Ryan seeks to destroy Constitutional separation of powers

[RollingThunder]

Notice how liberals have to make up crap to try and shove their KOOK agenda down the throat of Americans?? "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" - not in the Constitution
"RIGHT TO PRIVACY" - not in the Constitution

Everything a liberal does or says, predicates a lie.

Rightwingnuts like you project your own behavior onto others a lot in very amusing ways like this one here - "make up crap to try and shove their KOOK agenda down the throat of Americans". Also, of course, you're just too stupid to understand the way our Constitutional form of government or the Supreme Court works. The legal basis for the "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" was dealt with already in post #34.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dude open your god damn eyes what in the fuck has obama done but create more power and control for him. Go pull your fucking heads out of of the ass of that god damn ass hat in the white house

The topic of the thread concerns the efforts by the radical right wing, articulated by Ryan, to denigrate and attack the validity of an independent judiciary, one of the foundations of our Constitutional system of government. The Democrats are doing nothing of the sort, you poor deluded partisan retard.

Actually he is being quite Constitutional. The Congress can and does have the power to create Amendments to the Constitution that if passed would supersede any decision made by the Courts. Further Congress can pass legislation that over turns court rulings as long as the law is with in the scope of the Constitution.

You see THAT is separation of powers. Neither Congress, the President nor the judiciary can single hand run the Country, nor pass laws nor prevent laws from superseding one branches rulings.

That's not what he said at all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unelected judges are there to decide cases based on EXISTING law, not to write NEW laws on the fly.

To stretch the enumerated right to be free of illegal search and seizure into an unwritten right of 'privacy', and then use that unwritten right to accommodate the Leftist desire to murder inconvenient babies is a ridiculous distortion of the powers granted to the Judicial Branch of government.

The Supreme Court ("unelected judges") are there to judge "EXISTING law" and determine whether or not the laws passed by Congress or the states conform to the standards set down by the Constitution. Anti-abortion laws that violate the separation of church and state in order to enshrine in law your peculiar and very stupid religious superstitions (that a good part of the population doesn't believe in, BTW), are clearly un-Constitutional. Embryos are not "babies" or people yet in spite of your superstitions. A woman's right to control her own body and determine the timing of her pregnancies trumps the imaginary rights of a cluster of cells that is not yet a person or even born. People who don't care about human life at all are using this issue to manipulate you and the other fervent but very deluded anti-abortionists.

The Supreme Court ("unelected judges") are there to judge "EXISTING law" and determine whether or not the laws passed by Congress or the states conform to the standards set down by the Constitution. Anti-abortion laws that violate the separation of church and state in order to enshrine in law your peculiar and very stupid religious superstitions (that a good part of the population doesn't believe in, BTW), are clearly un-Constitutional.

There is no separation of church and state statement in the constitution.

Embryos are not "babies" or people yet in spite of your superstitions. A woman's right to control her own body and determine the timing of her pregnancies trumps the imaginary rights of a cluster of cells that is not yet a person or even born. People who don't care about human life at all are using this issue to manipulate you and the other fervent but very deluded anti-abortionists.

So, just what is an embryo? A superstition that it magically becomes a baby? Imaginary cluster of cells???

Since when does a woman's right to control her body outweigh a life of a baby? She had plenty of opportunities to deny a pregnancy before the embryo appeared. Why did she not exhaust those solutions before it became a living embryo, soon to become a birth?

At that point, a woman's responsibility is to become the vessel for this child to be nurtured in it's natural environment before taken away at birth and given the proper environment to grow into adulthood. Even you cannot deny the natural order of life.

You my friend, are a lunatic. There is nothing imaginary about life.

There are no fetal rights in the original Constitution. Neither explicitly nor implicitly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So does Ryan think the 2nd amendment should be repealed and the issues of gun ownership turned back to the state legislatures?

I'm guessing he doesn't mind the 'unelected judges' reigning over gun rights via the second amendment.

Firearms are a Federally protected right, the states cannot infringe on an individually
Federally protected protected right.
Don't believe me look at what the 10th amendment says.

It's a constitutionally protected right, actually. But only to the extent that UNELECTED JUDGES uphold it. UNELECTED JUDGES are protectors of constitutional rights against legislative majorities that might infringe on them.

Ryan is denigrating the legitimacy of the judicial branch in a selective, hypocritical manner because he doesn't like the outcome of that branch's exercise of its legitimate authority in THIS CASE,

Roe v. Wade.

He wants abortion out of the hands of the protectors of our constitutional rights because he doesn't happen to like the fact that they protected abortion as a right.

I'm fairly certain he wouldn't apply this philosophy to gun rights. I'm fairly certain he wouldn't like to see the 2nd amendment repealed,

and gun rights taken out of the hands of those 'unelected judges',

and given back to the state legislatures to decide whether or not the people of those states could own guns.

But that would be intellectually the consistent position.

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's a good recent editorial from the New York Times concerning more of the right wing's attempts to subvert America's independent judiciary. It is also a good object lesson in why judges should be 'unelected' - to prevent this kind of rightwing billionaire sponsored partisan witch hunt against judges who are ethically following their best judgement and sound legal precedent in interpreting the law.


Impartial Justice at Risk
Published: October 6, 2012
(excerpts)
The three judges, the only Democratic appointees on Florida’s seven-member top court, are being targeted for various rulings that have angered conservatives, among them a 2010 decision that quite rightly struck from the ballot a misleadingly worded constitutional amendment designed to allow the state to opt out of federal health care reform. The barrage began in June when the state’s Republican governor, Rick Scott — who would name the judges’ replacements if they lost — ordered up a phony and politically motivated investigation into the judges’ innocuous use of court personnel to notarize required financial disclosure filings. Meanwhile, an advocacy group financed by the Koch brothers, Americans for Prosperity, has begun running television advertisements in several Florida cities criticizing the court’s ruling on the constitutional amendment. The group says it is planning new ads focusing on other cases, all with the goal of framing three judicial moderates as out-of-control “judicial activists.”

Piling on, the Florida Republican Party’s executive committee officially announced its opposition to the judges two weeks ago. To justify its decision, the party dredged up a nine-year-old court order to retry a murder case on technical grounds — an order later rejected by the United States Supreme Court — as evidence that the justices are “too extreme.” An Orlando-based group with ties to the Tea Party, Restore Justice 2012, continuing a grass-roots campaign against the justices that began two years ago, released a video last week focusing on that same ruling.


***

 

[Erand7899]

Lie'n Ryan spouted a lot of the usual rightwing misdirection, spin, and factually incorrect statements (lies), but one thing he said at the end of the debate really caught my attention. In talking about abortion, he said that a bunch of "unelected judges" shouldn't be deciding these issues but rather it should be a "democratic process", perhaps at the state level. This kind of statement is very much part of the overall Republican agenda of trying to castrate the courts and pervert their independence from temporary political majorities. The founders of this country, in their efforts to avoid having their new government deteriorate into a tyranny, had the wisdom to set up in our Constitution a system of government that fundamentally has three independent and separate branches of government that function together cooperatively while still (hopefully) serving our nation as a protective system of 'checks and balances' on each other. Judges should be "unelected" (and they mostly are), and they are supposed to be deciding issues of law based only on the existing legal system and ultimately the Constitution, free from partisan political considerations or pressures. The Supreme Court is supposed to be examining existing laws that are being challenged as to their constitutionality. That is a big part of their Constitutionally defined job within our basic system of government - keeping legislatures and the executive branch from infringing on the inherent Constitutional rights that Americans enjoy. The Court, those "unelected judges", are doing just what the American Founding Fathers intended that they should be doing when they uphold the inherent rights of the people and the rights of minorities. The radical right wing hates that. They don't want some little piece of paper standing in their way to either increasing corporate profits and power at the expense of the American people and our nation or enshrining their own peculiar moral/sexual prejudices and preferences into law. So they talk about "unelected judges" as if that was a bad thing. This really comes down to a treasonous attack on our basic Constitutional separation of powers that tends to keep naked power grabs or temporary wild partisan insanity somewhat in check in the executive and legislative branches. The corporate sponsored radical rightwing hates government regulations that get in the way of profits so, as their own public statements over the years show quite clearly, their real goal is to dismantle or "starve" out of existence most of the functional parts of the federal government. Or at least the ones serving the people and keeping the exploiters and polluters somewhat in check. The radical right/corporatists/plutocrats that Romney and Ryan are fronting for, would, of course, keep increasing funding for the military, the police (lots more anti-abortion enforcement cops spying on everyone's personal life, if Romoney is elected) and more and more (and more) prisons, but everything else that the government does to protect the environment and ensure the safety of our water supplies and curb air pollution, etc., and to help and protect the poor, the middle class, the elderly, the sick, or anyone else worth less than a couple of million dollars, would be cut out to supposedly "balance the budget". These greedy fools would be the ruination of this country.

Years ago, someone brought a case (Roe vs: Wade) regarding abortion all the way to the Supreme Court. Their decision was not based on how popular it would be but rather on whether or not the laws banning abortion infringed on a woman's fundamental constitutional right to privacy and control over her own body. They decided that these anti-abortion laws on any level, federal or state, violated basic Constitutional rights and that the government should keep out of it and leave the matter to the woman and her doctor. The radical right wing leadership, even though they don't give two hoots about human life at any stage, let alone embryos, have used a twisted emotionalized version of the abortion issue to grab Catholics and fundamentalists who have been misled into thinking that this is an important issue and convince them to vote against their own clear best interests by voting for Republicans. Now they are trying to use the abortion issue as another emotional wedge to attack the already shaky independence of the judicial system. So-called "unelected judges" have been the American people's best defense against the depredations of big business and the excesses of the other branches of government for two centuries but they are now under serious attack by the treasonous power junkies on the far right.

The Three Branches Of Government
The Free Dictionary - Legal Dictionary
(excerpts)

The division of state and federal government into three independent branches.

The first three articles of the U.S. Constitution call for the powers of the federal government to be divided among three separate branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary branch. Under the separation of powers, each branch is independent, has a separate function, and may not usurp the functions of another branch. However, the branches are interrelated. They cooperate with one another and also prevent one another from attempting to assume too much power. This relationship is described as one of checks and balances, where the functions of one branch serve to contain and modify the power of another. Through this elaborate system of safeguards, the Framers of the Constitution sought to protect the nation against tyranny.

Under the separation of powers, each branch of government has a specific function. The legislative branch—the Congress—makes the laws. The executive branch—the president—implements the laws. The judiciary—the court system—interprets the laws and decides legal controversies. The system of federal taxation provides a good example of each branch at work. Congress passes legislation regarding taxes. The president is responsible for appointing a director of the Internal Revenue Service to carry out the law through the collection of taxes. The courts rule on cases concerning the application of the tax laws.

Under the system of checks and balances, each branch acts as a restraint on the powers of the other two. The president can either sign the legislation of Congress, making it law, or Veto it. The Congress, through the Senate, has the power of advise and consent on presidential appointments and can therefore reject an appointee. The courts, given the sole power to interpret the Constitution and the laws, can uphold or overturn acts of the legislature or rule on actions by the president. Most judges are appointed, and therefore Congress and the president can affect the judiciary. Thus at no time does all authority rest with a single branch of government. Instead, power is measured, apportioned, and restrained among the three government branches. The states also follow the three-part model of government, through state governors, state legislatures, and the state court systems.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

The argument is nonsense. Our Constitution does not provide for governance from the courts. Yet, that is exactly what has happened many times over the last forty years. Those people put on their pants one leg at a time, just like the rest of us, and they have no exceptional wisdom to support them acting as a super legislature. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and the law, not write it.

Ryan was absolutely right. The abortion issue should have been settled in the legislative process in either the state and/or federal legislatures. If it had been, we would not still be debating the issue for so many years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lie'n Ryan spouted a lot of the usual rightwing misdirection, spin, and factually incorrect statements (lies), but one thing he said at the end of the debate really caught my attention. In talking about abortion, he said that a bunch of "unelected judges" shouldn't be deciding these issues but rather it should be a "democratic process", perhaps at the state level. This kind of statement is very much part of the overall Republican agenda of trying to castrate the courts and pervert their independence from temporary political majorities. The founders of this country, in their efforts to avoid having their new government deteriorate into a tyranny, had the wisdom to set up in our Constitution a system of government that fundamentally has three independent and separate branches of government that function together cooperatively while still (hopefully) serving our nation as a protective system of 'checks and balances' on each other. Judges should be "unelected" (and they mostly are), and they are supposed to be deciding issues of law based only on the existing legal system and ultimately the Constitution, free from partisan political considerations or pressures. The Supreme Court is supposed to be examining existing laws that are being challenged as to their constitutionality. That is a big part of their Constitutionally defined job within our basic system of government - keeping legislatures and the executive branch from infringing on the inherent Constitutional rights that Americans enjoy. The Court, those "unelected judges", are doing just what the American Founding Fathers intended that they should be doing when they uphold the inherent rights of the people and the rights of minorities. The radical right wing hates that. They don't want some little piece of paper standing in their way to either increasing corporate profits and power at the expense of the American people and our nation or enshrining their own peculiar moral/sexual prejudices and preferences into law. So they talk about "unelected judges" as if that was a bad thing. This really comes down to a treasonous attack on our basic Constitutional separation of powers that tends to keep naked power grabs or temporary wild partisan insanity somewhat in check in the executive and legislative branches. The corporate sponsored radical rightwing hates government regulations that get in the way of profits so, as their own public statements over the years show quite clearly, their real goal is to dismantle or "starve" out of existence most of the functional parts of the federal government. Or at least the ones serving the people and keeping the exploiters and polluters somewhat in check. The radical right/corporatists/plutocrats that Romney and Ryan are fronting for, would, of course, keep increasing funding for the military, the police (lots more anti-abortion enforcement cops spying on everyone's personal life, if Romoney is elected) and more and more (and more) prisons, but everything else that the government does to protect the environment and ensure the safety of our water supplies and curb air pollution, etc., and to help and protect the poor, the middle class, the elderly, the sick, or anyone else worth less than a couple of million dollars, would be cut out to supposedly "balance the budget". These greedy fools would be the ruination of this country.

Years ago, someone brought a case (Roe vs: Wade) regarding abortion all the way to the Supreme Court. Their decision was not based on how popular it would be but rather on whether or not the laws banning abortion infringed on a woman's fundamental constitutional right to privacy and control over her own body. They decided that these anti-abortion laws on any level, federal or state, violated basic Constitutional rights and that the government should keep out of it and leave the matter to the woman and her doctor. The radical right wing leadership, even though they don't give two hoots about human life at any stage, let alone embryos, have used a twisted emotionalized version of the abortion issue to grab Catholics and fundamentalists who have been misled into thinking that this is an important issue and convince them to vote against their own clear best interests by voting for Republicans. Now they are trying to use the abortion issue as another emotional wedge to attack the already shaky independence of the judicial system. So-called "unelected judges" have been the American people's best defense against the depredations of big business and the excesses of the other branches of government for two centuries but they are now under serious attack by the treasonous power junkies on the far right.

The Three Branches Of Government
The Free Dictionary - Legal Dictionary
(excerpts)

The division of state and federal government into three independent branches.

The first three articles of the U.S. Constitution call for the powers of the federal government to be divided among three separate branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary branch. Under the separation of powers, each branch is independent, has a separate function, and may not usurp the functions of another branch. However, the branches are interrelated. They cooperate with one another and also prevent one another from attempting to assume too much power. This relationship is described as one of checks and balances, where the functions of one branch serve to contain and modify the power of another. Through this elaborate system of safeguards, the Framers of the Constitution sought to protect the nation against tyranny.

Under the separation of powers, each branch of government has a specific function. The legislative branch—the Congress—makes the laws. The executive branch—the president—implements the laws. The judiciary—the court system—interprets the laws and decides legal controversies. The system of federal taxation provides a good example of each branch at work. Congress passes legislation regarding taxes. The president is responsible for appointing a director of the Internal Revenue Service to carry out the law through the collection of taxes. The courts rule on cases concerning the application of the tax laws.

Under the system of checks and balances, each branch acts as a restraint on the powers of the other two. The president can either sign the legislation of Congress, making it law, or Veto it. The Congress, through the Senate, has the power of advise and consent on presidential appointments and can therefore reject an appointee. The courts, given the sole power to interpret the Constitution and the laws, can uphold or overturn acts of the legislature or rule on actions by the president. Most judges are appointed, and therefore Congress and the president can affect the judiciary. Thus at no time does all authority rest with a single branch of government. Instead, power is measured, apportioned, and restrained among the three government branches. The states also follow the three-part model of government, through state governors, state legislatures, and the state court systems.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

The argument is nonsense. Our Constitution does not provide for governance from the courts. Yet, that is exactly what has happened many times over the last forty years. Those people put on their pants one leg at a time, just like the rest of us, and they have no exceptional wisdom to support them acting as a super legislature. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and the law, not write it.

Ryan was absolutely right. The abortion issue should have been settled in the legislative process in either the state and/or federal legislatures. If it had been, we would not still be debating the issue for so many years.

Just because you don't like the decision doesn't mean the Supreme Court acted inappropriately. If the Supreme Court had upheld the state law in Roe v Wade, they would have had to have found constitutional rights for a fetus that do not exist in the Constitution.

That would have been 'writing law'.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Notice how liberals have to make up crap to try and shove their KOOK agenda down the throat of Americans?? "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" - not in the Constitution
"RIGHT TO PRIVACY" - not in the Constitution

Everything a liberal does or says, predicates a lie.

Rightwingnuts like you project your own behavior onto others a lot in very amusing ways like this one here - "make up crap to try and shove their KOOK agenda down the throat of Americans". Also, of course, you're just too stupid to understand the way our Constitutional form of government or the Supreme Court works. The legal basis for the "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" was dealt with already in post #34.

You didn't show or prove anything.. What did I shove down your throat DUMMY??? Once again Noob idiot, spell it out for us being you've yet to do so. When you come here to debate, do try and use skill instead of babbling rhetoric. You're making an ass of yourself with less than 50 posts.. Not good but we don't expect a whole helluva lot from the resident liberals.. other than lies and propaganda. Remember, do try and be specific.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Lie'n Ryan spouted a lot of the usual rightwing misdirection, spin, and factually incorrect statements (lies), but one thing he said at the end of the debate really caught my attention. In talking about abortion, he said that a bunch of "unelected judges" shouldn't be deciding these issues but rather it should be a "democratic process", perhaps at the state level. This kind of statement is very much part of the overall Republican agenda of trying to castrate the courts and pervert their independence from temporary political majorities. The founders of this country, in their efforts to avoid having their new government deteriorate into a tyranny, had the wisdom to set up in our Constitution a system of government that fundamentally has three independent and separate branches of government that function together cooperatively while still (hopefully) serving our nation as a protective system of 'checks and balances' on each other. Judges should be "unelected" (and they mostly are), and they are supposed to be deciding issues of law based only on the existing legal system and ultimately the Constitution, free from partisan political considerations or pressures. The Supreme Court is supposed to be examining existing laws that are being challenged as to their constitutionality. That is a big part of their Constitutionally defined job within our basic system of government - keeping legislatures and the executive branch from infringing on the inherent Constitutional rights that Americans enjoy. The Court, those "unelected judges", are doing just what the American Founding Fathers intended that they should be doing when they uphold the inherent rights of the people and the rights of minorities. The radical right wing hates that. They don't want some little piece of paper standing in their way to either increasing corporate profits and power at the expense of the American people and our nation or enshrining their own peculiar moral/sexual prejudices and preferences into law. So they talk about "unelected judges" as if that was a bad thing. This really comes down to a treasonous attack on our basic Constitutional separation of powers that tends to keep naked power grabs or temporary wild partisan insanity somewhat in check in the executive and legislative branches. The corporate sponsored radical rightwing hates government regulations that get in the way of profits so, as their own public statements over the years show quite clearly, their real goal is to dismantle or "starve" out of existence most of the functional parts of the federal government. Or at least the ones serving the people and keeping the exploiters and polluters somewhat in check. The radical right/corporatists/plutocrats that Romney and Ryan are fronting for, would, of course, keep increasing funding for the military, the police (lots more anti-abortion enforcement cops spying on everyone's personal life, if Romoney is elected) and more and more (and more) prisons, but everything else that the government does to protect the environment and ensure the safety of our water supplies and curb air pollution, etc., and to help and protect the poor, the middle class, the elderly, the sick, or anyone else worth less than a couple of million dollars, would be cut out to supposedly "balance the budget". These greedy fools would be the ruination of this country.

Years ago, someone brought a case (Roe vs: Wade) regarding abortion all the way to the Supreme Court. Their decision was not based on how popular it would be but rather on whether or not the laws banning abortion infringed on a woman's fundamental constitutional right to privacy and control over her own body. They decided that these anti-abortion laws on any level, federal or state, violated basic Constitutional rights and that the government should keep out of it and leave the matter to the woman and her doctor. The radical right wing leadership, even though they don't give two hoots about human life at any stage, let alone embryos, have used a twisted emotionalized version of the abortion issue to grab Catholics and fundamentalists who have been misled into thinking that this is an important issue and convince them to vote against their own clear best interests by voting for Republicans. Now they are trying to use the abortion issue as another emotional wedge to attack the already shaky independence of the judicial system. So-called "unelected judges" have been the American people's best defense against the depredations of big business and the excesses of the other branches of government for two centuries but they are now under serious attack by the treasonous power junkies on the far right.

The Three Branches Of Government
The Free Dictionary - Legal Dictionary
(excerpts)

The division of state and federal government into three independent branches.

The first three articles of the U.S. Constitution call for the powers of the federal government to be divided among three separate branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary branch. Under the separation of powers, each branch is independent, has a separate function, and may not usurp the functions of another branch. However, the branches are interrelated. They cooperate with one another and also prevent one another from attempting to assume too much power. This relationship is described as one of checks and balances, where the functions of one branch serve to contain and modify the power of another. Through this elaborate system of safeguards, the Framers of the Constitution sought to protect the nation against tyranny.

Under the separation of powers, each branch of government has a specific function. The legislative branch—the Congress—makes the laws. The executive branch—the president—implements the laws. The judiciary—the court system—interprets the laws and decides legal controversies. The system of federal taxation provides a good example of each branch at work. Congress passes legislation regarding taxes. The president is responsible for appointing a director of the Internal Revenue Service to carry out the law through the collection of taxes. The courts rule on cases concerning the application of the tax laws.

Under the system of checks and balances, each branch acts as a restraint on the powers of the other two. The president can either sign the legislation of Congress, making it law, or Veto it. The Congress, through the Senate, has the power of advise and consent on presidential appointments and can therefore reject an appointee. The courts, given the sole power to interpret the Constitution and the laws, can uphold or overturn acts of the legislature or rule on actions by the president. Most judges are appointed, and therefore Congress and the president can affect the judiciary. Thus at no time does all authority rest with a single branch of government. Instead, power is measured, apportioned, and restrained among the three government branches. The states also follow the three-part model of government, through state governors, state legislatures, and the state court systems.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

The argument is nonsense. Our Constitution does not provide for governance from the courts. Yet, that is exactly what has happened many times over the last forty years. Those people put on their pants one leg at a time, just like the rest of us, and they have no exceptional wisdom to support them acting as a super legislature. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and the law, not write it.

Ryan was absolutely right. The abortion issue should have been settled in the legislative process in either the state and/or federal legislatures. If it had been, we would not still be debating the issue for so many years.

QFT! With less than 25% of the population being far left Kooks, now is the time to swing this back to the States where it should have been in the first place.

 

[jtpr312]

The Supreme court was not and never has been given that power by the Constitution or the Founders. They usurped that power, a power the Founders believed beling to the people, as represented by Congress, in Marbury vs Madison. As a matter of fact, one of the leading Founding Fathers warned us of what would happen if we allowed the Surpeme court this power not given it.


Jefferson's words on judicial tyranny, which is what we currently experiance in the US today.

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves


"BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch".


"If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law".


Those where the words of one of our leading Founders, Thomas Jefferson. These are the words of a Supreme Court Chief Justice.

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes; “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...”


Now you tell me which sentiment more closely reflect the intention of the Founders. Jefferson's or Hughes'? Seems to me the Founders fought to be free FROM such despotic rule, not to impose such despotic rule over themselves.