Should the Supreme Court have the final say over what is Constitutional?

[Steerpike]

When there is no uniform application of law how can you have anything but chaos. What could prevent it? If there was a source of disagreement what was the source...those who could use chaos to maintain power and wealth?

No. You can see some of the quotes in my initial post. It was a legitimate agreement on how to structure the checks and balances, and some thought if any one branch had the final say it would tilt the balance. Some also felt that a small group of people insulated from the voters were the wrong branch to have this power, so they might instead have argued that the legislature should have the power. It was by no means as clear-cut as you are pretending.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Initially, the Constitution was set up to define the powers of the federal government. That was its purpose. Since then, it has also served to define the power of state and local governments.

At no point could a State simply ignore an act of the federal government because it didn't think it was Constitutional. But the federal government had to be acting within powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The sphere encompassing those powers has expanded greatly since the founding.

Agreed, but would you say that by defining the powers of the federal government the Constitution was intended to constrain the government from doing that which it did not give the government the power to do?

Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act was officially nullified by the legislatures of several New England states, Massachusetts being one of them. They said that the embargo was "unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional. While this state maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the state government."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

With all do respect Kevin would you stop quoting others and start thinking for yourself. I think the constitution, and the establishment of our country, was for the purpose of creating a just society for all members of society.

If not that, then we had no right nor reason to succeed from England...

Quotes are used to further my point, agreeing with something somebody else said does not necessarily mean you are not thinking for yourself. The states themselves were meant to create the just society you speak of, the federal government was meant to be an agent of the states.

 

[PeterS]

Marriage should not be acknowledged by the government at any level, it should be left to the churches which are private institutions. However, I doubt very seriously that the Constitution of Texas would give the state government the authority to define marriage in any such way, and I doubt the people of Texas would stand for any such nonsense.

Kevin, the people of Texas can rewrite their constitution anyway they want. You just ducked my question. Why? Let me repeat, do you think it was the founders intent to have a nation where there was no uniform application of justice? It's a simple question so just answer it...

 

[Steerpike]

Agreed, but would you say that by defining the powers of the federal government the Constitution was intended to constrain the government from doing that which it did not give the government the power to do?

Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act was officially nullified by the legislatures of several New England states, Massachusetts being one of them. They said that the embargo was "unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional. While this state maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the state government."

Sure...the point was to specifically define the powers of the federal government. That is inherently an exercise in limiting the power of the federal government, because any power not provided to them they aren't supposed to have.

Early on you did have some State's questioning the ability of the federal government to act. I see what you mean, now, and that is true. What I was getting at was if the Federal government acted in a manner that was duly authorized by the Constitution, the States aren't supposed to be able to ignore it.

People forget that the States then were really much more autonomous entities than they are today. The 'union' really was a way to bring them together under a common federal government that did the things you needed federal governments for, while leaving much of their internal matters to them.

 

[Steerpike]

Kevin, the people of Texas can rewrite their constitution anyway they want. You just ducked my question. Why? Let me repeat, do you think it was the founders intent to have a nation where there was no uniform application of justice? It's a simple question so just answer it...

It depends on the issue, Peter. In many ways, the Founders did intend precisely that. Each state had its own criminal law, common law, etc. The Founders did not intend in any way to unify that, and in fact they did not do so. That's why we still have conflicts of laws issues today, where the differing laws of various States necessitate different outcomes for the same set of facts.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, the people of Texas can rewrite their constitution anyway they want. You just ducked my question. Why? Let me repeat, do you think it was the founders intent to have a nation where there was no uniform application of justice? It's a simple question so just answer it...

They certainly can. How many of them do you think would support a measure that stopped two blue-eyed people from marrying each other? I am under the assumption that very few, if any, would support that type of nonsense. I certainly do believe that, that is why all the states had their own Constitutions.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sure...the point was to specifically define the powers of the federal government. That is inherently an exercise in limiting the power of the federal government, because any power not provided to them they aren't supposed to have.

Early on you did have some State's questioning the ability of the federal government to act. I see what you mean, now, and that is true. What I was getting at was if the Federal government acted in a manner that was duly authorized by the Constitution, the States aren't supposed to be able to ignore it.

People forget that the States then were really much more autonomous entities than they are today. The 'union' really was a way to bring them together under a common federal government that did the things you needed federal governments for, while leaving much of their internal matters to them.

Then we are in agreement.

 

[PeterS]

Quotes are used to further my point, agreeing with something somebody else said does not necessarily mean you are not thinking for yourself. The states themselves were meant to create the just society you speak of, the federal government was meant to be an agent of the states.

Kevin, your point is bull-shit and you are simply using quotes to perfume the stench. There can be no liberty without justice and you cannot have a just society without the uniform application of just law. And guess what Kevin, that statement backs itself up without the need for some 'authoritarian' quote. Gosh, how shocking what we find when we stop using others to affirm what we believe...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, your point is bull-shit and you are simply using quotes to perfume the stench. There can be no liberty without justice and you cannot have a just society without the uniform application of just law. And guess what Kevin, that statement backs itself up without the need for some 'authoritarian' quote. Gosh, how shocking what we find when we stop using others to affirm what we believe...

My point was that government is the enemy of liberty, history backs me up completely. You cannot have liberty or justice without constraining the government, with quotes or without it remains true.

 

[PeterS]

They certainly can. How many of them do you think would support a measure that stopped two blue-eyed people from marrying each other? I am under the assumption that very few, if any, would support that type of nonsense. I certainly do believe that, that is why all the states had their own Constitutions.

God Kevin, you really are showing your chicken-shit side. Just answer the question: Was it the intent of the founders to create a nation where justice was arbitrary state to state? This really is yes or no. Whats the problem?

 

[PeterS]

My point was that government is the enemy of liberty, history backs me up completely. You cannot have liberty or justice without constraining the government, with quotes or without it remains true.

How can you have liberty without justice? Tell me!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

God Kevin, you really are showing your chicken-shit side. Just answer the question: Was it the intent of the founders to create a nation where justice was arbitrary state to state? This really is yes or no. Whats the problem?

Well, apparently you didn't read my post because I certainly did answer your question.

 

[PeterS]

Well, apparently you didn't read my post because I certainly did answer your question.

So justice was supposed to be arbitrary? Then what is the purpose of the federal government?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How can you have liberty without justice? Tell me!

I certainly do not find it necessary to answer those that feel the need to be rude when addressing me, which you have done in this thread many times over. Keep this in mind for future reference.

That being said, I did not say you could have liberty without justice. I said that government is the enemy of both, and it must be constrained to preserve them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So justice was supposed to be arbitrary? Then what is the purpose of the federal government?

To be the agent of the states. Justice was to be upheld by the individual states.

 

[Steerpike]

God Kevin, you really are showing your chicken-shit side. Just answer the question: Was it the intent of the founders to create a nation where justice was arbitrary state to state? This really is yes or no. Whats the problem?

You've failed to respond to my previous reply on this. You may not have seen it. But it was certainly the intent to create a system where criminal law and civil law vary from State to State. This is still true today and was more true at the Founding. The Federal Government was created to fulfill role that were difficult for the semi-autonomous, independent States to fulfill. Since that time, the system has evolved into what we have today.

 

[Steerpike]

So justice was supposed to be arbitrary? Then what is the purpose of the federal government?

Just because law varies from State to State does not mean the law is arbitrary.

 

[PeterS]

I certainly do not find it necessary to answer those that feel the need to be rude when addressing me, which you have done in this thread many times over. Keep this in mind for future reference.

That being said, I did not say you could have liberty without justice. I said that government is the enemy of both, and it must be constrained to preserve them.

God, grow up. The rudeness comes from your instance on bull-shit and the refusal to engage your own brain in arguments. I could really give a shit about a cherry picked quotes and especially when they are nonsense as your Miles quote. What do you mean by restraining government and how can you have a just society when government has no right to enforce uniform justice? If you are trying to stop government from enforcing justice and liberty how is it you think you have either?

 

[PeterS]

Just because law varies from State to State does not mean the law is arbitrary.

Then what does it mean? If someone can marry in one state but not another that isn't arbitrary?