CDZ Is the Republic worth saving?

[Anathema]

Didn’t you say Elvis sat between you and bigfoot on the UFO?

Hey!!!! We all know Elvis isn’t real!!!!

 

[blackhawk]

What would you replace it with? I for one have no confidence the so called leaders of today could come up with something that would work better than the Constitution that has worked very well for over 200 years and counting.

 

[jwoodie]

What is often forgotten is that all three branches are missioned with viewing the constitutionality of any law....the Congress when they write it, as well as the President when he signs it.

This would seem to contradict the requirement that 3/4 of the States must consent to Constitutional amendments, replacing it with simple majorities in Congress (or 2/3 in the case of a Presidential veto).

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is often forgotten is that all three branches are missioned with viewing the constitutionality of any law....the Congress when they write it, as well as the President when he signs it.

This would seem to contradict the requirement that 3/4 of the States must consent to Constitutional amendments, replacing it with simple majorities in Congress (or 2/3 in the case of a Presidential veto).

Why?

The amendment process is very specific, and specified in article 5.

 

[jwoodie]

What is often forgotten is that all three branches are missioned with viewing the constitutionality of any law....the Congress when they write it, as well as the President when he signs it.

This would seem to contradict the requirement that 3/4 of the States must consent to Constitutional amendments, replacing it with simple majorities in Congress (or 2/3 in the case of a Presidential veto).

Why?

The amendment process is very specific, and specified in article 5.

Because Congress could simply pass laws which blatantly violate Constitutional limitations (e.g., confiscation and destruction of personal firearms) and there would be no remedy for at least two years. Which is no remedy at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is often forgotten is that all three branches are missioned with viewing the constitutionality of any law....the Congress when they write it, as well as the President when he signs it.

This would seem to contradict the requirement that 3/4 of the States must consent to Constitutional amendments, replacing it with simple majorities in Congress (or 2/3 in the case of a Presidential veto).

Why?

The amendment process is very specific, and specified in article 5.

Because Congress could simply pass laws which blatantly violate Constitutional limitations (e.g., confiscation and destruction of personal firearms) and there would be no remedy for at least two years. Which is no remedy at all.

"Because Congress could simply pass laws which blatantly violate Constitutional limitations (e.g., confiscation and destruction of personal firearms) and there would be no remedy for at least two years."

Of course there would.


The Supreme Court.
Enforcing their decrees would remain in the same hands it is today.


The question here is the rectitude of the American people and the officials that they elect.


If all of the above are ensconced in evil, the country has reached its end.



You might want to explain this, as the explanation might reassure you.



October 25, 2016...NYTimes gave Hillary 93% chance of winning the election.
2016 Election Forecast: Who Will Be President?


“Survey finds Hillary Clinton has ‘more than 99% chance’ of winning election over Donald Trump” Saturday 5 November 2016 17:44
The man who predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2012 has said who will win on Tuesday

 

[jwoodie]

"Because Congress could simply pass laws which blatantly violate Constitutional limitations (e.g., confiscation and destruction of personal firearms) and there would be no remedy for at least two years."

Of course there would.


The Supreme Court.

Wouldn't this constitute Judicial Review?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Simple question. State your case and discuss if you wish.

The correct answer is missing from your poll.

Why?

 

[oldsoul]

Simple question. State your case and discuss if you wish.

The correct answer is missing from your poll.

Why?

What answer is that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Because Congress could simply pass laws which blatantly violate Constitutional limitations (e.g., confiscation and destruction of personal firearms) and there would be no remedy for at least two years."

Of course there would.


The Supreme Court.

Wouldn't this constitute Judicial Review?

Only about questions specifically covered by the Constitution.

The 'theft' by the Court has been on all questions....flag burning, abortion, state government recognition of religion, e.g., public prayer, and homosexual marriage. State courts....not federal.

Further, whether or not to enforce the Court's decisions need be investigated.



We should pay special attention to Rehnquist's warning:



...[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal

judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,

quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s

problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country.
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

 

[jwoodie]

"Because Congress could simply pass laws which blatantly violate Constitutional limitations (e.g., confiscation and destruction of personal firearms) and there would be no remedy for at least two years."

Of course there would.


The Supreme Court.

Wouldn't this constitute Judicial Review?

Only about questions specifically covered by the Constitution.

it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Because Congress could simply pass laws which blatantly violate Constitutional limitations (e.g., confiscation and destruction of personal firearms) and there would be no remedy for at least two years."

Of course there would.


The Supreme Court.

Wouldn't this constitute Judicial Review?

Only about questions specifically covered by the Constitution.

it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

That's correct: it is not provided for.

Nor is it forbidden.

It has become customary.....
1. No where is it mandated that the Court's decisions are superior to the other branches.
2. The ratification of the Constitution by the states was based on federalism....sharing power....not making the Court superior.
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.

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

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


3.The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"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."

a. You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.


4. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found 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.

John Marshall, as is true of most modern judges, expressed his hostility toward limitations of federal power.



5. Marshall was at odds with Jefferson, who he mocked as "the great Lama of the mountains."(NYTimes) This was because Jefferson recognized that the Supreme Court had become a threat to the idea of limited constitutional government.
"He worried that the Court had eliminated all checks on its power by misreading the clear messages of Article III and the eleventh amendment." Gutzman, Op. Cit.



A strong President could push the Court back into its original role.

 

[oldsoul]

Simple question. State your case and discuss if you wish.

If nothing else, I'd like to see some ambiguity taken out of it such as making to clear once and for all absolutely that the 2A means a free and unrestricted militia of the people with the right to own and bear arms with the purpose of defending the country from ALL enemies from without and within ---- any damn thing they can afford to buy, so long as they are in good standing and uphold the law. I might also limit congresspeople to not more than two terms. I'm fed up with these career, lifetime appointments. One more thing: that elected officials must be held to the highest standards of the law rather than the lowest. And they get paid according to their performance, to be voted on by the people.

It is my opinion that the ambiguity is a large part of the genius of the document. It allows for the adoption of slight variances in public opinion on topics without a permanent change to the document itself.

Imagine, if you will, that the so called "Slavery Amendment" had been ratified:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

If public sentiment then changed to what it is today on the topic of slavery, how would we go about abolishing it? It passed congress, but was (thankfully) only ratified by two states.

 

[jwoodie]

It is my opinion that the ambiguity is a large part of the genius of the document. It allows for the adoption of slight variances in public opinion on topics without a permanent change to the document itself.

Imagine, if you will, that the so called "Slavery Amendment" had been ratified:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

If public sentiment then changed to what it is today on the topic of slavery, how would we go about abolishing it? It passed congress, but was (thankfully) only ratified by two states.

According to that logic, neither should the 13th Amendment have been ratified.

 

[oldsoul]

It is my opinion that the ambiguity is a large part of the genius of the document. It allows for the adoption of slight variances in public opinion on topics without a permanent change to the document itself.

Imagine, if you will, that the so called "Slavery Amendment" had been ratified:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

If public sentiment then changed to what it is today on the topic of slavery, how would we go about abolishing it? It passed congress, but was (thankfully) only ratified by two states.

According to that logic, neither should the 13th Amendment have been ratified.

I don't follow. Could you explain what you mean by, "that logic"?

 

[jwoodie]

According to that logic, neither should the 13th Amendment have been ratified.

I don't follow. Could you explain what you mean by, "that logic"?

It is my opinion that the ambiguity is a large part of the genius of the document. It allows for the adoption of slight variances in public opinion on topics without a permanent change to the document itself.

After the Civil War, shouldn't we simply have adopted variances in public opinion on slavery without a permanent change to the Constitution? After all, isn't ambiguity preferable to specificity?

 

[oldsoul]

According to that logic, neither should the 13th Amendment have been ratified.

I don't follow. Could you explain what you mean by, "that logic"?

It is my opinion that the ambiguity is a large part of the genius of the document. It allows for the adoption of slight variances in public opinion on topics without a permanent change to the document itself.

After the Civil War, shouldn't we simply have adopted variances in public opinion on slavery without a permanent change to the Constitution? After all, isn't ambiguity preferable to specificity?

Ok, I get your point. I must offer more clarification to my statement. I should have inserted the word "short-term" into the part about public opinion. The sentence should have read as follows:

"It allows for the adoption of slight, short-term, variances in public opinion on topics without a permanent change to the document itself."

That said, the issue of slavery was hardly a "slight variance" in public opinion. The topic is actually directly addressed in the COTUS, and it was hotly debated. Here is what appears to be an excellent article on the subject. (I have yet to read it in its entirety)

https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html