Chief Justice John Marshall…. Chief Villain

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by PoliticalChic, May 18, 2018.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,039
    Thanks Received:
    22,292
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +47,293
    1.It’s the age-old battle: human nature vs. the limits of the human mind.
    With all the study and experience that went into constructing the brilliant document, the United States Constitution, the seeds of our own destruction was buried deep within it.

    Where?

    “Article III of the Constitution establishes and empowers the judicial branch of the national government. The very first sentence of Article III says:
    “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” (Google)



    2. The problem is that the limits to the power of the Supreme Court is not specified, and this allowed the power-grab that that has resulted in today’s judicial tyranny.

    “The most striking thing about judicial review, at first, is that it is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, although it was unprecedented in English law—the source of our basic legal institutions and practices—and poses an obvious threat to representative self-government.

    If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word.

    It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf





    3. That’s the ‘human nature’ problem: self-aggrandizement, often rationalized as beneficence. No doubt, John Marshall, and all of the other judges who have utilized activism believed that it was best for the nation to have a central government with unlimited power.

    This was not the basis on which the country was built, nor the Constitution ratified!!!!




    4. Let's go over that again: rather than having federal courts with the power to decide any kinds of cases, the document ratified by the people created a federal judiciary which left most judicial power to the state governments.

    That would include flag burning, abortion, state government recognition of religion, e.g., public prayer, and homosexual marriage. State courts....not federal.
    See Gutzman, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," p.26-28.

    Federalists who voted to ratify the Constitution were very clear on this issue.




    Soooo…..what happened?

    Chief Justice John Marshall happened.

    Explained next…..
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. DGS49
    Offline

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    6,111
    Thanks Received:
    1,299
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +5,249
    I personally don't think the problem is with judicial review, per se. If the USSC were always acting in good faith - INTERPRETING laws and state actions in light of the Constitution and applicable laws - there would not be much of a problem. The PROBLEM is that the members of the USSC take it upon themselves to try to implement POLICIES consistent with their own personal views on public policy, regardless of what the Constitution says or means, or what the laws are intended to accomplish.

    So we have had Supreme Court justices who have openly proposed that the death penalty is "unconstitutional," in spite of the fact that the death penalty is explicitly sanctioned in at least two places in Constitutional Amendments (5th & 14th Amendments). We have the Court interpreting a statement that everyone must benefit from the "equal protection" of the laws, to justify treating "Black" people differently ("Affirmative Action"), under the law.

    It is quite revealing that the Leftists in Government and Media are hyperventilating because Trump is appointing "conservatives" (i.e., people who actually respect the Constitution) to the Federal bench. Good heavens! What could this mean for our FUTURE???!!
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,039
    Thanks Received:
    22,292
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +47,293


    Yup.


    I believe that that was what the OP said, here:

    That’s the ‘human nature’ problem: self-aggrandizement, often rationalized as beneficence.



    I'll propose the solution later.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,039
    Thanks Received:
    22,292
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +47,293
    5. “John Marshall (September 24, 1755 – July 6, 1835) was an American politician and the fourth Chief Justice of the United States (1801–1835). His court opinions helped lay the basis for United States constitutional lawJohn Marshall - Wikipedia

    Understated.



    6. Marshall worked tirelessly to expand the power of the federal government.
    The 11th amendment stood in his way.

    ‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789




    “The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III. “
    "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman

    In the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia Marshall decided that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.
    Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.
    The villain knew better.



    This was similar to a recent President announcing that “ I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” and this meant that he, as Marshall did, could ignore the restrictions of the Constitution.


    Seems that lots of villains insinuate their way into our government.
     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,039
    Thanks Received:
    22,292
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +47,293
    7. Chief Justice John Marshall authorized ‘judicial review, and “made it a reality in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 by invalidating an insignificant provision of a federal statute in an otherwise insignificant case.

    Marshall read a sentence of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, as adding to the original jurisdiction granted the Court by the Constitution, although the sentence does not even mention original jurisdiction.

    Judicial review was born in sin and has rarely risen above the circumstances of its birth.”
    Professor Lino Graglia,
    https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




    For some individuals, like Chief Justice Marshall, power is their insatiable desire….no matter the results to the nation. And, also an attribute of the Democrat Party’s flooding the nation with illegal immigrants, as well.

    It is the party that proves Lord Acton’s adage: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    There is no greater example of absolute power, than that exercised by the Supreme Court.






    “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

    “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin.

    Seems we couldn’t…..we’ve devolved into judicial tyranny.
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,039
    Thanks Received:
    22,292
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +47,293
    8. …..we’ve devolved into judicial tyranny.
    Can this power grab by the judiciary be reversed????

    You betcha’!!!!

    Strong Presidents can and should do so!

    Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????



    “Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

    Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

    Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

    Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



    It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.
     
  7. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,039
    Thanks Received:
    22,292
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +47,293
    9. On what basis, in a democracy, is the will, the view, the desires of a handful of unelected lawyers more correct than that of the people, from whom all power is derived????

    “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.


    Proposition 8, California's ban on gay marriage, overturned by judge
    A ban on same-sex marriages in California has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, …”
    Proposition 8, California's ban on gay marriage, overturned by judge





    10. “ Since constitutional limits can come only from the people themselves in a democracy, the argument rests on the extremely implausible proposition that the people of the past acted in a calmer time or were more knowledgeable about present day problems than are the people of today.

    The people do not need unelected, life-tenured judges to protect them from their electorally accountable legislators; their clear and urgent need today is for protection from judges by legislators.” Professor Lino Graglia, Op. Cit.




    The current judicial tyranny is the result of the efforts of the villain, Chief Justice John Marshall.
     
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    76,039
    Thanks Received:
    22,292
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +47,293
    "Carr: Allow voters to elect and eject judges to avoid more disgrace
    You would think that after this damn fool recently cut the bail on a tattooed career criminal who then drove to Maine to gun down a cop in cold blood, Feeley would finally try to exercise a little caution, and maybe not bend over backward to coddle, say, a Dominican heroin dealer.

    So what if Manuel Soto-Vittini had 40 bags of heroin in two hidden compartments of his Volvo, not to mention some cocaine? His lawyer argued that if he went to prison, he might be deported, and that would be “catastrophic.”

    ...he cut the Dominican heroin dealer loose because he was only doing it … for the money. Selling heroin to Americans was merely a “money crime,” the judge said.

    As much as he likes heroin dealers, Feeley is even softer on sex offenders:

    “Alleged sex predator released after hearing … Judge releases Salem man charged in sexual abuse … Judge further lowers bail in Salem rape case … Bail for alleged flasher reduced.”

    My recurring question is: Why can’t the voters decide whether these depraved bust-out lawyers should be ejected from the public trough?"
    Carr: Allow voters to elect and eject judges to avoid more disgrace
     

Share This Page