Founding fathers were village idiots.

[Dr Gregg]

Following that logic why should we follow the "220 years of progress and history," as your article puts it? Lysander Spooner put forth a similar argument, saying that the Constitution has no force over those who had nothing to do with its inception, but his stance was consistent as he was an anarchist. This article simply puts forth this argument to attack the founders, while not applying the same standard to the rest of American history. If we shouldn't follow the Constitution because we weren't alive when it was written, what laws from the FDR administration can we ignore? And how much beloved Supreme Court precedent is now out the window since it can't obviously have any force on those of us who had nothing to do with it? And should we simply craft a new form of government all together, since we had no say in the creation of our current republic?

As for the Constitution being a document we "follow today more closely than the bible," that's obviously a ridiculous argument. Our government, which is mandated to follow the Constitution, barely follows the Constitution at all, whereas following the bible is a personal choice of each individual.

If a law is not deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, then the constitution has been followed. Just cause you don't like something or think you are more a constitutional scholar than the SC justices, doesn't make it true

And just because you agree with the Court's assessment that it has a monopoly on deciding what is or is not constitutional doesn't make it true.

has nothing to do with what I think, or even if I agree. SCOTUS rules, they are following the constitution. Those are the facts, not whether my opinion of the decision is right.

 

[Dr Gregg]

And just because you agree with the Court's assessment that it has a monopoly on deciding what is or is not constitutional doesn't make it true.

What mechanism do you recommend for determining the constitutionality of laws? Be specific.

It is my opinion that reading the Constitution is the most effective means of determining whether something the government does is constitutional.

And WTF do you think the justices do?

 

[Dr Gregg]

The founding fathers were brilliant, this is one of those horrible OPs IMO.

They created the best damn government possible IMO, with checks and balances to prevent one branch from getting too much power and attempting to limit widespread corruption as much as possible. They allowed the ability to the laws to be interpreted with the changing times having SCOTUS being able to rule on it and the ability to change the constitution, but not too easy to do so.

The government they put in place, with the help of the vast resources in the land in which the country was formed, and a hard working citizenry made this country rise up from nowhere to be a world power in relatively short time considering the other powers in the world were around for centuries.

I would kindly felate anyone of the founding fathers for their brilliance

I would have pos reped you except for that last sentence. If someone has 40 pos they want to toss your way, I would be grateful. But 90, no.
Eeeeeeeeuw!

Madison, Marshall and the rest of the boys came up with the best thing possible at the time, and I don't think anyone has ever come with anything remotely as good since. Even with really severe problems they tried to paper over and ignore.

Oh, I was just joking to express my appreciation for the founding fathers

 

[Dr Gregg]

Well I'm certainly not making up any legal doctrine, as nullification has a storied history here in the U.S.

you seem to have an interest in the constitution. perhaps it's time for you to actually learn something about it.

Perhaps it's time for you to get over your infatuation with insulting me?

Except its pretty spot on, a you don't seem to know anything about the constitution if you argue SCOTUS determining constitutionality of laws is unconstitutional.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

FOUNDING FATHERS WERE VILLAGE IDIOTS.

I didn't sign the Constitution. I wasn't even alive when it was made. Why should I follow it or even care? You can't sign a contract on behalf of another person without their consent.

Why are flawed old white men called our founding fathers allowed to write a document hundreds of years ago that we follow today more closely than the bible? We let them control our lives too much. I thought we did not want old white men involved in our lives?



The Myth of the
"Founding Fathers"
By: Adolf H. Nixon

Some persons, especially the extreme right-wing Republicans preach that we must go back to the ways of the "Founding Fathers." In particular, they want judges to ignore 220 years of progress and history. They desire to turn the calendar back to the politics of 1787.
For conservatives, the myth is that somehow the Founding Fathers were giants, better than we are today, smarter, more able, more clever. Above all, the conservatives argue that the Founding Fathers were more "moral" than you or me. They were like the Olympian heroes of ancient mythology, at least according to our conservative brethren. But conservatives are always looking backwards and not seeing very clearly. They have problems coping with present realities.
The conservatives want us to accede to those mythical heroes. We are expected to abandon our own good sense and trust the Founding Fathers' judgment over our own.
Of course, most rational persons realize that such political mythology is sheer nonsense, but it begs the question, who were the Founding Fathers and what makes them so great that they're wiser than you are?
The term "Founding Fathers" is somewhat vague. My dictionary says that it didn't even come into use until about 1914. It was applied to the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Our Constitution or what remains of it after 27 of the most serious blunders have been corrected by amendments, rests on the philosophy, genius, morality and ethics of the rather small committee which concocted it. We must look to those Founding Fathers to see what kinds of guys they were that we should surrender our good sense to theirs.
It's important to differentiate the Constitution that the Founding Fathers cooked up from the Bill of Rights. Today when we think of the protections of the American system, we usually think of the shinning example of ethics and goodness contained in the Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are primarily the work of George Mason (1725-1792). He would have been a Founding Father because he was a delegate to the convention from Virginia, but he refused to sign the Constitution. He realized that it failed to protect individual liberties and failed to oppose slavery.
Mr. Mason lobbied against adoption of the Constitution just as many of the Founding Fathers lobbied against the Bill of Rights. Most of the Founding Fathers disapproved of giving ordinary citizens such liberties as freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and torture, the right of free speech and so forth. In fact, when John Adams (1735-1826) was president (1797-1801), he took away freedom of speech.
The Bill of Rights is really the people's voice against the Founding Fathers; liberty against conformity.
Present-day conservatives and other right-wing fanatics insist that we (and especially judges) revere the Founding Fathers, sublimating our twenty-first century experience to their own. I have nothing against the Founding Fathers. They weren't so bad, but certainly not so good, either, about like conservative Republicans today. They certainly were NOT representative of the population of the country, then or now. If they represented anyone, it was a mere 2% of the population.
Number of women: 0
Number of Native Americans: 0
Number of Hispanics: 0
Number of Afro-Americans: 0
Number of poor persons: 0
Number of indentured servants: 0
Number of Jews: 0
Number of non-land owners: 0
Number of Moslems: 0
etc., etc.
None of those kinds of persons were considered important enough (then or now) to have a real say in the Constitution or its protections.
Our rather defective Constitution was patched together by the 1787 Constitutional Convention because the earlier Articles of Confederation had flopped as a frame of government. The Articles of Confederation had been written by the rabble-rouser John Dickenson (1732-1805). Even though they failed as a sane basis for a government, Dickenson was right back at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to try his hand again. At least he was smarter that George W. Bush and realized that one has to admit errors and try again.
In 1786 only 9 years after the Articles of Confederation had been tried, the old and powerful families of Virginia put together a committee to meet with delegates from the other states in order to design a better frame of government.
Rhode Island didn't care enough about it to send anybody, but representatives from the other 12 states answered an invitation issued by Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804), a bastard "and illegal alien" living in New York. Ranging in age from the 27 year-old Jonathan Dayton (1760-1824) to the 82 year-old Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) the convention gathered in Philadelphia in May 1787. Altogether, the individual states appointed 65 wealthy men to be Founding Fathers, ten of them didn't bother to show up at the convention. They had important work to do and, maybe a manicure to schedule. So a mere 55 well-to-do gentlemen stopped by for grog and scones in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. Of those 55, only 39 Founding Fathers actually liked the Constitution enough to sign it. The other 16 visited the many Philadelphia whorehouses and ambled back home.
Things might have turned out differently had Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) not been in Europe. He was one of the few voices of real civil liberty in America. Here are the 39 much-revered Founding Fathers who invented the Constitution, the guys we're supposed to look up to, the guys judges are supposed to worship:

The Conservatives' Founding Fathers /81001/
If you wonder why there are so many problems with American politics, look at how many of these guys were lawyers.

How many of these sterling Founding Fathers have you ever heard of before? and you are supposed to follow them blindly? Which ones represent you or the way you live or think? Conservatives who want you to obey these Founding Fathers have very strange morality and don't know what they're talking about.

LMAO

Any chance that you could get this on the front page of the NY Times, The Miami Hearld, The Dallas Morning News, The Arizona Republic, The LA Times and any of the Local "Intelligentsias" in the first week of this coming November?

If ya could, we'd REALLY appreciate it. It would be VERY HELPFUL if you could get this kind of thinkin' out there when and to WHERE it counts.


I am just postive that you would make a real difference if ya did...

 

[Big Fitz]

Perhaps Lilollady is not deserving of the rights she has been afforded by these village idiots. Perchance she should move to the nation of her choice that most matches her ideals. It'd be better for all of us I suspect. Just sayin'.

 

[Avatar4321]

You are under no obligation to follow the Constitution. If you don't want to, you can go to some government where the Constitution is not soveriegn.

However, since you have clearly remained in the United States and engage in your rights as US citizens, you are consenting to be governed by the Constitution.

And if you don't understand why, then you need to research some history and learn why. Simply because you dont understand something, doesnt excuse you from your duty to learn about it.

 

[Intense]

you seem to have an interest in the constitution. perhaps it's time for you to actually learn something about it.

Perhaps it's time for you to get over your infatuation with insulting me?

Except its pretty spot on, a you don't seem to know anything about the constitution if you argue SCOTUS determining constitutionality of laws is unconstitutional.

I don't think that is the problem. I think that when original intent is ignored by the court, or when words and meanings are re defined, we have a disconnect.

Bottom line when something new and different is applied to Federal Powers, the amendment process is the high road. That 75% majority clearly represents the will of the whole better than 5/4 voices do. The Court clearly has Right's, Power's, and Authorities, granted by the Constitution, Oligarchy Rule was clearly not included in those Powers. I support the Role of the Court, in context, those Powers are not a Free Pass, or Divine in Any nature, though They may strive and find the approval, They still need to be vigilant of Not over stepping the Trust. I really believe, both sides of the Court need to strive harder in reaching resolution. Words have meaning, Theirs have great Power, To see great wisdom behind them????? We can hope. I personally vote for Impartial Justice, over Blind Justice Every Time.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If a law is not deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, then the constitution has been followed. Just cause you don't like something or think you are more a constitutional scholar than the SC justices, doesn't make it true

And just because you agree with the Court's assessment that it has a monopoly on deciding what is or is not constitutional doesn't make it true.

Has nothing to do with my opinion, that's the difference between you and I, I rely on the facts of the matter, you opinion. The CONSTITUTION give them that authority, that is the fact. it gives congress the ability to amend the constitution also, but SCOTUS is their to interpret the constitution. Did you fail your civics class in HS or what?

Actually it has everything to do with your opinion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What mechanism do you recommend for determining the constitutionality of laws? Be specific.

It is my opinion that reading the Constitution is the most effective means of determining whether something the government does is constitutional.

And WTF do you think the justices do?

Make things up for the most part.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

you seem to have an interest in the constitution. perhaps it's time for you to actually learn something about it.

Perhaps it's time for you to get over your infatuation with insulting me?

Except its pretty spot on, a you don't seem to know anything about the constitution if you argue SCOTUS determining constitutionality of laws is unconstitutional.

It could be argued that you don't know anything about the Constitution if you think the Supreme Court giving itself that power means its constitutional.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Perhaps it's time for you to get over your infatuation with insulting me?

Except its pretty spot on, a you don't seem to know anything about the constitution if you argue SCOTUS determining constitutionality of laws is unconstitutional.

I don't think that is the problem. I think that when original intent is ignored by the court, or when words and meanings are re defined, we have a disconnect.

Bottom line when something new and different is applied to Federal Powers, the amendment process is the high road. That 75% majority clearly represents the will of the whole better than 5/4 voices do. The Court clearly has Right's, Power's, and Authorities, granted by the Constitution, Oligarchy Rule was clearly not included in those Powers. I support the Role of the Court, in context, those Powers are not a Free Pass, or Divine in Any nature, though They may strive and find the approval, They still need to be vigilant of Not over stepping the Trust. I really believe, both sides of the Court need to strive harder in reaching resolution. Words have meaning, Theirs have great Power, To see great wisdom behind them????? We can hope. I personally vote for Impartial Justice, over Blind Justice Every Time.

Then why did they put in the Supreme court branch if that was not their original intent? Why would the constitution be somewhat vaguely written compared to most laws which are very very specific, if they did not want it to be up to interpretation to account for the changing times.

And dwelling on what the intentions were is irrelevant, as that's not what the history of this country under the constitution has implied.

 

[Dr Gregg]

And just because you agree with the Court's assessment that it has a monopoly on deciding what is or is not constitutional doesn't make it true.

Has nothing to do with my opinion, that's the difference between you and I, I rely on the facts of the matter, you opinion. The CONSTITUTION give them that authority, that is the fact. it gives congress the ability to amend the constitution also, but SCOTUS is their to interpret the constitution. Did you fail your civics class in HS or what?

Actually it has everything to do with your opinion.

Great answer. FACT, not opinion, is its in the constitution for SCOTUS to rule on constitutionality of laws,. Not fact: claiming that SCOTUS making a ruling is unconstitutional, in which the constitution gives them that power to do so

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps it's time for you to get over your infatuation with insulting me?

Except its pretty spot on, a you don't seem to know anything about the constitution if you argue SCOTUS determining constitutionality of laws is unconstitutional.

It could be argued that you don't know anything about the Constitution if you think the Supreme Court giving itself that power means its constitutional.

Yes. The purpose of the High Court was never to question or challenge the constitutionality of laws. The purpose of the High Court has always been to arbitrate disputes about the constitutionality of laws. It was also orginally intended that except in matters of the most extreme nature, the High Court would be the Court of Last Resort--after the process had been exhausted in all of the appropriate lower courts.

The Founders would roll over in their graves at a prospect of ANY court legislating from the bench and would see that as a most grevious violation of the separation of powers.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Except its pretty spot on, a you don't seem to know anything about the constitution if you argue SCOTUS determining constitutionality of laws is unconstitutional.

It could be argued that you don't know anything about the Constitution if you think the Supreme Court giving itself that power means its constitutional.

Yes. The purpose of the High Court was never to question or challenge the constitutionality of laws. The purpose of the High Court has always been to arbitrate disputes about the constitutionality of laws. It was also orginally intended that except in matters of the most extreme nature, the High Court would be the Court of Last Resort--after the process had been exhausted in all of the appropriate lower courts.

The Founders would roll over in their graves at a prospect of ANY court legislating from the bench and would see that as a most grevious violation of the separation of powers.

And in determining disputes about the constitutionality of laws, what happens? It sets a precedent, so that if someone tries to make another law like it, they won't cause its already been deemed to be unconstitutional

Nobody is legislating from the bench, that's just political talking point, cry baby bullshit that people use when they don't like court decisions.

I love how everybody knows so well what the founding fathers wants, needs and intentions were. If that were the case, then they would of made it very clear. Can I borrow your time machine so I can have a talk with them

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Has nothing to do with my opinion, that's the difference between you and I, I rely on the facts of the matter, you opinion. The CONSTITUTION give them that authority, that is the fact. it gives congress the ability to amend the constitution also, but SCOTUS is their to interpret the constitution. Did you fail your civics class in HS or what?

Actually it has everything to do with your opinion.

Great answer. FACT, not opinion, is its in the constitution for SCOTUS to rule on constitutionality of laws,. Not fact: claiming that SCOTUS making a ruling is unconstitutional, in which the constitution gives them that power to do so

No, the fact is that the Supreme Court gave themselves that power.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Yep. And it wasn't ratified until 1787. Quite awhile after the War was won in 1781.

Treaty of Paris 1783 actually ended the revolutionary war. It wasn't formally ratified by the continental congress until 1784.

The document was well conceived, but it does suffer from reinterpretation by those seeking to expand the power of the central government. Nothing could have been done to prevent collusion between the three branches to reinvent the US Constitution as a tool for wealth redistribution, just as nothing can stop those who live in latter years from completely ignoring lessons from history. The sole addition which the founding fathers should have included was explicit permission for states to withdraw from the union unilaterally with a 2/3's vote of their state citizens. That might have given pause to the centralization of power as the individual states might then be able to challenge federal supremacy on socialist issues.

 

[Intense]

FEDERALIST No. 78
The Judiciary Department
From McLEAN'S Edition, New York.
Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

WE PROCEED now to an examination of the judiciary department of the proposed government.

In unfolding the defects of the existing Confederation, the utility and necessity of a federal judicature have been clearly pointed out. It is the less necessary to recapitulate the considerations there urged, as the propriety of the institution in the abstract is not disputed; the only questions which have been raised being relative to the manner of constituting it, and to its extent. To these points, therefore, our observations shall be confined.

The manner of constituting it seems to embrace these several objects: 1st. The mode of appointing the judges. 2d. The tenure by which they are to hold their places. 3d. The partition of the judiciary authority between different courts, and their relations to each other.

First. As to the mode of appointing the judges; this is the same with that of appointing the officers of the Union in general, and has been so fully discussed in the two last numbers, that nothing can be said here which would not be useless repetition. Second. As to the tenure by which the judges are to hold their places; this chiefly concerns their duration in office; the provisions for their support; the precautions for their responsibility.

According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State. Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan, is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments. The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference.

But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies,3 in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.

But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.

That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.

There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. These considerations apprise us, that the government can have no great option between fit character; and that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity. In the present circumstances of this country, and in those in which it is likely to be for a long time to come, the disadvantages on this score would be greater than they may at first sight appear; but it must be confessed, that they are far inferior to those which present themselves under the other aspects of the subject.

Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which have established GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure of their judicial offices, in point of duration; and that so far from being blamable on this account, their plan would have been inexcusably defective, if it had wanted this important feature of good government. The experience of Great Britain affords an illustrious comment on the excellence of the institution.

PUBLIUS.

Federalist Papers Index

 

[ihopehefails]

I think we are finally getting through to you people. You are perfectly free to live without the law as long as you don't harm another person. When you do this their is no need for government so I wish the best of luck to you but I am still apart of that agreement and I agreed to have the government protect my life and property so if you can't behave then that government will have to throw you in jail for my protection.

Good Luck...

 

[ole miss rebel]

There is an idiot here and it is NOT the Founding Fathers. Read John Adams by David McCollough I dare you. You are ridiculous. I could say more but you aren't worth the time.