Bat-Crazy Jefferson, Nullification, and the Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Education' started by Dante, Aug 13, 2010.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Bat-Crazy Jefferson, Nullification, and the Supreme Court

    source:::
    Jeffrey Rosen: The Supreme Court
    The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America

    paraphrased comments: Jefferson's views became extreme. His hatred of the Supreme Court under his cousin Chief Justice John Marshall drove him to distraction. Jefferson took the view that constitutional change could only come through the amendment process, and that the court had no role in striking down laws as unconstitutional.

    Madison had to go against his friend and remind the bat-crazed Jefferson that the Framers of the US Constitution "clearly intended to make the court the final judge of conflicts between the state and federal governments."

    ---

    Sure, people like the tea Party whackos and others like to appeal to the authority of Jefferson and Madison, but Jefferson and Madison were all over the place on issues regarding what the Constitution meant and the intent of the Framers.

    Jefferson and Madison 'secretly' drafted the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, based on the idea that state legislatures had the authority to interpret the Constitution. The argument is that the Union is a compact among independent and sovereign states. The framers according to this argument made no decision about who was the 'ultimate interpreter' of the Constitution: nullification!!! :cuckoo:

    but: The US Constitution explicitly states federal laws are supreme over state laws. :lol:
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2010
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Seems that "bat-crazy" Jefferson and Madison were reading from the same book, when it came to jury rights.

    You, OTOH, are this forum's living, breathing personification of bat-crazy.

    The Untold History of Nullification: Resisting Slavery – Tenth Amendment Center

    http://fija.org/2010/02/11/the-untold-history-of-nullification/
     
  3. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    :confused:

    So Madison reminded Jefferson that the Court was the final judge of conflicts between the state and federal courts, as he drafted the Virginia Resolutions arguing the exact opposite?

    "The US Constitution explicitly states federal laws are supreme over state laws."

    No, it says only constitutional federal laws are supreme over the state laws.
     
  4. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    relying on one ideologically based source just makes you about 2 levels below bat-crazed. keep trying and you may rise to a higher level yet.

    --

    now, it is the opinion of many that Jefferson's 'cure' for the Sedition Acts "was nearly as bad as the disease"(quote from Rosen). Hamilton in the Federalist Papers had enshrined the concept of "the rights of states to protect civil liberties." But the Kentucky resolution went much further: read the OP (originating post)

    if you fall behind in context, and on nuance and distinctions with a difference, please, please, do not feel shame. ask and we shall lecture for free.
     
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    I never gave a crap what the ordinary person on the street knows or doesn't know. as a group, as a whole, I have nothing but contempt for the opinions of the majority of people, let alone their basic knowledge level.
     
  6. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    and who gets to decide what federal laws are constitutional? but playing your game, where do those words get used in the Constitution "constitutional federal laws"?????:eusa_whistle:
     
  7. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    I fall behind nothing, dickweed.

    FIJA is the nation's leading jury rights organization...If they were doing anything unlawful in spreading the word about jury rights, the people running the operation would've been locked up long ago....But they aren't and they haven't.

    If anyone needs to extract their cranium from their rectal zone here, it's you.
     
  8. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    So only those federal laws which are in pursuance of the Constitution, or constitutional, are supreme over the states. When a law is not constitutional, or in pursuance of the Constitution, the states can nullify that law as per the 10th Amendment, since the Constitution does not forbid nullification.
     
  9. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    are you this slow in real life? I never addressed your link in the way you portray it. I referenced your link as a source for defending Jefferson and Madison "reading from the same book, when it came to jury rights."

    I commented on your source being an ideological entity.

    WTF you are talking about with the term 'unlawful' escapes me. Are you on medications?
     
  10. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    My source -FIJA- is only "ideological" to the extent that they stand for the values which both Federalists and Anti-federalists agreed to, insofar as the powers of juries are concerned....That's the kind of ideology I can live with.

    Is the topic of the thread jury rights, or not?
     

Share This Page