselves.

If a State nullifies a decision of the Supreme Court, then the other States, if they feel as if the Compact has been violated (meaning if the other States feel as if the other State is WRONG in nullifying a law), then they must hold a CONVENTION to determine whether or not that particular Federal Law or Power should be granted to the Federal Government.

If the hold a Convention upon 2/3 of the States request, they must then receive 3/4 of the other States approval in order to COERCE the remaining States into following that Federal Law via AMENDING the Constitution --- and yes, I mean COERCE as in Calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union.

If that State feels as if it has been significantly aggrieved by a 3/4 majority of her sister States, she may secede from the Union, at the expense of forfeiting all other benefits and protections of that Union.

That is how it WAS intended to work.
__________________
There is only one logical practice of the Second Amendment, and that is that it shall not be infringed. Any other practice is an absurdity, for it contradicts the very purpose of the Second Amendment in its entirety; it is the ultimate form of popular recourse against tyranny, and thus no potential tyrants may restrict it. The Second Amendment is the Supreme Sovereign; to surrender the Second Amendment, is to surrender the sovereignty of self-government.

Edward Solomon, 2013
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 05:39 PM
Wry Catcher's Avatar
Registered User
Member #20297
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 18,608
Thanks: 3,936
Thanked 4,170 Times in 3,124 Posts
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2128
Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute
Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute
Untitled

Next: Webster's Response:

I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not cooly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counsellor in the affaairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifiying prospects spread out before us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my visioon never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shing on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluteddd, not a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, plazing on all it sample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart, - Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseperable!
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" The Boxer
"Inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes of circumstances, are often justifiable."
Daniel Webster

I support repeal of Citizens United v. FEC and I support campaign finance reform! See: Exodus 23.8
"THE LIFE OF THE LAW HAS NOT BEEN LOGIC; IT HAS BEEN EXPERIENCE"
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 06:48 PM
Wry Catcher's Avatar
Registered User
Member #20297
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 18,608
Thanks: 3,936
Thanked 4,170 Times in 3,124 Posts
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2128
Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute
Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute Wry Catcher has a reputation beyond repute
Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseperable!!!!!!
Daniel Webster, address to the Senate, Jan. 27, 1830.

Libertarians are not patriots, they are selfish and callous. Liberty to them is freedom to do what they want, when they want and without any concern for the welfare of anyone but themselves.
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" The Boxer
"Inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes of circumstances, are often justifiable."
Daniel Webster

I support repeal of Citizens United v. FEC and I support campaign finance reform! See: Exodus 23.8
"THE LIFE OF THE LAW HAS NOT BEEN LOGIC; IT HAS BEEN EXPERIENCE"
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 07:11 PM
Kevin_Kennedy's Avatar
Defend Liberty
Member #11774
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 15,883
Thanks: 629
Thanked 2,605 Times in 1,766 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 909
Kevin_Kennedy has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by Wry Catcher View Post
Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseperable!!!!!!
Daniel Webster, address to the Senate, Jan. 27, 1830.

Libertarians are not patriots, they are selfish and callous. Liberty to them is freedom to do what they want, when they want and without any concern for the welfare of anyone but themselves.
Liberty to a liberal is the freedom to steal from their neighbor and then talk about how generous they are.

__________________
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty." - Frédéric Bastiat

Anti-WarFree MarketsLibertarianRothbardianVoluntaryist
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 07:12 PM
RetiredGySgt's Avatar
Registered User
Member #5176
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 33,681
Thanks: 40
Thanked 6,501 Times in 4,010 Posts
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3198
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Wry Catcher View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post

So if your claim, that prior the the establishment of Judicial Review in 1803, that the Courts had no powers or functions?

Do you know how the courts had functioned and were intended to function before 1803?
From the LINK in the OP:

"Court decisions from 1788 to 1803[edit]Between the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 and the decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, judicial review was employed in both the federal and state courts. A detailed analysis has identified thirty-one state or federal cases during this time in which statutes were struck down as unconstitutional, and seven additional cases in which statutes were upheld but at least one judge concluded the statute was unconstitutional.[32] The author of this analysis, Professor William Treanor, concluded: "The sheer number of these decisions not only belies the notion that the institution of judicial review was created by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, it also reflects widespread acceptance and application of the doctrine."
What the question should be is:

Should the Supreme Court be the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution?

Well clearly the Supreme Court can NOT overturn the verdict of a Jury; however, ignoring that particular subject, let us continue:

Clearly the power of judicial review in inherent to the Court, as it must first judge whether or not the Court has JURISDICTION over the case.

However, should the Supreme Court get the final say in this matter? No, how can the agent of the States be superior to the States themselves.

If a State nullifies a decision of the Supreme Court, then the other States, if they feel as if the Compact has been violated (meaning if the other States feel as if the other State is WRONG in nullifying a law), then they must hold a CONVENTION to determine whether or not that particular Federal Law or Power should be granted to the Federal Government.

If the hold a Convention upon 2/3 of the States request, they must then receive 3/4 of the other States approval in order to COERCE the remaining States into following that Federal Law via AMENDING the Constitution --- and yes, I mean COERCE as in Calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union.

If that State feels as if it has been significantly aggrieved by a 3/4 majority of her sister States, she may secede from the Union, at the expense of forfeiting all other benefits and protections of that Union.

That is how it WAS intended to work.
That is not how the Constitution is written nor how it was intended to operate, article III is clear all matters dealing with federal law and the Constitution are the preview of the Supreme Court in fact and as to law. I have cited the passage. that you are to ignorant to comprehend the written word does not invalidate the actual power granted to the Court. And if the Court ever over steps its bounds the Congress has the power to rein it in.

If as you claim the several States must hold conventions when ever there is a dispute between a State and the federal Government there would be NO Article III and no need to move away from the original form of Government the States had.

I have quoted it for you numerous times, you can stomp your feet , close your eyes and chant nanananananana all you want, it is clear and concise.
__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 07:22 PM
The2ndAmendment's Avatar
Aegis of Liberty
Member #42689
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: In a dependant and enslaved country.
Posts: 6,680
Thanks: 1,711
Thanked 1,860 Times in 1,313 Posts
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1482
The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court
The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Wry Catcher View Post

From the LINK in the OP:

"Court decisions from 1788 to 1803[edit]Between the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 and the decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, judicial review was employed in both the federal and state courts. A detailed analysis has identified thirty-one state or federal cases during this time in which statutes were struck down as unconstitutional, and seven additional cases in which statutes were upheld but at least one judge concluded the statute was unconstitutional.[32] The author of this analysis, Professor William Treanor, concluded: "The sheer number of these decisions not only belies the notion that the institution of judicial review was created by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, it also reflects widespread acceptance and application of the doctrine."
What the question should be is:

Should the Supreme Court be the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution?

Well clearly the Supreme Court can NOT overturn the verdict of a Jury; however, ignoring that particular subject, let us continue:

Clearly the power of judicial review in inherent to the Court, as it must first judge whether or not the Court has JURISDICTION over the case.

However, should the Supreme Court get the final say in this matter? No, how can the agent of the States be superior to the States themselves.

If a State nullifies a decision of the Supreme Court, then the other States, if they feel as if the Compact has been violated (meaning if the other States feel as if the other State is WRONG in nullifying a law), then they must hold a CONVENTION to determine whether or not that particular Federal Law or Power should be granted to the Federal Government.

If the hold a Convention upon 2/3 of the States request, they must then receive 3/4 of the other States approval in order to COERCE the remaining States into following that Federal Law via AMENDING the Constitution --- and yes, I mean COERCE as in Calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union.

If that State feels as if it has been significantly aggrieved by a 3/4 majority of her sister States, she may secede from the Union, at the expense of forfeiting all other benefits and protections of that Union.

That is how it WAS intended to work.
That is not how the Constitution is written nor how it was intended to operate, article III is clear all matters dealing with federal law and the Constitution are the preview of the Supreme Court in fact and as to law. I have cited the passage. that you are to ignorant to comprehend the written word does not invalidate the actual power granted to the Court. And if the Court ever over steps its bounds the Congress has the power to rein it in.

If as you claim the several States must hold conventions when ever there is a dispute between a State and the federal Government there would be NO Article III and no need to move away from the original form of Government the States had.

I have quoted it for you numerous times, you can stomp your feet , close your eyes and chant nanananananana all you want, it is clear and concise.

So you claim is that the Federal Government is the final Arbiter of its own powers?
__________________
There is only one logical practice of the Second Amendment, and that is that it shall not be infringed. Any other practice is an absurdity, for it contradicts the very purpose of the Second Amendment in its entirety; it is the ultimate form of popular recourse against tyranny, and thus no potential tyrants may restrict it. The Second Amendment is the Supreme Sovereign; to surrender the Second Amendment, is to surrender the sovereignty of self-government.

Edward Solomon, 2013
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 07:36 PM
RetiredGySgt's Avatar
Registered User
Member #5176
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 33,681
Thanks: 40
Thanked 6,501 Times in 4,010 Posts
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3198
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post

What the question should be is:

Should the Supreme Court be the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution?

Well clearly the Supreme Court can NOT overturn the verdict of a Jury; however, ignoring that particular subject, let us continue:

Clearly the power of judicial review in inherent to the Court, as it must first judge whether or not the Court has JURISDICTION over the case.

However, should the Supreme Court get the final say in this matter? No, how can the agent of the States be superior to the States themselves.

If a State nullifies a decision of the Supreme Court, then the other States, if they feel as if the Compact has been violated (meaning if the other States feel as if the other State is WRONG in nullifying a law), then they must hold a CONVENTION to determine whether or not that particular Federal Law or Power should be granted to the Federal Government.

If the hold a Convention upon 2/3 of the States request, they must then receive 3/4 of the other States approval in order to COERCE the remaining States into following that Federal Law via AMENDING the Constitution --- and yes, I mean COERCE as in Calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union.

If that State feels as if it has been significantly aggrieved by a 3/4 majority of her sister States, she may secede from the Union, at the expense of forfeiting all other benefits and protections of that Union.

That is how it WAS intended to work.
That is not how the Constitution is written nor how it was intended to operate, article III is clear all matters dealing with federal law and the Constitution are the preview of the Supreme Court in fact and as to law. I have cited the passage. that you are to ignorant to comprehend the written word does not invalidate the actual power granted to the Court. And if the Court ever over steps its bounds the Congress has the power to rein it in.

If as you claim the several States must hold conventions when ever there is a dispute between a State and the federal Government there would be NO Article III and no need to move away from the original form of Government the States had.

I have quoted it for you numerous times, you can stomp your feet , close your eyes and chant nanananananana all you want, it is clear and concise.

So you claim is that the Federal Government is the final Arbiter of its own powers?
Have you read article III? It clearly states that as to law the Supreme Court has primary and appellate Jurisdiction in ALL matters dealing with the US, all Federal laws and all Federal Officials. Further it states that in ANY dispute between a state with the federal Government the Supreme Court has primary authority as to law. It further states that any conflict between two or more States the Supreme Court has authority as to law.

Shall I quote it for you again?
__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 08:37 PM
The2ndAmendment's Avatar
Aegis of Liberty
Member #42689
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: In a dependant and enslaved country.
Posts: 6,680
Thanks: 1,711
Thanked 1,860 Times in 1,313 Posts
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1482
The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court
The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court The2ndAmendment could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post
So you claim is that the Federal Government is the final Arbiter of its own powers?
Have you read article III? It clearly states that as to law the Supreme Court has primary and appellate Jurisdiction in ALL matters dealing with the US, all Federal laws and all Federal Officials. Further it states that in ANY dispute between a state with the federal Government the Supreme Court has primary authority as to law. It further states that any conflict between two or more States the Supreme Court has authority as to law.

Shall I quote it for you again?
Answer the question, do you believe that the Federal Government is to be the final judge of its own powers?
__________________
There is only one logical practice of the Second Amendment, and that is that it shall not be infringed. Any other practice is an absurdity, for it contradicts the very purpose of the Second Amendment in its entirety; it is the ultimate form of popular recourse against tyranny, and thus no potential tyrants may restrict it. The Second Amendment is the Supreme Sovereign; to surrender the Second Amendment, is to surrender the sovereignty of self-government.

Edward Solomon, 2013
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2013, 11:14 PM
RetiredGySgt's Avatar
Registered User
Member #5176
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 33,681
Thanks: 40
Thanked 6,501 Times in 4,010 Posts
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3198
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute RetiredGySgt has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by The2ndAmendment View Post
So you claim is that the Federal Government is the final Arbiter of its own powers?
Have you read article III? It clearly states that as to law the Supreme Court has primary and appellate Jurisdiction in ALL matters dealing with the US, all Federal laws and all Federal Officials. Further it states that in ANY dispute between a state with the federal Government the Supreme Court has primary authority as to law. It further states that any conflict between two or more States the Supreme Court has authority as to law.

Shall I quote it for you again?
Answer the question, do you believe that the Federal Government is to be the final judge of its own powers?
The people elect Congress and that is their power. And yes the Constitution grants authority to the 3 branches of the Federal Government and is Supreme to the States. Or do I need to quote the Supremacy clause too?
__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Law and Justice System
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:44 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.