The U.S. Constitution

[Polk]

Too bad the framers did not put in a clause in the Constitution that gave the Court the power to interpret the Constitution. A short clause would have done it, but nothing. Did the Court then make law in Marbury?

Yes. Most people without a legal background find the notion odd, but the purpose of appellate courts is to apply these foundation legal doctrines that exist outside and predate the Constitutional framework.

And a clause granting judicial review would not have strengthened the Court. The Court's power of review is pretty firmly ingrained at this point. The bigger threat is lack of enforcement power.

Executive's job, but it reminds me of Jackson's supposed, let the court enfoce it.

The Jacksonian threat was an important one, and if you'll recall, the Court backed down to keep it from spread. The same idea has a lot of life for the next 30-40 years, and often for causes we'd consider good and noble. Lincoln's speech on Dred Scott refers to this idea that the Court is not the ultimate arbiter of the laws.

 

[Foxfyre]

I went with the version inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial

Jefferson clearly acknowledged that the needs of the people would change over time. The amendment process is to change the Constitution not to block judicial interpretation

Those who signed the Constitution were willing to kick the slavery can down the road. It resulted in war and 600,000 dead Americans

Still keeping it honest. . . .

Cato Institute Fellow and University of Alberta history professor emeritus Ronald Hamowy has called the inscriptions "[p]erhaps the most egregious examples of invoking Jefferson for purely transient political purposes." Hamowy argues that:

Planned and built during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the walls of the memorial are adorned with quotations from Jefferson’s writings, many of which suggest that Jefferson advocated positions consistent with the aims of the New Deal—with which he would, in fact, have had little sympathy. Thus, Jefferson’s admonition that an educated electorate was essential if liberty were to be preserved is transmuted into a call for universal public education. And his caution that man, as he advances in his understanding of the world, must accompany his greater enlightenment with changes in his social institutions becomes a justification for a new theory of government in keeping with the social-democratic principles that animated the New Deal.[17]. . . .
Jefferson Memorial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really should quit while you're ahead. If you are trying to make a case for a different version of Jeffersonian philosophy, you're going to have to do with it with his own words, and not what some liberal wants him to have said.

Interesting historical spin

Still doesn't negate the fact that Jefferson acknowledged the needs of future generations to establish the government they need and doesn't change the quote

Hamowy is a "libertarian" historian. So, of course his historical interpretations will reflect those views

His views are the same views as all honest historians. Libertarianism has nothing to do with that. I learned of the dishonesty of the quotations on the Jefferson Memorial in college. Long before there was a Cato Institute. And probably before Harnowy was born.

But yes Jefferson did understand that there would be need for amendment to the Constitution. After all he didn't get everything he wantedin the Constitution. Nobody did. But those who signed it were of one mind. The federal government should have no power over the affairs of the people other than that specifically set down in the Constitution. That to them was the foundation of what freedom was.

 

[Polk]

Jefferson wasn't involved in the writing of the Constitution. He was serving as ambassador to France at the time it was written. Any honest reading of his writings shows he was much closer to opponents of the Constitution than he was to its supporters.

 

[regent]

Jefferson wasn't involved in the writing of the Constitution. He was serving as ambassador to France at the time it was written. Any honest reading of his writings shows he was much closer to opponents of the Constitution than he was to its supporters.

Not being at the convention Jefferson had some fears about the convention activities. But in the end his major fear was a lack of a Bill of Rights which was added soon after ratification. In the end Jefferson said, "The Constitution... is unquestionably the wisest ever presented to men."

 

[Montrovant]

Still keeping it honest. . . .


You really should quit while you're ahead. If you are trying to make a case for a different version of Jeffersonian philosophy, you're going to have to do with it with his own words, and not what some liberal wants him to have said.

Interesting historical spin

Still doesn't negate the fact that Jefferson acknowledged the needs of future generations to establish the government they need and doesn't change the quote

Hamowy is a "libertarian" historian. So, of course his historical interpretations will reflect those views

His views are the same views as all honest historians. Libertarianism has nothing to do with that. I learned of the dishonesty of the quotations on the Jefferson Memorial in college. Long before there was a Cato Institute. And probably before Harnowy was born.

But yes Jefferson did understand that there would be need for amendment to the Constitution. After all he didn't get everything he wantedin the Constitution. Nobody did. But those who signed it were of one mind. The federal government should have no power over the affairs of the people other than that specifically set down in the Constitution. That to them was the foundation of what freedom was.

Were they of one mind? I have more than once read that the original constitutional convention was one of heated debate, argument, acrimony, and that the final constitution they agreed upon was filled with many compromises.

Having said that, do you perhaps mean that they agreed in the end the fed shouldn't have power not specifically set down in the constitution?

 

[Polk]

Jefferson wasn't involved in the writing of the Constitution. He was serving as ambassador to France at the time it was written. Any honest reading of his writings shows he was much closer to opponents of the Constitution than he was to its supporters.

Not being at the convention Jefferson had some fears about the convention activities. But in the end his major fear was a lack of a Bill of Rights which was added soon after ratification. In the end Jefferson said, "The Constitution... is unquestionably the wisest ever presented to men."

He was coming to terms with something he had no power to stop.

 

[Foxfyre]

Jefferson indeed did not write the text of the Constitution and he didn't participate in the debates leading up to its signing. But that should not be interpreted that he didn't particpate in the process itself or had no part in it. A rough draft was presented to him in France for his input and he was the ringleader for the addition of the Bill of Rights. Working from memory here, but I believe it was somebody named Morris, a governor, who served as secretary and actually wrote the text as it was input by those who deliberated for some 100 days over the wording. Because he had the most influence, Madison gets the honor of "The Father of the Constitution."

 

[P@triot]

Too bad the framers did not put in a clause in the Constitution that gave the Court the power to interpret the Constitution. A short clause would have done it, but nothing. Did the Court then make law in Marbury?

That's like saying too bad the laws don't allow us to launder money...

The entire point of the Constitution was to prevent power in the hands of one or a small group. Giving anyone the power to interpret it would have been catastrophic.

The Constitution is set in stone and the only way it changes is through the amendment process.

 

[Foxfyre]

Interesting historical spin

Still doesn't negate the fact that Jefferson acknowledged the needs of future generations to establish the government they need and doesn't change the quote

Hamowy is a "libertarian" historian. So, of course his historical interpretations will reflect those views

His views are the same views as all honest historians. Libertarianism has nothing to do with that. I learned of the dishonesty of the quotations on the Jefferson Memorial in college. Long before there was a Cato Institute. And probably before Harnowy was born.

But yes Jefferson did understand that there would be need for amendment to the Constitution. After all he didn't get everything he wantedin the Constitution. Nobody did. But those who signed it were of one mind. The federal government should have no power over the affairs of the people other than that specifically set down in the Constitution. That to them was the foundation of what freedom was.

Were they of one mind? I have more than once read that the original constitutional convention was one of heated debate, argument, acrimony, and that the final constitution they agreed upon was filled with many compromises.

Having said that, do you perhaps mean that they agreed in the end the fed shouldn't have power not specifically set down in the constitution?

You are right that it took them seven years of debate, discussion, and fighting for various concepts that would be included in the Constitution and no doubt those discussions were sometimes heated. Most specially in the hundred working days they argued out the exact wording of the Constitution itself. And in the end all but two of them signed the final document and did so with clear conscience and without reservation. If only our current leaders would put so much thought into and could defend current legislation with as much integrity.

It was precisely because they didn't agree on everything that certain things were omitted from the final text and other things were worded the way they were. In the end, they nevertheless gave us an incredible document that allowed a free people to forge a great nation.

 

[auditor0007]

*225 years ago today, on September 17, 1787, thirty-nine of our Founding Fathers signed the United States Constitution with the hope of providing all citizens the right to life, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. Seventeen months later, it would be fully ratified and became the supreme law of the land. It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

In my opinion, somewhere along the way, I think many, maybe most, Americans have lost sight of what the Founders intended to accomplish with that amazing document. And if America is to be restored to its former greatness, that intent must be relearned and understood again.

In a nutshell:

1. The Constitution was intended to recognize and protect our unlienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2. The Constitution was intended to provide a system within which the various states could function as one united nation and to regulate those processes and resources that the states would of necessity share.

3. The Constitution was intended to allow the states to organize and implement their own social contract and laws to enforce it without interference from the federal government so long as one state did not interfere with another.

This is my opinion. Do you have a different point of view?

While the Constitution was intended to allow states to implement their own social contract and laws, the founding fathers saw a society that was not so interconnected as it is today. I'm not certain they could have imagined how commerce and everything in our daily lives are so intertwined. Distance today is pretty much meaningless and as we are one nation, I believe that many things that should have been left up to the individual states today must be addressed by the federal government, or at least that some direction should be given to the states so that most of our laws are somewhat on the same page.

As much as I hate getting to abortion, it is a prime example of this. While Constitutionalists would insist that abortion should only be determined by each individual state, how does that make sense today? There really should be some consistency in our laws, especially when it comes to the bigger issues. That doesn't mean there can't be any deviation in laws, but to say abortion should be completely legal in one state with absolutely no restrictions, and then another state does not allow for them under any circumstance, that just doesn't make sense.

Overall though, I think that has become to be understood and that is why the courts have ruled on such things in the favor of some type of uniformity in our laws.

 

[rightwinger]

*225 years ago today, on September 17, 1787, thirty-nine of our Founding Fathers signed the United States Constitution with the hope of providing all citizens the right to life, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. Seventeen months later, it would be fully ratified and became the supreme law of the land. It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

In my opinion, somewhere along the way, I think many, maybe most, Americans have lost sight of what the Founders intended to accomplish with that amazing document. And if America is to be restored to its former greatness, that intent must be relearned and understood again.

In a nutshell:

1. The Constitution was intended to recognize and protect our unlienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2. The Constitution was intended to provide a system within which the various states could function as one united nation and to regulate those processes and resources that the states would of necessity share.

3. The Constitution was intended to allow the states to organize and implement their own social contract and laws to enforce it without interference from the federal government so long as one state did not interfere with another.

This is my opinion. Do you have a different point of view?

While the Constitution was intended to allow states to implement their own social contract and laws, the founding fathers saw a society that was not so interconnected as it is today. I'm not certain they could have imagined how commerce and everything in our daily lives are so intertwined. Distance today is pretty much meaningless and as we are one nation, I believe that many things that should have been left up to the individual states today must be addressed by the federal government, or at least that some direction should be given to the states so that most of our laws are somewhat on the same page.

As much as I hate getting to abortion, it is a prime example of this. While Constitutionalists would insist that abortion should only be determined by each individual state, how does that make sense today? There really should be some consistency in our laws, especially when it comes to the bigger issues. That doesn't mean there can't be any deviation in laws, but to say abortion should be completely legal in one state with absolutely no restrictions, and then another state does not allow for them under any circumstance, that just doesn't make sense.

Overall though, I think that has become to be understood and that is why the courts have ruled on such things in the favor of some type of uniformity in our laws.

The founding fathers had two choices

1. Small Government
2. Smaller Government

They chose option 2. Not because smaller government is the best choice, but because they were in heavy debt, were trying to convince the states to join, had an agrarian economy and were spread out to the point travel and communications between populated areas was inefficient

The Constitution is not a cookbook. It does not tell you how or what to cook. The bulk of the document establishes a framework of government in which future generations could face their own challenges

 

[Polk]

Too bad the framers did not put in a clause in the Constitution that gave the Court the power to interpret the Constitution. A short clause would have done it, but nothing. Did the Court then make law in Marbury?

That's like saying too bad the laws don't allow us to launder money...

The entire point of the Constitution was to prevent power in the hands of one or a small group. Giving anyone the power to interpret it would have been catastrophic.

The Constitution is set in stone and the only way it changes is through the amendment process.

The Constitution assigns all sorts of powers to different branches. President to enforce the law, Congress to pass laws. Did you think the Court should have struck down the Affordable Care Act? If so, you also buy in to the idea that the Court has the power of interpretation.

 

[eflatminor]

Did you think the Court should have struck down the Affordable Care Act? If so, you also buy in to the idea that the Court has the power of interpretation.

Bullshit. Show me which of the enumerated powers gives the feds the power to meddle with healthcare.

In allowing this horrendous act to stand, the court DID interpret. Hell, they made the case for the act IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE WAY that the government lawyers were arguing. The government's lawyers said "This is not a tax, it's covered under the commerce clause" to which the court said "No", but if you'd only consider it a tax, it's okay.

The court, acting as progressives do, found a way to shoehorn in a law that CLEARLY has no place in a document in which powers are specifically enumerated and made crystal clear with the 10th amendment. Healthcare is NOT among those powers. It is therefore a state issue.

The court interpreting the Constitution to find a way to make new law is exactly why Obamacare is still with us.

Ah, the central planners. They always know what's best for everyone else...

 

[Foxfyre]

Too bad the framers did not put in a clause in the Constitution that gave the Court the power to interpret the Constitution. A short clause would have done it, but nothing. Did the Court then make law in Marbury?

That's like saying too bad the laws don't allow us to launder money...

The entire point of the Constitution was to prevent power in the hands of one or a small group. Giving anyone the power to interpret it would have been catastrophic.

The Constitution is set in stone and the only way it changes is through the amendment process.

The Constitution assigns all sorts of powers to different branches. President to enforce the law, Congress to pass laws. Did you think the Court should have struck down the Affordable Care Act? If so, you also buy in to the idea that the Court has the power of interpretation.

Yes the Court should have struck down the Affordable Care Act for no other reason than there is no provision in the Constitution for the federal government to impose such an act on the people. There is no provision in the Constitution to require anybody to provide for somebody else. They Founders rightfully knew that if the government had the right to take property from one citizen for the benefit of another, there was no freedom, there was no recognition of unalienable rights, and the government assumed total power.

 

[Foxfyre]

I gotta go to the dentist. But I will be back. So far I have appreciated everybody's input as it all merits discussion whether or not we agree.

 

[oldfart]

Interesting historical spin

Still doesn't negate the fact that Jefferson acknowledged the needs of future generations to establish the government they need and doesn't change the quote

Hamowy is a "libertarian" historian. So, of course his historical interpretations will reflect those views

I have always wondered why people who mention this Jefferson quotation do not pair it with Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember, or overthrow ii."

 

[Foxfyre]

Interesting historical spin

Still doesn't negate the fact that Jefferson acknowledged the needs of future generations to establish the government they need and doesn't change the quote

Hamowy is a "libertarian" historian. So, of course his historical interpretations will reflect those views

I have always wondered why people who mention this Jefferson quotation do not pair it with Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember, or overthrow ii."

The straw poll for this thread suggests strong support for our Constitution and union though there also appears to be strong support for some restoration of understanding of key components.

My thread on Revolution produced far more mixed results but the straw poll and comments were interesting.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/238315-revolution.html

 

[Polk]

Did you think the Court should have struck down the Affordable Care Act? If so, you also buy in to the idea that the Court has the power of interpretation.

Bullshit. Show me which of the enumerated powers gives the feds the power to meddle with healthcare.

In allowing this horrendous act to stand, the court DID interpret. Hell, they made the case for the act IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE WAY that the government lawyers were arguing. The government's lawyers said "This is not a tax, it's covered under the commerce clause" to which the court said "No", but if you'd only consider it a tax, it's okay.

The court, acting as progressives do, found a way to shoehorn in a law that CLEARLY has no place in a document in which powers are specifically enumerated and made crystal clear with the 10th amendment. Healthcare is NOT among those powers. It is therefore a state issue.

The court interpreting the Constitution to find a way to make new law is exactly why Obamacare is still with us.

Ah, the central planners. They always know what's best for everyone else...

1. Striking down a law is far more interpretive, in that the Court would be substituting it's reading for that of Congress.
2. It's inaccurate to say the Court classified it as a tax. Exactly one justice did so (Roberts). The dissenters said Congress lacked the power entirely, while the concurrence said it was a valid use of commerce power.
3. It was a pretty huge shift to say the regulation does not fall under the commerce clause. The Court had to ignore a large amount of precedent to do it.

 

[eflatminor]

Did you think the Court should have struck down the Affordable Care Act? If so, you also buy in to the idea that the Court has the power of interpretation.

Bullshit. Show me which of the enumerated powers gives the feds the power to meddle with healthcare.

In allowing this horrendous act to stand, the court DID interpret. Hell, they made the case for the act IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE WAY that the government lawyers were arguing. The government's lawyers said "This is not a tax, it's covered under the commerce clause" to which the court said "No", but if you'd only consider it a tax, it's okay.

The court, acting as progressives do, found a way to shoehorn in a law that CLEARLY has no place in a document in which powers are specifically enumerated and made crystal clear with the 10th amendment. Healthcare is NOT among those powers. It is therefore a state issue.

The court interpreting the Constitution to find a way to make new law is exactly why Obamacare is still with us.

Ah, the central planners. They always know what's best for everyone else...

1. Striking down a law is far more interpretive, in that the Court would be substituting it's reading for that of Congress.

When Congress passes a law that is not with in the framework of the enumerated powers, that's exactly what the court is supposed to do. It's not 'interpretive', it's what's legal.

2. It's inaccurate to say the Court classified it as a tax. Exactly one justice did so (Roberts). The dissenters said Congress lacked the power entirely, while the concurrence said it was a valid use of commerce power.

Fine. It still required judges to find a way to shoehorn the law into the Constitution instead of simply acknowledging that there is no enumerated power regarding healthcare. This is the heart of Progressive legal agenda, interpreting the words of the document to find a way to expand government power beyond the original intent.

3. It was a pretty huge shift to say the regulation does not fall under the commerce clause. The Court had to ignore a large amount of precedent to do it

Yep, about 100 years of illegal, immoral and ultimately harmful precedents. The ONLY good thing about the ruling was that it finally put a stop to the seemingly unlimited power grabs progressive from both parties have made under the commerce clause. Patrick Henry warned us how the nanny staters would seek to gain power through that clause. He was right.

 

[Polk]

1. Of course that's interpretive, because it's the Court making an interpretation of what they believe the enumerated powers to be.
2. It didn't need "shoehorn[ing]". The law is clearly a valid use of the commerce power, but five of the justices opposed the law for political reasons and therefore cooked up a BS excuse as to why it's not. There is not logically consistent way to square Scalia's dissent in NFIB v. Sebelius and his concurrence in Raich.
3. Oh please. For all the "promise" of the "federalism revolution", the cases coming out of it have effectively said Congress's use of the commerce clause is limited by the use of magic words.