The Supreme Court: Don't Get Your Hopes Up

[PoliticalChic]

What we refer to as 'The Supreme Court' is far from what the Founders intended for a court.
This is not a body of honorable civil servants who consider their charge as aligning legislation with the Constitution....rather, they insist on injecting their own views in place of that noble document.

Why?

Human nature, self aggrandizement, desire for status and power, have corrupted the Court from the start.
But.... it was the machinations of the 32nd President that forever changed the role of the Court.
Read this thread...and you will weep for the late, great, United States of America, the one memorialized in said document.




1. To begin with, there is the theory the Supreme Court operates based on certain enduring principles...
It is the idea of principles that give the authenticity to the Supreme Court. Their stated mission is to refer to the law of the land, the United States Constitution, and make judgments about laws brought before them based on the Constitution.

Get that???

They should make their pronouncements... not based on habits, customs, some concept of an 'evolving society,' or even practices in effect at the time, ...only on the Constitution.
After all....the Constitution is written in the lingua franca....English....hence hardly requiring "interpretation."

The Dred Scott Case is a perfect example of what happens when some geographic custom is used as the test: a human being is relegated to the condition of a piece of furniture.



2. If court decision are, rightly, based on enduring principles, those found in the Constitution, one would not expect wholesale reversals in court decisions, as principles remain immutable.
It ended under the auspices of Franklin Roosevelt.

While it gave more power to the government.... it hurt the American people.

".... the Supreme Court outlawed the NRA in 1935 and the AAA in 1936, earning Roosevelt’s eternal wrath and derision. Recognizing much of what Roosevelt did as unconstitutional, the “nine old men” of the Court also threw out other, more minor acts and programs which hindered recovery. Freed from the worst of the New Deal, the economy showed some signs of life. Unemployment dropped to 18 percent in 1935, 14 percent in 1936, and even lower in 1937.

But by 1938, it was back up to nearly 20 percent as the economy slumped again. The stock market crashed nearly 50 percent between August 1937 and March 1938. The “economic stimulus” of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal had achieved a real “first”: a depression within a depression!"
http://fee.org/freeman/great-myths-of-the-great-depression/

And it is because a pretend dictator made his whims and wished replace the voluntary transactions of the free market.



Any still believe we can get the toothpaste back in the tube?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What we refer to as 'The Supreme Court' is far from what the Founders intended for a court.
This is not a body of honorable civil servants who consider their charge as aligning legislation with the Constitution....rather, they insist on injecting their own views in place of that noble document.

Why?

Human nature, self aggrandizement, desire for status and power, have corrupted the Court from the start.
But.... it was the machinations of the 32nd President that forever changed the role of the Court.
Read this thread...and you will weep for the late, great, United States of America, the one memorialized in said document.




1. To begin with, there is the theory the Supreme Court operates based on certain enduring principles...
It is the idea of principles that give the authenticity to the Supreme Court. Their stated mission is to refer to the law of the land, the United States Constitution, and make judgments about laws brought before them based on the Constitution.

Get that???

They should make their pronouncements... not based on habits, customs, some concept of an 'evolving society,' or even practices in effect at the time, ...only on the Constitution.
After all....the Constitution is written in the lingua franca....English....hence hardly requiring "interpretation."

The Dred Scott Case is a perfect example of what happens when some geographic custom is used as the test: a human being is relegated to the condition of a piece of furniture.



2. If court decision are, rightly, based on enduring principles, those found in the Constitution, one would not expect wholesale reversals in court decisions, as principles remain immutable.
It ended under the auspices of Franklin Roosevelt.

While it gave more power to the government.... it hurt the American people.

".... the Supreme Court outlawed the NRA in 1935 and the AAA in 1936, earning Roosevelt’s eternal wrath and derision. Recognizing much of what Roosevelt did as unconstitutional, the “nine old men” of the Court also threw out other, more minor acts and programs which hindered recovery. Freed from the worst of the New Deal, the economy showed some signs of life. Unemployment dropped to 18 percent in 1935, 14 percent in 1936, and even lower in 1937.

But by 1938, it was back up to nearly 20 percent as the economy slumped again. The stock market crashed nearly 50 percent between August 1937 and March 1938. The “economic stimulus” of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal had achieved a real “first”: a depression within a depression!"
The FEE Store

And it is because a pretend dictator made his whims and wished replace the voluntary transactions of the free market.



Any still believe we can get the toothpaste back in the tube?

FDR's Losing Battle To Pack The Supreme Court

In Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, Shesol examines Roosevelt's frustration with the conservative judicial branch throughout his administration — and his attempt, shortly after his re-election in 1936, to pack the Supreme Court with as many as six additional justices.

Like a petulant spoiled little child, when FDR couldn't get his way, he tried by nook or crook, any attempt to make his Socialist Policies FORCED upon the US citizens. Thank God, that Congress slapped the little baby down.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

No, we can not get the toothpaste back in the tube. We will continue to move down the path of liberalism-socialism, and will eventually be replaced as the eminent world power. Like all the once great powers of Europe, we too will be relagated to a secondary player and will have to tolerate our place in the world as it is defined by those more powerful beyond our borders.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What we refer to as 'The Supreme Court' is far from what the Founders intended for a court.
This is not a body of honorable civil servants who consider their charge as aligning legislation with the Constitution....rather, they insist on injecting their own views in place of that noble document.

Why?

Human nature, self aggrandizement, desire for status and power, have corrupted the Court from the start.
But.... it was the machinations of the 32nd President that forever changed the role of the Court.
Read this thread...and you will weep for the late, great, United States of America, the one memorialized in said document.




1. To begin with, there is the theory the Supreme Court operates based on certain enduring principles...
It is the idea of principles that give the authenticity to the Supreme Court. Their stated mission is to refer to the law of the land, the United States Constitution, and make judgments about laws brought before them based on the Constitution.

Get that???

They should make their pronouncements... not based on habits, customs, some concept of an 'evolving society,' or even practices in effect at the time, ...only on the Constitution.
After all....the Constitution is written in the lingua franca....English....hence hardly requiring "interpretation."

The Dred Scott Case is a perfect example of what happens when some geographic custom is used as the test: a human being is relegated to the condition of a piece of furniture.



2. If court decision are, rightly, based on enduring principles, those found in the Constitution, one would not expect wholesale reversals in court decisions, as principles remain immutable.
It ended under the auspices of Franklin Roosevelt.

While it gave more power to the government.... it hurt the American people.

".... the Supreme Court outlawed the NRA in 1935 and the AAA in 1936, earning Roosevelt’s eternal wrath and derision. Recognizing much of what Roosevelt did as unconstitutional, the “nine old men” of the Court also threw out other, more minor acts and programs which hindered recovery. Freed from the worst of the New Deal, the economy showed some signs of life. Unemployment dropped to 18 percent in 1935, 14 percent in 1936, and even lower in 1937.

But by 1938, it was back up to nearly 20 percent as the economy slumped again. The stock market crashed nearly 50 percent between August 1937 and March 1938. The “economic stimulus” of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal had achieved a real “first”: a depression within a depression!"
The FEE Store

And it is because a pretend dictator made his whims and wished replace the voluntary transactions of the free market.



Any still believe we can get the toothpaste back in the tube?

FDR's Losing Battle To Pack The Supreme Court

In Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, Shesol examines Roosevelt's frustration with the conservative judicial branch throughout his administration — and his attempt, shortly after his re-election in 1936, to pack the Supreme Court with as many as six additional justices.

Like a petulant spoiled little child, when FDR couldn't get his way, he tried by nook or crook, any attempt to make his Socialist Policies FORCED upon the US citizens. Thank God, that Congress slapped the little baby down.

View attachment 119156

But he did get his way....

I'm gonna cover that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, we can not get the toothpaste back in the tube. We will continue to move down the path of liberalism-socialism, and will eventually be replaced as the eminent world power. Like all the once great powers of Europe, we too will be relagated to a secondary player and will have to tolerate our place in the world as it is defined by those more powerful beyond our borders.

Sad but true.

Still....let's not go down without a fight.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What we refer to as 'The Supreme Court' is far from what the Founders intended for a court.
This is not a body of honorable civil servants who consider their charge as aligning legislation with the Constitution....rather, they insist on injecting their own views in place of that noble document.

Why?

Human nature, self aggrandizement, desire for status and power, have corrupted the Court from the start.
But.... it was the machinations of the 32nd President that forever changed the role of the Court.
Read this thread...and you will weep for the late, great, United States of America, the one memorialized in said document.




1. To begin with, there is the theory the Supreme Court operates based on certain enduring principles...
It is the idea of principles that give the authenticity to the Supreme Court. Their stated mission is to refer to the law of the land, the United States Constitution, and make judgments about laws brought before them based on the Constitution.

Get that???

They should make their pronouncements... not based on habits, customs, some concept of an 'evolving society,' or even practices in effect at the time, ...only on the Constitution.
After all....the Constitution is written in the lingua franca....English....hence hardly requiring "interpretation."

The Dred Scott Case is a perfect example of what happens when some geographic custom is used as the test: a human being is relegated to the condition of a piece of furniture.



2. If court decision are, rightly, based on enduring principles, those found in the Constitution, one would not expect wholesale reversals in court decisions, as principles remain immutable.
It ended under the auspices of Franklin Roosevelt.

While it gave more power to the government.... it hurt the American people.

".... the Supreme Court outlawed the NRA in 1935 and the AAA in 1936, earning Roosevelt’s eternal wrath and derision. Recognizing much of what Roosevelt did as unconstitutional, the “nine old men” of the Court also threw out other, more minor acts and programs which hindered recovery. Freed from the worst of the New Deal, the economy showed some signs of life. Unemployment dropped to 18 percent in 1935, 14 percent in 1936, and even lower in 1937.

But by 1938, it was back up to nearly 20 percent as the economy slumped again. The stock market crashed nearly 50 percent between August 1937 and March 1938. The “economic stimulus” of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal had achieved a real “first”: a depression within a depression!"
The FEE Store

And it is because a pretend dictator made his whims and wished replace the voluntary transactions of the free market.



Any still believe we can get the toothpaste back in the tube?

FDR's Losing Battle To Pack The Supreme Court

In Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, Shesol examines Roosevelt's frustration with the conservative judicial branch throughout his administration — and his attempt, shortly after his re-election in 1936, to pack the Supreme Court with as many as six additional justices.

Like a petulant spoiled little child, when FDR couldn't get his way, he tried by nook or crook, any attempt to make his Socialist Policies FORCED upon the US citizens. Thank God, that Congress slapped the little baby down.

View attachment 119156

3. What happened to the court between the decisions where Roosevelt was found to be unconstitutional, and where, suddenly, his actions were rubber-stamped? How did the court reverse itself vis-a-vis its principles?

The answer is that Franklin Roosevelt found a way to smash the central pillar on which our Constitution stands: checks and balances.

For our nation to succeed and to thrive, the Founders, classical liberals, what are known as conservatives today, tried to harness and control human nature by playing off one view, one motive, against an opposing one. While one branch can write laws, and another can veto them, conflicts were to be judged by a third branch that used the words of the Constitution to judge who was correct.




Madison wrote, in Federalist #47, "No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." The Federalist #47



How did Roosevelt corrupt this plan?



Coming right up.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

No, we can not get the toothpaste back in the tube. We will continue to move down the path of liberalism-socialism, and will eventually be replaced as the eminent world power. Like all the once great powers of Europe, we too will be relagated to a secondary player and will have to tolerate our place in the world as it is defined by those more powerful beyond our borders.

Sad but true.

Still....let's not go down without a fight.

No doubt. Delay the inevitable as long as possible, and stem the evils of socialism at every opportunity.

 

[Moonglow]

What we refer to as 'The Supreme Court' is far from what the Founders intended for a court.
This is not a body of honorable civil servants who consider their charge as aligning legislation with the Constitution....rather, they insist on injecting their own views in place of that noble document.

Why?

Human nature, self aggrandizement, desire for status and power, have corrupted the Court from the start.
But.... it was the machinations of the 32nd President that forever changed the role of the Court.
Read this thread...and you will weep for the late, great, United States of America, the one memorialized in said document.




1. To begin with, there is the theory the Supreme Court operates based on certain enduring principles...
It is the idea of principles that give the authenticity to the Supreme Court. Their stated mission is to refer to the law of the land, the United States Constitution, and make judgments about laws brought before them based on the Constitution.

Get that???

They should make their pronouncements... not based on habits, customs, some concept of an 'evolving society,' or even practices in effect at the time, ...only on the Constitution.
After all....the Constitution is written in the lingua franca....English....hence hardly requiring "interpretation."

The Dred Scott Case is a perfect example of what happens when some geographic custom is used as the test: a human being is relegated to the condition of a piece of furniture.



2. If court decision are, rightly, based on enduring principles, those found in the Constitution, one would not expect wholesale reversals in court decisions, as principles remain immutable.
It ended under the auspices of Franklin Roosevelt.

While it gave more power to the government.... it hurt the American people.

".... the Supreme Court outlawed the NRA in 1935 and the AAA in 1936, earning Roosevelt’s eternal wrath and derision. Recognizing much of what Roosevelt did as unconstitutional, the “nine old men” of the Court also threw out other, more minor acts and programs which hindered recovery. Freed from the worst of the New Deal, the economy showed some signs of life. Unemployment dropped to 18 percent in 1935, 14 percent in 1936, and even lower in 1937.

But by 1938, it was back up to nearly 20 percent as the economy slumped again. The stock market crashed nearly 50 percent between August 1937 and March 1938. The “economic stimulus” of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal had achieved a real “first”: a depression within a depression!"
The FEE Store

And it is because a pretend dictator made his whims and wished replace the voluntary transactions of the free market.



Any still believe we can get the toothpaste back in the tube?

Sure you can, all it takes is a pressurized tube to force it back in..

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. How could Roosevelt believe that he could co-opt one of the three branches created by the founders?

For one thing, he was a megalomaniac, with the desire to wield the sort of power his pals Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin did.



And Roosevelt had several things going for him. Primarily, he understood the fear gripping the nation due to the recession he inherited...which propelled him to his first electoral victory. Recession.
He turned it into the Great Depression.

A very strong argument can be made that he never had any intention of solving the recession, and, by breaking every promise he made while running of the presidency, fully intended to magnify same. The only other alternative to this view was that Roosevelt was abysmally stupid...and just kept making mistakes.
I choose the former view.


And, a close second as an explanation for what happened, was that he was a most astute politician. He could use charm and clout to force other members of government to do his bidding.




5. In 1937, Roosevelt tried to pack the judiciary, and in 1938 attempted to purge Democrat Senators who defeated the scheme.

a. Senator Ashurst of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, denounced court packing as a "prelude to tyranny," but, when Roosevelt announced it, issued a one-line statement late that afternoon saying he was in "favor of the President's proposal."

b. Democrat Carter Glass of Virginia, explained it as follows: "Why, if the President asked Congress to commit suicide tomorrow they'd do it." http://politicalquotes.org/node/33486


Can you imagine that sort of power???
Power to turn American government from three branches into two.

 

[Moonglow]

See what happens when landed gentry from aristocrats get elected?

 

[CeeCee]

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 119175

As I pointed out in this thread, the Supreme Court is not what the Founders intended it to be.


Please try to articulate your point so we can ......discuss...it.

I believe you will find that we agree.

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR had the power to turn American government from three branches into two.



6. So, on the one hand we had the views of the Founders, embodied in the Constitution, and based on three separate and independent branches of government.

On the other hand, a flesh and blood powerful politician, close and envious of the powers of other dictators of the era, and shrewd enough to use the peoples' fear of the economic downturn to embellish his power.



One can see the result: a Congress ready to do his bidding, and a Supreme Court willing to see the unconstitutional as constitutional.



Changes were coming for America. In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone." http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/12659017/



FDR.....extended the economic downturn so as to increase his power, turned the Supreme Court into his personal rubber stamp, and made certain that Stalin and Communism survived WWII.

Quite an epitaph.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Framers founded a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


7. On April 12, 1937, the United States ceased to be a republic of limited constitutional government. The Supreme Court upheld the Wagner Labor Relations Act. No longer would the enumerated powers of the Constitution apply....now we would be a European model welfare state, in which the national legislature has power to regulate industry, agriculture, and virtually all the activities of the citizens.
The coda came when the court upheld the Social Security Act on May 24, 1937, and, then, the compulsory marketing quotas of the new AAA, on April 17, 1936.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution,"p. 68-69



Wagner..., a New Deal-era senator, had authored 1935’s Wagner Act requiring collective bargaining in the private sector.
With Friends Like These

The private sector!
Suddenly.....the federal government became a dictatorship.



8. Why was this wrong? Because the United States was created based on federalism: "In a federal system where sovereignty is shared between a central governing authority and constituent political units, power is also divided. The central governing authority has certain exclusive federal powers, the constituent political units have certain powers (sometimes known as states' rights), and there may be a number of shared concurrent powers." Federalism - Wikipedia



Article 1, section 8 succinctly spells out the powers authorized to the federal government. The Supreme Court should have made and verified the clear line, the distinctions, between the central governments authorizations...and those of the states.

The line was erased under Franklin Roosevelt.



" No longer would the enumerated powers of the Constitution apply........ the national legislature has power to regulate industry, agriculture, and virtually all the activities of the citizens."



Sooooo.....no matter who is put on the Supreme Court......

....don't get your hopes up.

 

[easyt65]

Gorsuch will be the next USSC Justice....it will be the biggest 'NUKE' since Hiroshima.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gorsuch will be the next USSC Justice....it will be the biggest 'NUKE' since Hiroshima.

A step in the right direction.

It will help those of us who are believers.....

But will it change the nature of this Frankenstein-version Supreme Court?


I doubt it.




One can hope.

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 119175

Thank you CeeCee
1. Wasn't it Marbury v Madison that started
the business of Judicial review? And don't
some hardcore Constitutionalists still question
that authority to this day?

2. I always questioned judicial precedent by case law,
because bad interpretations could repeat without correction.
but I understand it also means LEGISLATION should create
or change laws, NOT JUDICIAL RULINGS.

3. Wasn't it Jefferson who said the ultimate check on
govt was reason and common sense among the people.

Ironically Jefferson did not believe leaders should PANDER
to public opinion either. He did believe it was sometimes possible
or necessary for leaders to make divinely guided judgment that
went against popular opinion, if God had some higher wisdom or reasons
that perhaps the public did not know.

Either way I find this dangerously close to believing in divine right to rule
if people put faith in govt, either judges or presidents to make decisions
for people instead of arriving at decisions by consensus that represents
the public interests.

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 119175

Thank you CeeCee
1. Wasn't it Marbury v Madison that started
the business of Judicial review? And don't
some hardcore Constitutionalists still question
that authority to this day?

2. I always questioned judicial precedent by case law,
because bad interpretations could repeat without correction.
but I understand it also means LEGISLATION should create
or change laws, NOT JUDICIAL RULINGS.

3. Wasn't it Jefferson who said the ultimate check on
govt was reason and common sense among the people.

Ironically Jefferson did not believe leaders should PANDER
to public opinion either. He did believe it was sometimes possible
or necessary for leaders to make divinely guided judgment that
went against popular opinion, if God had some higher wisdom or reasons
that perhaps the public did not know.

Either way I find this dangerously close to believing in divine right to rule
if people put faith in govt, either judges or presidents to make decisions
for people instead of arriving at decisions by consensus that represents
the public interests.

1. John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, drawing on Hamilton’s Federalist #78, by which the Court had authority to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

2. "And don't
some hardcore Constitutionalists still question
that authority to this day?"
What the heck is a "hardcore Constitutionalist"???


3. The problem hidden in there is exactly what the authority of the Court is.
It was embezzlement from the start....
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. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As they own the schools and the media, the simpleminded have been trained to foam at the mouth whenever they hear the phrase "states rights."

a. Again: the understanding of the colonies that ratified the Constitution was one in which they retained a degree of sovereignty.




5. But, in 1793, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state (Chisholm v. Georgia).

a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism



This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The Courts formed an illicit bond with the executive branch, advancing unlimited powers.

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 119175

Thank you CeeCee
1. Wasn't it Marbury v Madison that started
the business of Judicial review? And don't
some hardcore Constitutionalists still question
that authority to this day?

2. I always questioned judicial precedent by case law,
because bad interpretations could repeat without correction.
but I understand it also means LEGISLATION should create
or change laws, NOT JUDICIAL RULINGS.

3. Wasn't it Jefferson who said the ultimate check on
govt was reason and common sense among the people.

Ironically Jefferson did not believe leaders should PANDER
to public opinion either. He did believe it was sometimes possible
or necessary for leaders to make divinely guided judgment that
went against popular opinion, if God had some higher wisdom or reasons
that perhaps the public did not know.

Either way I find this dangerously close to believing in divine right to rule
if people put faith in govt, either judges or presidents to make decisions
for people instead of arriving at decisions by consensus that represents
the public interests.

1. John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, drawing on Hamilton’s Federalist #78, by which the Court had authority to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

2. "And don't
some hardcore Constitutionalists still question
that authority to this day?"
What the heck is a "hardcore Constitutionalist"???


3. The problem hidden in there is exactly what the authority of the Court is.
It was embezzlement from the start....
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. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As they own the schools and the media, the simpleminded have been trained to foam at the mouth whenever they hear the phrase "states rights."

a. Again: the understanding of the colonies that ratified the Constitution was one in which they retained a degree of sovereignty.




5. But, in 1793, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state (Chisholm v. Georgia).

a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism



This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The Courts formed an illicit bond with the executive branch, advancing unlimited powers.

Hi PoliticalChic
A. what I mean by hardcore Constitutionalist
is the equivalent of someone taking the Bible "literally" and will not
accept any changes or interpretations, additions like the Federal
Reserve, they deem to be contrary to the original Articles.
I know some Libertarians who are so hardcore they will
reject most of govt and it is hard to work on reform if
they already consider the current programs/policies to be VOID.

B. For your post above, I would say only where people/states
CONSENT to give the federal govt authority to settle disputes
is this so. Otherwise, just like with our religious beliefs,
if we disagree in our political beliefs; NO I do NOT see people
agreeing to give up consent and authority to federal govt to decide.

The liberals I know agree to this WHEN GOVT RULES IN THEIR FAVOR.
but the minute the ruling conflicts with their beliefs they claim
"separation of church and state" which is the liberal equivalent
of saying religious freedom or civil liberties without govt infringement.

 

[task0778]

Maybe we should consider appointing federal judges to a 10 year term instead of a life time.