SCOTUS vs. the Constitution

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
NewGuy, I apologize for letting this wait for so long. It was my intention to reply on Monday, not to wait until today. But let's get to it.

No prob, we all get side tracked.

To recap, I have argued that Article III, Section 1 grants the judicial branch jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Constitution, to include cases regarding the Constitution itself. You claim that the word "under" excludes the Constitution from any judicial review, interpretation, etc., to the point where you have claimed (in my Establishment Clause vs. Free worship Clause) that no court may rule on any issues that are mentioned in the Constitution.

Correct assessment.

Let's see what the Founders had to say about this:

We have a problem with this:

**Fiirst:
#78 was written-
Saturday, June 14, 1788
[Alexander Hamilton]

#80 -
Saturday, June 21, 1788
Both were AFTER the Constitution was put into place.

It should be noted that The Constitution was adopted by a convention of the States on September 17, 1787, and was subsequently ratified by the several States, on the following dates: Delaware, December 7, 1787; Pennsylvania, December 12, 1787; New Jersey, December 18, 1787; Georgia, January 2, 1788; Connecticut, January 9, 1788; Massachusetts, February 6, 1788; Maryland, April 28, 1788; South Carolina, May 23, 1788; New Hampshire, June 21, 1788.

Ratification was completed on June 21, 1788.

The Constitution was subsequently ratified by Virginia, June 25, 1788; New York, July 26, 1788; North Carolina, November 21, 1789; Rhode Island, May 29, 1790; and Vermont, January 10, 1791.



**Second::
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0104090-0&templatename=/article/article.html

"The Federalist is the collective title for 85 essays signed "Publius" and published (1787-88) in various New York newspapers to convince New York voters to support ratification of the new Constitution of the United States. Sometimes called the Federalist Papers, they were published in book form in 1788. Although the authorship of certain essays is still disputed, the consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote 52, James Madison 28, and John Jay 5."

We need to consider the document in context. It was a published newsetter to the masses for argument and coersion FOR the Constitution while agreeing with New York that it may have shortcomings. Notice the dates above and when each state agreed to the Constitution against the date of the Federalist paper. In any debate, as you know, the best way to win is to concede on a few points.

Third

The document is a collection of writings by 3 individuals. Hamilton wrote the majority of it, and was the main organizer/starter or the Federalist Papers. As such, it was literally and figuratively, HIS. HE was also became a well respected and incredibly knowledgable lawyer. He knows what he is saying and why.

There were only 2 sides in the majority on this issue at the time: Confederalists (who wanted independent states) and Federalists (who wanted a ruling federal govt.). This document is to shed a dark light on the former and bright on the latter. As such, when the Constitution is a combination of both, by intent, the context cannot be used in this collection of papers to make the point he is trying to reach and to whom it is adressed.

Federalist paper #1 bores this out.

I think this is very plain - Hamilton argues that cases regarding the meaning of the Constitution will come before the federal courts, and that it is the judiciary's duty to ascertain the Constitution's meaning in such cases.


FEDERALIST No. 80
HAMILTON

"To all cases in law and equity, arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. This corresponds with the two first classes of causes, which have been enumerated, as proper for the jurisdiction of the United States. It has been asked, what is meant by "cases arising under the Constitution," in contradiction from those "arising under the laws of the United States"? The difference has been already explained. All the restrictions upon the authority of the State legislatures furnish examples of it. They are not, for instance, to emit paper money; but the interdiction results from the Constitution, and will have no connection with any law of the United States. Should paper money, notwithstanding, be emited, the controversies concerning it would be cases arising under the Constitution and not the laws of the United States, in the ordinary signification of the terms. This may serve as a sample of the whole."

This gets at the crux of the issue. In my previous example, you stated that no court would have the authority to judge between two Constitutional issues. Hamilton argues quite succinctly that any matter regarding the Constitution is under the jurisdiction of federal courts, using the issuance of paper money as an example (since the Federalist Papers predate the Bill of Rights).

I think it is clear, from one of the Constitution's greatest defenders, that the meaning of the Constitution and cases regarding the Constitution fall under federal jurisdiction.

-Which begs a second careful look.

Again, Lets look at his ability to be IN CONTEXT, and consider the context of HIS document.

If the federalist papers are an argument for New York, and the point is to persuade, we must consider the other point that he WAS A BRILLIANT LAWYER.

For understanding of the context of his point and view, lets look at Federalist # # 15:

Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms. The first kind can evidently apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity, be employed against bodies politic, or communities, or States. It is evident that there is no process of a court by which the observance of the laws can, in the last resort, be enforced. Sentences may be denounced against them for violations of their duty; but these sentences can only be carried into execution by the sword. In an association where the general authority is confined to the collective bodies of the communities, that compose it, every breach of the laws must involve a state of war; and military execution must become the only instrument of civil obedience. Such a state of things can certainly not deserve the name of government, nor would any prudent man choose to commit his happiness to it.

In other words, his view immediately here that the Federal Government as ALREADY ADRESSED in the Constitution does not provide for a proper jusctice system to enforce the laws.

When Article 6 of the Constitution is written:

" This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Are we then to believe he cannot understand the way it is written?
Has he not read it?
Is he not a high caliber lawyer?
He further states:

If, therefore, the measures of the Confederacy cannot be executed without the intervention of the particular administrations, there will be little prospect of their being executed at all. The rulers of the respective members, whether they have a constitutional right to do it or not, will undertake to judge of the propriety of the measures themselves. They will consider the conformity of the thing proposed or required to their immediate interests or aims; the momentary conveniences or inconveniences that would attend its adoption. All this will be done; and in a spirit of interested and suspicious scrutiny, without that knowledge of national circumstances and reasons of state, which is essential to a right judgment, and with that strong predilection in favor of local objects, which can hardly fail to mislead the decision. The same process must be repeated in every member of which the body is constituted; and the execution of the plans, framed by the councils of the whole, will always fluctuate on the discretion of the ill-informed and prejudiced opinion of every part. Those who have been conversant in the proceedings of popular assemblies; who have seen how difficult it often is, where there is no exterior pressure of circumstances, to bring them to harmonious resolutions on important points, will readily conceive how impossible it must be to induce a number of such assemblies, deliberating at a distance from each other, at different times, and under different impressions, long to co-operate in the same views and pursuits.

Therefore, clearly, he is not arguing anywhere in his documents the understanding in context of the Constitution.

He is stating the Conferacy vs the Federalist perspective and pitting any possible twisting of wording against the argument into his favor in alligning with New York.

As well, the simple point of mine has not been adressed:

IN CONTEXT, AND GIVEN THESE GUYS WERE EDUCATED-some even LAWYERS:

How can the point IN CONTEXT of that very Article claiming the Constitution the SUPREME AUTHORITY OVER ALL STATE LAW be justified with the Amendment process and supreme court authority you propose?

ONLY ONE WAY. -Given ALL points in the same document MUST BE IN CONTEXT, or the entire document is one-liner stand alone points, (which we both know it isn't), then it means:

"UNDER" means "beneath" in Section. 2.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...."

Hamilton, a lawyer and persuader of New York cannot mention that.

It would derail the entire point he was trying to make by making us a collective by authority of a document ibased on Confederacy using Federalist backing nstead of a Federal collective with Confederate principles.

The context of the Constitution, the context of the Federalist papers, the point of the goal of the Federalist papers, and the mere contradiction of a Constitutional Republic vs a Supreme Court monarchy in the same document if you are correct would be ignored nand denied.

That would be an impossibility.

 

[NewGuy]

Since this thread is less than a few new titles away from permanent erasure by archive, I have to consider it over.