The wisdom of federalism, our Constitution’s plan

[johnwk]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

Perhaps if the general public were aware of the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is to enforce the intent of the founders as it may be documented from historical records, the Supreme Court would not find it so easy to pretend the Constitution means what it wants it to mean.

The fundamental rule of constitutional construction is summarized as follows:


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.



JWK





The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Unfortunately the vast majority of the people are ambivalent at best or agree with the deconstruction of the Constitution at worse. It will never be reversed so long as regressives maintain control of the education system. Why do you think they fight so hard to keep their lackeys in place? Hillsdale college is the only school I know of that requires credits on constitutional studies to graduate. Hell Harvard stopped requiring it to get a law degree.

In reference to Hillsdale College and our existing education system see: A Fight for Our Children's Minds - Conservative Monitor


JWK

 

[johnwk]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration!

There is no exaggeration. If there were we wouldn't be hearing Hillary promising free government cheese to attract voters.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Free Cheese Democracy, designed to establish a federal plantation which redistributes wealth that wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

 

[johnwk]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration! Sure, there exists a varying deficit of knowledge AND political thought between voters across the Nation to say nothing of the self-interested, misinformed factions followed by sycophantic supporters such as the Tea Party bunch. No surprise there at all. It's your outlandish conclusions that are ludicrous!

You assert in part, "... the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States...." Perhaps you should name a few of those powers you claim the Federal has usurped and/or infringed upon so I and others may not be forced to make certain assumptions. I know what the supremacy clause and Amendment X both state and that to join the Union the several States were required to cede a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal. You do understand those points, right?

Federalist #45 does display Madison's strict constructionist views that he argued was HIS intent over Hamilton's view of implied powers. That argument was settled by SCOTUS in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Supremes ruled that the Necessary and Proper clause granted Congress implied powers when implementing Congress's expressed powers. This is fact regardless of the nattering's from various factions with the prevailing view of Amendment X ueber alles.

What does that reference to King George III have to do with the cost of turnips?

The court got it wrong, the 10th Amendment plainly say there are NO implied powers, only enumerated powers exist. The necessary and proper clause was to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.

Article VI, Clause 2:
"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.

Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.

My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.

Rub your Supreme Court opinions on your chest unless they are based on the text of our written Constitution and supported by the legislative intent of our Constitution as expressed in historical documents such as Madison's Notes, The Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, and Elliot's Debates.

The irrefutable fact is, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[francoHFW]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration!

There is no exaggeration. If there were we wouldn't be hearing Hillary promising free government cheese to attract voters.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Free Cheese Democracy, designed to establish a federal plantation which redistributes wealth that wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

Obama and the Dems haven't changed any laws on this, it's just that your greedy idiot heroes destroyed the world economy AGAIN, dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

Mario Cuomo: "Reagan made it acceptable to blame the poor" while Reaganists steal you blind, stupid. see sig

 

[johnwk]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration!

There is no exaggeration. If there were we wouldn't be hearing Hillary promising free government cheese to attract voters.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Free Cheese Democracy, designed to establish a federal plantation which redistributes wealth that wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

Obama and the Dems haven't changed any laws on this, it's just that your greedy idiot heroes destroyed the world economy AGAIN, dupe.

Is that so? Well now, let us look at the facts:


The sad truth is, Obama has added more to the national debt than all other presidents combined;


He has given aid and comfort to our enemies by releasing them from GITMO;


He has attempted to strike a deal with a hostile foreign nation behind closed doors and without the consent of the United State Senate being required as commanded by our Constitution;


He is allowing a thousand Islamic "refugees" into the U.S. each month without proper screening or a requirement they renounce an allegiance to their country of origin;


He has transferred America’s weapons of defense and military technology to hostile Islamic leaders [the Islamic Brother Hood];


He has assisted an Islamic terrorist state to move forward with producing the component parts for a nuclear arsenal;


He has worked to release $150 Billion in assets to the terrorist government of Iran;


He has allowed our southern border to be invaded by the poverty stricken populations of Mexico and Central America;


He has decided to prop up the communist government of Cuba by normalizing relations, which in turn will yield a needed infusion of money to strengthen this government’s iron fist around the necks of its citizens;


He has released thousands of criminal illegal aliens from our nation’s jails into our nation’s population;


He is responsible for undermining our election process by making it easy for ineligible persons to vote;


He has interfered with our nation’s ability to develop our nation’s natural resources, namely oil, coal and natural gas, to fuel our economy;


He has worked to stifle America’s agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity;


He has intentionally sabotaged our nation’s health care delivery system;


He has blatantly impinged upon the American People’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care and medical needs;


He is responsible for a dramatic increase in the number of people receiving food stamps;


He is responsible for a dramatic drop in fulltime employment;


He is responsible for a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate among our nation’s Black and poverty stricken youth;


He has used the force of our federal government to tax the paychecks of hard working people living in our nation’s inner cities and then transferred $ billions from our federal treasury to his inner circle friends under the guise of “green energy” [Solyndra/Chevy Volt/Fisker, Exelon, etc.];


He has repeatedly circumvented our Republican Form of Government by issuing Executive Orders and memorandums;


He has stood by and allowed his Administration to use the force of the federal government to attack "conservatives" who dare to exercise their right to freedom of speech;


And he has now started to disarm local police forces which are America’s front line in dealing with domestic terrorism!


Who can truthfully deny Obama is intentionally attempting to destroy America from within?


JWK

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration!

There is no exaggeration. If there were we wouldn't be hearing Hillary promising free government cheese to attract voters.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Free Cheese Democracy, designed to establish a federal plantation which redistributes wealth that wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

I see you are afraid of responding to the entirety of my post to you by posting ONLY the first sentence addressing the absurdity of your proposition. You are obviously afraid of even attempting to make a proper point by point response and have chosen instead to deflect using bold font as if it were a shield.

Also, look up the word PLAGIARIZE and take a look at your post!

Here is the rest of my post BELOW to which you responded but truncated to include only the first sentence. Respond to it rather avoiding it like a fucking coward!

Sure, there exists a varying deficit of knowledge AND political thought between voters across the Nation to say nothing of the self-interested, misinformed factions followed by sycophantic supporters such as the Tea Party bunch. No surprise there at all. It's your outlandish conclusions that are ludicrous!

You assert in part, "... the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States...." Perhaps you should name a few of those powers you claim the Federal has usurped and/or infringed upon so I and others may not be forced to make certain assumptions. I know what the supremacy clause and Amendment X both state and that to join the Union the several States were required to cede a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal. You do understand those points, right?

Federalist #45 does display Madison's strict constructionist views that he argued was HIS intent over Hamilton's view of implied powers. That argument was settled by SCOTUS in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Supremes ruled that the Necessary and Proper clause granted Congress implied powers when implementing Congress's expressed powers. This is fact regardless of the nattering's from various factions with the prevailing view of Amendment X ueber alles.

What does that reference to King George III have to do with the cost of turnips?

 

[francoHFW]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration!

There is no exaggeration. If there were we wouldn't be hearing Hillary promising free government cheese to attract voters.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Free Cheese Democracy, designed to establish a federal plantation which redistributes wealth that wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

Obama and the Dems haven't changed any laws on this, it's just that your greedy idiot heroes destroyed the world economy AGAIN, dupe.

Is that so? Well now, let us look at the facts:


The sad truth is, Obama has added more to the national debt than all other presidents combined;


He has given aid and comfort to our enemies by releasing them from GITMO;


He has attempted to strike a deal with a hostile foreign nation behind closed doors and without the consent of the United State Senate being required as commanded by our Constitution;


He is allowing a thousand Islamic "refugees" into the U.S. each month without proper screening or a requirement they renounce an allegiance to their country of origin;


He has transferred America’s weapons of defense and military technology to hostile Islamic leaders [the Islamic Brother Hood];


He has assisted an Islamic terrorist state to move forward with producing the component parts for a nuclear arsenal;


He has worked to release $150 Billion in assets to the terrorist government of Iran;


He has allowed our southern border to be invaded by the poverty stricken populations of Mexico and Central America;


He has decided to prop up the communist government of Cuba by normalizing relations, which in turn will yield a needed infusion of money to strengthen this government’s iron fist around the necks of its citizens;


He has released thousands of criminal illegal aliens from our nation’s jails into our nation’s population;


He is responsible for undermining our election process by making it easy for ineligible persons to vote;


He has interfered with our nation’s ability to develop our nation’s natural resources, namely oil, coal and natural gas, to fuel our economy;


He has worked to stifle America’s agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity;


He has intentionally sabotaged our nation’s health care delivery system;


He has blatantly impinged upon the American People’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care and medical needs;


He is responsible for a dramatic increase in the number of people receiving food stamps;


He is responsible for a dramatic drop in fulltime employment;


He is responsible for a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate among our nation’s Black and poverty stricken youth;


He has used the force of our federal government to tax the paychecks of hard working people living in our nation’s inner cities and then transferred $ billions from our federal treasury to his inner circle friends under the guise of “green energy” [Solyndra/Chevy Volt/Fisker, Exelon, etc.];


He has repeatedly circumvented our Republican Form of Government by issuing Executive Orders and memorandums;


He has stood by and allowed his Administration to use the force of the federal government to attack "conservatives" who dare to exercise their right to freedom of speech;


And he has now started to disarm local police forces which are America’s front line in dealing with domestic terrorism!


Who can truthfully deny Obama is intentionally attempting to destroy America from within?


JWK

My, you're totally FOS lol. Change the channel. But thanks for the Pubspam, all totally discredited except in on Planet Pubpropaganda. Heard of the 2008 corrupt Pub World Depression, btw? About 6 trillion of Obama's debt was bailing out the country's economy and assisting victims. STILL 300 billion/year, chump.

 

[johnwk]

Also, look up the word PLAGIARIZE and take a look at your post!

Is there some hidden meaning in what you wrote which you refuse to post in crystal clear language? Your post is an old and tired stupid debating trick ___ guilt by insinuation.

JWK

Obama is the worst President ever!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration! Sure, there exists a varying deficit of knowledge AND political thought between voters across the Nation to say nothing of the self-interested, misinformed factions followed by sycophantic supporters such as the Tea Party bunch. No surprise there at all. It's your outlandish conclusions that are ludicrous!

You assert in part, "... the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States...." Perhaps you should name a few of those powers you claim the Federal has usurped and/or infringed upon so I and others may not be forced to make certain assumptions. I know what the supremacy clause and Amendment X both state and that to join the Union the several States were required to cede a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal. You do understand those points, right?

Federalist #45 does display Madison's strict constructionist views that he argued was HIS intent over Hamilton's view of implied powers. That argument was settled by SCOTUS in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Supremes ruled that the Necessary and Proper clause granted Congress implied powers when implementing Congress's expressed powers. This is fact regardless of the nattering's from various factions with the prevailing view of Amendment X ueber alles.

What does that reference to King George III have to do with the cost of turnips?

The court got it wrong, the 10th Amendment plainly say there are NO implied powers, only enumerated powers exist. The necessary and proper clause was to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.

Article VI, Clause 2:
"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.

Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.

My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.

Rub your Supreme Court opinions on your chest unless they are based on the text of our written Constitution and supported by the legislative intent of our Constitution as expressed in historical documents such as Madison's Notes, The Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, and Elliot's Debates.

The irrefutable fact is, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

I do not disagree with either of your citation one iota! Let's examine the latter of the two! Boy, I can't argue against that point as it's the same I have tried to get through the head of many on this board. But what was the genesis of this conclusion, re: "the intent of its framers"?

We can go right to the source; Hamilton in Federalist #78 discussed the intent of the framers for a Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of all disputes arising in law through judicial review by interpretation of the Constitution. As Publius, he wrote:

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." [Emphasis Added]

The bit underlined and highlighted directly above describes what the original intent of the framers was at the time of the writing of the Great Contract. Hamilton wrote that before the Constitution was ratified! That was EXACTLY to which both of your citations above refer and is in ABSOLUTE HARMONY with them. That is the Federalist doctrine of Judicial Review carried forward to today.

Now you tell me how the Marshall Court got it wrong in either or both of those landmark cases in Marbury and/or McCulloch when they were decided. Will you respond to this or remain a petulant ass?

 

[regent]

Also, look up the word PLAGIARIZE and take a look at your post!

Is there some hidden meaning in what you wrote which you refuse to post in crystal clear language? Your post is an old and tired stupid debating trick ___ guilt by insinuation.

JWK

Obama is the worst President ever!

Well your opinion of Obama has been noticed, but I think I'll wait to see how history rates Obama. The history one, is the one that will probably go into America's history textbooks. The people have already expressed their opinion with two elections, and while Bush tried to get the worst president rating he missed by four presidents.

 

[regent]

The court got it wrong, the 10th Amendment plainly say there are NO implied powers, only enumerated powers exist. The necessary and proper clause was to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.

Article VI, Clause 2:
"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.

Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.

My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.

Rub your Supreme Court opinions on your chest unless they are based on the text of our written Constitution and supported by the legislative intent of our Constitution as expressed in historical documents such as Madison's Notes, The Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, and Elliot's Debates.

The irrefutable fact is, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

I do not disagree with either of your citation one iota! Let's examine the latter of the two! Boy, I can't argue against that point as it's the same I have tried to get through the head of many on this board. But what was the genesis of this conclusion, re: "the intent of its framers"?

We can go right to the source; Hamilton in Federalist #78 discussed the intent of the framers for a Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of all disputes arising in law through judicial review by interpretation of the Constitution. As Publius, he wrote:

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." [Emphasis Added]

The bit underlined and highlighted directly above describes what the original intent of the framers was at the time of the writing of the Great Contract. Hamilton wrote that before the Constitution was ratified! That was EXACTLY to which both of your citations above refer and is in ABSOLUTE HARMONY with them. That is the Federalist doctrine of Judicial Review carried forward to today.

Now you tell me how the Marshall Court got it wrong in either or both of those landmark cases in Marbury and/or McCulloch when they were decided. Will you respond to this or remain a petulant ass?

The "Federalist" is not a good source, it was merely a series of letters to the editor stating the writers opinions, and like many letters to the editor an attempt to change opinions, a form of propaganda.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Also, look up the word PLAGIARIZE and take a look at your post!

Is there some hidden meaning in what you wrote which you refuse to post in crystal clear language? Your post is an old and tired stupid debating trick ___ guilt by insinuation.

JWK

Obama is the worst President ever!

No hidden meaning. I gave you a chance to correct your possible error and properly attribute that C&P in your post. Since you wish to be an ass again, I'll just call it; you plagiarized that cite!

Now your using that as a smokescreen to keep from responding to the post. You have proven you dishonesty beyond any doubt!

I'm done with you ya phony know-it-all!

 

[Interpol]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration!

There is no exaggeration. If there were we wouldn't be hearing Hillary promising free government cheese to attract voters.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Free Cheese Democracy, designed to establish a federal plantation which redistributes wealth that wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

It's just a stupid fucking RWNJ meme that says lazy liberal layabouts are takers while RWNJ's go to work every day to support them.

The actual truth is that right-wingers are the largest block of people who require Medicare and Social Security, and who enlist in the military, the three LARGEST gov't programs in America today.

Why are online political message boards and AM talk radio disproportionately filled with paranoid, angry, delusional RWNJ's? How does Fox News totally trample every other American cable news network in EVERY SINGLE time slot? Because liberals have actual lives and responsibilities like working to support their families and to support red states that disproportionately take more tax dollars from the feds than they pay into the system. Well-known fact that inconveniences RWNJ's who try their best to not let in to their bizarro bubble of ignorance.

Gov't spending is so high because of aging white fucks collecting a couple gov't checks every month who never miss an opportunity to vote those things away. I say let's do it. Cut 'em off. Fly over states will die off even sooner without the help they say they don't want yet absolutely need in order to survive.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Article VI, Clause 2:
"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.

Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.

My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.

Rub your Supreme Court opinions on your chest unless they are based on the text of our written Constitution and supported by the legislative intent of our Constitution as expressed in historical documents such as Madison's Notes, The Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, and Elliot's Debates.

The irrefutable fact is, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

I do not disagree with either of your citation one iota! Let's examine the latter of the two! Boy, I can't argue against that point as it's the same I have tried to get through the head of many on this board. But what was the genesis of this conclusion, re: "the intent of its framers"?

We can go right to the source; Hamilton in Federalist #78 discussed the intent of the framers for a Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of all disputes arising in law through judicial review by interpretation of the Constitution. As Publius, he wrote:

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." [Emphasis Added]

The bit underlined and highlighted directly above describes what the original intent of the framers was at the time of the writing of the Great Contract. Hamilton wrote that before the Constitution was ratified! That was EXACTLY to which both of your citations above refer and is in ABSOLUTE HARMONY with them. That is the Federalist doctrine of Judicial Review carried forward to today.

Now you tell me how the Marshall Court got it wrong in either or both of those landmark cases in Marbury and/or McCulloch when they were decided. Will you respond to this or remain a petulant ass?

The "Federalist" is not a good source, it was merely a series of letters to the editor stating the writers opinions, and like many letters to the editor an attempt to change opinions, a form of propaganda.

Tell that to SCOTUS when they cite The Federalist Papers in one of their decisions as they have well over a hundred times.

 

[regent]

Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.

My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.

Rub your Supreme Court opinions on your chest unless they are based on the text of our written Constitution and supported by the legislative intent of our Constitution as expressed in historical documents such as Madison's Notes, The Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, and Elliot's Debates.

The irrefutable fact is, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

I do not disagree with either of your citation one iota! Let's examine the latter of the two! Boy, I can't argue against that point as it's the same I have tried to get through the head of many on this board. But what was the genesis of this conclusion, re: "the intent of its framers"?

We can go right to the source; Hamilton in Federalist #78 discussed the intent of the framers for a Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of all disputes arising in law through judicial review by interpretation of the Constitution. As Publius, he wrote:

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." [Emphasis Added]

The bit underlined and highlighted directly above describes what the original intent of the framers was at the time of the writing of the Great Contract. Hamilton wrote that before the Constitution was ratified! That was EXACTLY to which both of your citations above refer and is in ABSOLUTE HARMONY with them. That is the Federalist doctrine of Judicial Review carried forward to today.

Now you tell me how the Marshall Court got it wrong in either or both of those landmark cases in Marbury and/or McCulloch when they were decided. Will you respond to this or remain a petulant ass?

The "Federalist" is not a good source, it was merely a series of letters to the editor stating the writers opinions, and like many letters to the editor an attempt to change opinions, a form of propaganda.

Tell that to SCOTUS when they cite The Federalist Papers in one of their decisions as they have well over a hundred times.

They sound so official but are nothing but opinions. Chief Justice Marshall noted that they should not be taken as gospel.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.

Rub your Supreme Court opinions on your chest unless they are based on the text of our written Constitution and supported by the legislative intent of our Constitution as expressed in historical documents such as Madison's Notes, The Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, and Elliot's Debates.

The irrefutable fact is, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

I do not disagree with either of your citation one iota! Let's examine the latter of the two! Boy, I can't argue against that point as it's the same I have tried to get through the head of many on this board. But what was the genesis of this conclusion, re: "the intent of its framers"?

We can go right to the source; Hamilton in Federalist #78 discussed the intent of the framers for a Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of all disputes arising in law through judicial review by interpretation of the Constitution. As Publius, he wrote:

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." [Emphasis Added]

The bit underlined and highlighted directly above describes what the original intent of the framers was at the time of the writing of the Great Contract. Hamilton wrote that before the Constitution was ratified! That was EXACTLY to which both of your citations above refer and is in ABSOLUTE HARMONY with them. That is the Federalist doctrine of Judicial Review carried forward to today.

Now you tell me how the Marshall Court got it wrong in either or both of those landmark cases in Marbury and/or McCulloch when they were decided. Will you respond to this or remain a petulant ass?

The "Federalist" is not a good source, it was merely a series of letters to the editor stating the writers opinions, and like many letters to the editor an attempt to change opinions, a form of propaganda.

Tell that to SCOTUS when they cite The Federalist Papers in one of their decisions as they have well over a hundred times.

They sound so official but are nothing but opinions. Chief Justice Marshall noted that they should not be taken as gospel.

Do you always make shit up as you go along? Chief Justice Marshall wrote this in his closing remarks of his decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (page 433):

"In the course of the argument, the Federalist has been quoted, and the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our Government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained; and to understand the argument, we must examine the proposition it maintains and the objections against which it is directed." [Emphasis Added]

You are in error yet again!

 

[OKTexas]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of today’s eligible voters refuse to use their power to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Instead, they sell their vote to dishonest politicians running in federal elections who bribe them with promises to use federal power for matters which were intentionally left within the reserved powers of the States. And the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States has opened the door to the creation of countless factious groups who, in essence, sell their federal vote for "free" federal government cheese as a priority, while the common defense and general welfare of the United States takes a back seat during federal elections.


Today, the uncertainty among the vast majority of voters with regard to the constitutionally assigned duties between federal and state politicians running for office allows corrupted state politicians to blame federal politicians for local matters, while federal politicians blame political opponents for local concerns which were intentionally left under State Jurisdiction.


Now, just imagine if the blurring between the assigned duties of State and Federal politicians were ended and federal and state politicians had to run their political campaigns on their constitutionally assigned duties as summarized in Federalist Paper No. 45:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


One of the great advantages of federalism is the clear distinction which is drawn between the assigned duties of those running for a federal or state political office, and voters knowing where the buck stops when the general welfare of the United States is put in peril, and when State public servants neglect the general welfare of their particular state. Under these circumstances accountability is made much clearer in both federal and state elections __ an accountability which all dishonest politicians fear with a passion.


JWK



“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration! Sure, there exists a varying deficit of knowledge AND political thought between voters across the Nation to say nothing of the self-interested, misinformed factions followed by sycophantic supporters such as the Tea Party bunch. No surprise there at all. It's your outlandish conclusions that are ludicrous!

You assert in part, "... the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States...." Perhaps you should name a few of those powers you claim the Federal has usurped and/or infringed upon so I and others may not be forced to make certain assumptions. I know what the supremacy clause and Amendment X both state and that to join the Union the several States were required to cede a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal. You do understand those points, right?

Federalist #45 does display Madison's strict constructionist views that he argued was HIS intent over Hamilton's view of implied powers. That argument was settled by SCOTUS in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Supremes ruled that the Necessary and Proper clause granted Congress implied powers when implementing Congress's expressed powers. This is fact regardless of the nattering's from various factions with the prevailing view of Amendment X ueber alles.

What does that reference to King George III have to do with the cost of turnips?

The court got it wrong, the 10th Amendment plainly say there are NO implied powers, only enumerated powers exist. The necessary and proper clause was to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.

Article VI, Clause 2:
"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.

Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.

My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.

Ok, tell me, what enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further? Marshall didn't bother to elaborate in any of the summaries I've read, he appeared to be pulling shit out of thin air, maybe you can be more specific.

 

[OKTexas]

Your characterization of voters in general is gratuitous and baseless by its very exaggeration! Sure, there exists a varying deficit of knowledge AND political thought between voters across the Nation to say nothing of the self-interested, misinformed factions followed by sycophantic supporters such as the Tea Party bunch. No surprise there at all. It's your outlandish conclusions that are ludicrous!

You assert in part, "... the allowance of our federal government to assume powers intentionally reserved to the States...." Perhaps you should name a few of those powers you claim the Federal has usurped and/or infringed upon so I and others may not be forced to make certain assumptions. I know what the supremacy clause and Amendment X both state and that to join the Union the several States were required to cede a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal. You do understand those points, right?

Federalist #45 does display Madison's strict constructionist views that he argued was HIS intent over Hamilton's view of implied powers. That argument was settled by SCOTUS in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Supremes ruled that the Necessary and Proper clause granted Congress implied powers when implementing Congress's expressed powers. This is fact regardless of the nattering's from various factions with the prevailing view of Amendment X ueber alles.

What does that reference to King George III have to do with the cost of turnips?

The court got it wrong, the 10th Amendment plainly say there are NO implied powers, only enumerated powers exist. The necessary and proper clause was to carry out the enumerated powers, nothing else.

Article VI, Clause 2:
"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Reconcile your assertion that SCOTUS erred in McCulloch with Article VI, Clause 2, Article III, Section1, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Amendment X and McCulloch v. Maryland for the record. And let us all know exactly where the Marshall Court got it wrong in McCulloch in as much detail as you are capable.

Sure, as soon as you explain how that case got into the discussion, so far the only case mentioned was Marbury v. Madison.

My post #9 mentioned McCulloch, another SCOTUS Federalism case which followed 16 years after Marbury, and you responded in your post #10 to which I responded in post #15 and you responded in #16, Review those well since your memory seems to be a tad iffy.

Rub your Supreme Court opinions on your chest unless they are based on the text of our written Constitution and supported by the legislative intent of our Constitution as expressed in historical documents such as Madison's Notes, The Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, and Elliot's Debates.

The irrefutable fact is, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Yep, and the courts have given Hamilton a victory that he couldn't win at the Constitutional Convention. And that's bullshit.

 

[SwimExpert]

You can thank the supreme court for allowing the destruction of federalism. They expand the power of the feds and by extension their own power. The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say, it should have remained in the States, you know the actual creators of the feds.

See, this is why so many people are being more and more repelled by the conservative perspective. Because the people who have the most to say about it are the most foolish. The states cannot have the "final" say on issues of federal law. That would make the states superior to the federal government, which is contradictory to the constitution.