The wisdom of federalism, our Constitution’s plan

[OKTexas]

The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say,

that can be changed.

Somebody has to have the final say.

Yep, should be a majority of the States.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say,

that can be changed.

Somebody has to have the final say.

Yep, should be a majority of the States.

How in hell would that work?

 

[Clementine]

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)

There is no focus on this in schools today. Perhaps by design so future voters will grow up thinking that the federal government is always where people turn. State leaders are slowly becoming irrelevant as central planning becomes the goal of the federal government. We often hear Dems ridiculing the states and claiming they cannot handle matters as well as the feds.

 

[OKTexas]

The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say,

that can be changed.

Somebody has to have the final say.

Yep, should be a majority of the States.

How in hell would that work?

Simple, any court decision would be stayed for 180 days, then State legislators would vote to accept or reject the opinion. Could it get messy, you bet, but given the present political climate there is no way congress will hold the courts feet to the fire when they stray from their defined duties, like ignoring black letter law and entering into the realm of legislation, like they did twice with the ACA.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I might if you first answer my posts properly AND if you are more specific. I sure as Hell am not going to chase you down the lane! What summaries? Do you mean you do NOT get your info from the primary source? DAMN!

Ok, I've gone through the opinion, still have the same question, what specific enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further. Also what did a national bank achieve that couldn't be achieved by utilizing a State chartered bank?

Well you may have read the decision, but IF you actually did you did not understand a damn thing! With a cursory reading of just the Syllabus you should have been able to answer both of those questions yourself! The second question is beyond the pale in its ignorance demonstrating that you are clueless!

Right, thousands of words to say the feds needed their own bank to conduct their business, which leads directly to my second question, why? After all they had the treasury that could move monies to any bank they wished for local expenditures or move money to foreign banks or treasuries if needed. Just because the feds wanted to do it is not justification for the courts allowing them to do it without a compelling reason.

Your second question was, "Also what did a national bank achieve that couldn't be achieved by utilizing a State chartered bank?" And the answer is as OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE! Read the Constitution then reread the decision! Is any State empowered to conduct Federal powers enumerated in the Constitution?

So you really got no answer. I most likely know the Constitution better than you and no the answer is not obvious. Disbursing and storage of monies is what all banks do whether it be 1st National or Chase.

You got yours answers but you're too fucking stupid to accept reality and unwilling to admit to the truth.

In your dreams you are that all knowing!! Find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution that any of the several States is permitted to conduct the powers of the public purse! Do you even know what the functions of the First and Second Bank were and what their charter from the Congress entailed? How could a State perform those functions when they have NEVER been a part of the Federal (FEDERALISM) government and would be dealing with TREASURY MONIES!!!! Reconcile that with the power as set out in the Constitution given you claim to so very Constitutionally astute!

Don't dance around it with a bullshit dodge...post the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I just can't wait for your response!

 

[regent]

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!

"a right to judge of their correctness must be retained..."

Oh so very cryptic!! You have no idea what that means in the context of the whole, obviously! It certainly does not support that bullshit you spewed about Marshall's opinion UNLESS, that is, one parses a sentence or paragraph just so to twist the context. You erred! Admit it or STFU!

The "Federalist Papers" were three opinions on how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution were ratified. The three writers wanted the Constitution to be ratified and spoke accordingly. They are a good source for understanding what the three writers had in mind, but they are not the final word on the Constitution, nor are the Federalist Papers the Supreme law of the land. As to Marshall, and I am using your quote of Marshall, assuming it to be correct, where he said they had to be careful to judge the correctness of the Papers.

You are ignorant of the topic. There were 85 papers published under the name Publius with 5 by Jay, 29 by Madison and 51 by Hamilton. Those 85 papers were NOT THREE FUCKING OPINIONS! They were the detailed descriptions of the workings of the proposed Constitution established as logical arguments by three of the 50 odd people who were in Constitutional Hall that hot summer of 1787. As to the rest of your bullshit inferences, stick them were the sun don't shine asshole! If you have an issue with there relevance today as references to original intent of the framers, talk to SCOTUS and chastise them for their ignorance in relying upon them in so very many decisions over the last 200 years.

I don't think many are impressed with your use of the Federalist Papers, and

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!

"a right to judge of their correctness must be retained..."

Oh so very cryptic!! You have no idea what that means in the context of the whole, obviously! It certainly does not support that bullshit you spewed about Marshall's opinion UNLESS, that is, one parses a sentence or paragraph just so to twist the context. You erred! Admit it or STFU!

The "Federalist Papers" were three opinions on how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution were ratified. The three writers wanted the Constitution to be ratified and spoke accordingly. They are a good source for understanding what the three writers had in mind, but they are not the final word on the Constitution, nor are the Federalist Papers the Supreme law of the land. As to Marshall, and I am using your quote of Marshall, assuming it to be correct, where he said they had to be careful to judge the correctness of the Papers.

You are ignorant of the topic. There were 85 papers published under the name Publius with 5 by Jay, 29 by Madison and 51 by Hamilton. Those 85 papers were NOT THREE FUCKING OPINIONS! They were the detailed descriptions of the workings of the proposed Constitution established as logical arguments by three of the 50 odd people who were in Constitutional Hall that hot summer of 1787. As to the rest of your bullshit inferences, stick them were the sun don't shine asshole! If you have an issue with there relevance today as references to original intent of the framers, talk to SCOTUS and chastise them for their ignorance in relying upon them in so very many decisions over the last 200 years.

It was three people's opinions of how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution was ratified, and even the three disagreed with each other. Citing the Federalist Papers in some court cases, is good legal tactics; as someone said: citing the framers in some court cases is similar to citing the Bible. What evidence do we have that the Court relies on the Papers?

 

[Contumacious]

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

FEDERALISM WAS DESTROYED BY

1- The War of Northern Aggression


2- Fourteenth Amendment - "adopted" while the Southern States were under martial fucking law


3- Seventeenth Amendment


SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.


.

REPEATING

FEDERALISM WAS DESTROYED BY

1- The War of Northern Aggression


2- Fourteenth Amendment - "adopted" while the Southern States were under martial fucking law


3- Seventeenth Amendment


.

 

[OKTexas]

Ok, I've gone through the opinion, still have the same question, what specific enumerated power did the establishment of a national bank further. Also what did a national bank achieve that couldn't be achieved by utilizing a State chartered bank?

Well you may have read the decision, but IF you actually did you did not understand a damn thing! With a cursory reading of just the Syllabus you should have been able to answer both of those questions yourself! The second question is beyond the pale in its ignorance demonstrating that you are clueless!

Right, thousands of words to say the feds needed their own bank to conduct their business, which leads directly to my second question, why? After all they had the treasury that could move monies to any bank they wished for local expenditures or move money to foreign banks or treasuries if needed. Just because the feds wanted to do it is not justification for the courts allowing them to do it without a compelling reason.

Your second question was, "Also what did a national bank achieve that couldn't be achieved by utilizing a State chartered bank?" And the answer is as OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE! Read the Constitution then reread the decision! Is any State empowered to conduct Federal powers enumerated in the Constitution?

So you really got no answer. I most likely know the Constitution better than you and no the answer is not obvious. Disbursing and storage of monies is what all banks do whether it be 1st National or Chase.

You got yours answers but you're too fucking stupid to accept reality and unwilling to admit to the truth.

In your dreams you are that all knowing!! Find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution that any of the several States is permitted to conduct the powers of the public purse! Do you even know what the functions of the First and Second Bank were and what their charter from the Congress entailed? How could a State perform those functions when they have NEVER been a part of the Federal (FEDERALISM) government and would be dealing with TREASURY MONIES!!!! Reconcile that with the power as set out in the Constitution given you claim to so very Constitutionally astute!

Don't dance around it with a bullshit dodge...post the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I just can't wait for your response!

Right, the bank was so vital to the country congress didn't renew its charter in 1811. And what happened, nothing.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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!

"a right to judge of their correctness must be retained..."

Oh so very cryptic!! You have no idea what that means in the context of the whole, obviously! It certainly does not support that bullshit you spewed about Marshall's opinion UNLESS, that is, one parses a sentence or paragraph just so to twist the context. You erred! Admit it or STFU!

The "Federalist Papers" were three opinions on how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution were ratified. The three writers wanted the Constitution to be ratified and spoke accordingly. They are a good source for understanding what the three writers had in mind, but they are not the final word on the Constitution, nor are the Federalist Papers the Supreme law of the land. As to Marshall, and I am using your quote of Marshall, assuming it to be correct, where he said they had to be careful to judge the correctness of the Papers.

You are ignorant of the topic. There were 85 papers published under the name Publius with 5 by Jay, 29 by Madison and 51 by Hamilton. Those 85 papers were NOT THREE FUCKING OPINIONS! They were the detailed descriptions of the workings of the proposed Constitution established as logical arguments by three of the 50 odd people who were in Constitutional Hall that hot summer of 1787. As to the rest of your bullshit inferences, stick them were the sun don't shine asshole! If you have an issue with there relevance today as references to original intent of the framers, talk to SCOTUS and chastise them for their ignorance in relying upon them in so very many decisions over the last 200 years.

I don't think many are impressed with your use of the Federalist Papers, and

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!

"a right to judge of their correctness must be retained..."

Oh so very cryptic!! You have no idea what that means in the context of the whole, obviously! It certainly does not support that bullshit you spewed about Marshall's opinion UNLESS, that is, one parses a sentence or paragraph just so to twist the context. You erred! Admit it or STFU!

The "Federalist Papers" were three opinions on how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution were ratified. The three writers wanted the Constitution to be ratified and spoke accordingly. They are a good source for understanding what the three writers had in mind, but they are not the final word on the Constitution, nor are the Federalist Papers the Supreme law of the land. As to Marshall, and I am using your quote of Marshall, assuming it to be correct, where he said they had to be careful to judge the correctness of the Papers.

You are ignorant of the topic. There were 85 papers published under the name Publius with 5 by Jay, 29 by Madison and 51 by Hamilton. Those 85 papers were NOT THREE FUCKING OPINIONS! They were the detailed descriptions of the workings of the proposed Constitution established as logical arguments by three of the 50 odd people who were in Constitutional Hall that hot summer of 1787. As to the rest of your bullshit inferences, stick them were the sun don't shine asshole! If you have an issue with there relevance today as references to original intent of the framers, talk to SCOTUS and chastise them for their ignorance in relying upon them in so very many decisions over the last 200 years.

It was three people's opinions of how the Constitution would work if indeed the Constitution was ratified, and even the three disagreed with each other. Citing the Federalist Papers in some court cases, is good legal tactics; as someone said: citing the framers in some court cases is similar to citing the Bible. What evidence do we have that the Court relies on the Papers?

Think about it and sprinkle your thoughts with a little reason. Why would any SCOTUS Justice writing an opinion, concurrence or dissent cite from the Federalist? How about 'original intent' of the framers! Comparing the Federalist to the bible is just plain silly and ignorant.

If SCOTUS didn't rely on the Federalist Papers, why the HELL would they have cited them in well over 200 cases in the last 220 years (206 cases between 1789 and 1985) < http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=fac_articles >? If the Supremes didn't rely on them why the Hell would they be citing them in their opinions, concurrences and dissents? Engage brain and think about that!!!!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Well you may have read the decision, but IF you actually did you did not understand a damn thing! With a cursory reading of just the Syllabus you should have been able to answer both of those questions yourself! The second question is beyond the pale in its ignorance demonstrating that you are clueless!

Right, thousands of words to say the feds needed their own bank to conduct their business, which leads directly to my second question, why? After all they had the treasury that could move monies to any bank they wished for local expenditures or move money to foreign banks or treasuries if needed. Just because the feds wanted to do it is not justification for the courts allowing them to do it without a compelling reason.

Your second question was, "Also what did a national bank achieve that couldn't be achieved by utilizing a State chartered bank?" And the answer is as OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE! Read the Constitution then reread the decision! Is any State empowered to conduct Federal powers enumerated in the Constitution?

So you really got no answer. I most likely know the Constitution better than you and no the answer is not obvious. Disbursing and storage of monies is what all banks do whether it be 1st National or Chase.

You got yours answers but you're too fucking stupid to accept reality and unwilling to admit to the truth.

In your dreams you are that all knowing!! Find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution that any of the several States is permitted to conduct the powers of the public purse! Do you even know what the functions of the First and Second Bank were and what their charter from the Congress entailed? How could a State perform those functions when they have NEVER been a part of the Federal (FEDERALISM) government and would be dealing with TREASURY MONIES!!!! Reconcile that with the power as set out in the Constitution given you claim to so very Constitutionally astute!

Don't dance around it with a bullshit dodge...post the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I just can't wait for your response!

Right, the bank was so vital to the country congress didn't renew its charter in 1811. And what happened, nothing.

Thanks for finally waving the white flag.

You obviously were not able to find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I guess you're all hat and no cattle when it comes to your knowledge of the constitution in spite of your boast!

BTW, the 1811 date was the year the charter of the First Bank expired. The charter of the Second Bank expired in 1836 because President Jackson vetoed the legislation to extend its charter. You obviously forgot that McCulloch v. Maryland revolved around the creation of the Second Bank in 1816! I guess you missed that when you "read" the opinion.

Have a nice day!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The founders made a big mistake in giving the supreme court the final say,

that can be changed.

Somebody has to have the final say.

Yep, should be a majority of the States.

How in hell would that work?

Simple, any court decision would be stayed for 180 days, then State legislators would vote to accept or reject the opinion. Could it get messy, you bet, but given the present political climate there is no way congress will hold the courts feet to the fire when they stray from their defined duties, like ignoring black letter law and entering into the realm of legislation, like they did twice with the ACA.

The states already have two bites on the SCOTUS apple, so to speak.

1. When their electors vote for President, who nominates SCOTUS justices, and,

2. When their elected Senators get to vote on whether to confirm those nominations.

What you're proposing is just rightwing self interest in the form of governmental chaos.

 

[OKTexas]

Right, thousands of words to say the feds needed their own bank to conduct their business, which leads directly to my second question, why? After all they had the treasury that could move monies to any bank they wished for local expenditures or move money to foreign banks or treasuries if needed. Just because the feds wanted to do it is not justification for the courts allowing them to do it without a compelling reason.

Your second question was, "Also what did a national bank achieve that couldn't be achieved by utilizing a State chartered bank?" And the answer is as OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE! Read the Constitution then reread the decision! Is any State empowered to conduct Federal powers enumerated in the Constitution?

So you really got no answer. I most likely know the Constitution better than you and no the answer is not obvious. Disbursing and storage of monies is what all banks do whether it be 1st National or Chase.

You got yours answers but you're too fucking stupid to accept reality and unwilling to admit to the truth.

In your dreams you are that all knowing!! Find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution that any of the several States is permitted to conduct the powers of the public purse! Do you even know what the functions of the First and Second Bank were and what their charter from the Congress entailed? How could a State perform those functions when they have NEVER been a part of the Federal (FEDERALISM) government and would be dealing with TREASURY MONIES!!!! Reconcile that with the power as set out in the Constitution given you claim to so very Constitutionally astute!

Don't dance around it with a bullshit dodge...post the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I just can't wait for your response!

Right, the bank was so vital to the country congress didn't renew its charter in 1811. And what happened, nothing.

Thanks for finally waving the white flag.

You obviously were not able to find the Article, Section and Clause in the Constitution with an explanation of how a State or States could perform direct transaction with the US Treasury and how the Executive and Legislative branches would yield their Constitutional powers to a State or States or even interface in a manner which wouldn't conflict with the separation of powers doctrine! I guess you're all hat and no cattle when it comes to your knowledge of the constitution in spite of your boast!

BTW, the 1811 date was the year the charter of the First Bank expired. The charter of the Second Bank expired in 1836 because President Jackson vetoed the legislation to extend its charter. You obviously forgot that McCulloch v. Maryland revolved around the creation of the Second Bank in 1816! I guess you missed that when you "read" the opinion.

Have a nice day!

Hey dummy, the First National Band was a private bank. The feds only held a 20% equity in it, and they bought that on credit given by the bank over a 10 year period. How could they possibly allow a private bank to have direct transactions with the treasury? Also how could the government possibly continue to conduct financial transactions when congress closed the bank? Come on hero, tell me again of the mythical necessity of a National Bank.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong.

It was the original intent of the Framing Generation that the Federal government, Federal laws, the Constitution and its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts be the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions:

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

Consequently, the notion that the Supreme Court 'destroyed' federalism is unfounded nonsense; just as ridiculous is the notion that the Supreme Court 'expanded' its power, when in fact the Court is exercising the same authority today as afforded it by Articles III and VI during the advent of the Republic.

And there was no 'mistake' made by the Framers – they wisely and appropriately created a Constitutional Republic whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; and a judiciary tasked to determine what laws are Constitutional, and to invalidate laws repugnant to Constitutional jurisprudence.

The Constitution, our National government, and Federalism were the creation of the people alone, establishing a relationship solely between the people and their National government, immune from interference by the states:

“There can be no doubt, if we are to respect the republican origins of the Nation and preserve its federal character, that there exists a federal right of citizenship, a relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government, with which the States may not interfere.”

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

As a fact of law and Constitutional history the states neither 'created' our federal system nor our National government immune from attack by the states; the states never had the 'final say' with regard to the Constitutionality of Federal, state, and local measures, as the Constitution protects the rights of all American citizens, regardless their state of residence, where one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' and citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence.

 

[OKTexas]

that can be changed.

Somebody has to have the final say.

Yep, should be a majority of the States.

How in hell would that work?

Simple, any court decision would be stayed for 180 days, then State legislators would vote to accept or reject the opinion. Could it get messy, you bet, but given the present political climate there is no way congress will hold the courts feet to the fire when they stray from their defined duties, like ignoring black letter law and entering into the realm of legislation, like they did twice with the ACA.

The states already have two bites on the SCOTUS apple, so to speak.

1. When their electors vote for President, who nominates SCOTUS justices, and,

2. When their elected Senators get to vote on whether to confirm those nominations.

What you're proposing is just rightwing self interest in the form of governmental chaos.

No, I'm proposing that the folks that created the feds have the ultimate say and be the final check as to whether the feds are operating as intended. I can understand how that would scare the hell out of stateist like you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The thing is, the Founders didn't give it to the Supreme Court. In Marbury v. Madison the Supremes just decided they had the final say and that was that.

Wrong.

This is a myth popular among many on the right – and like all myths it's completely false.

The Supreme Court is authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution to review Federal, state, and local laws to determine their constitutionality.

The doctrine of judicial review predates the Constitution, and was practiced by Colonial courts for well over a century before the advent of the Republic:

“By 1803, as Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in Marbury, “long and well established” principles answered “the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land.” Marshall concluded that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument.” As such, contrary to the traditional account of Marbury, Marshall’s decision did not conjure judicial review out of thin air, but rather affirmed the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority in the new context of the federal republic of the United States. In doing so, Marshall recommitted American constitutional law to a practice over four centuries old.”

Why We Have Judicial Review

Consequently, the notion that the Supreme Court 'misappropriated' powers not granted it by the Constitution and Founding Generation is a lie – Marbury was not 'invention'; rather, it was reaffirmation that the doctrine of judicial review would be continued from the Colonial Era and remain part of the new Nation, as expected and intended by the citizens of the United States.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Wrong.

It was the original intent of the Framing Generation that the Federal government, Federal laws, the Constitution and its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts be the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions:

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

Consequently, the notion that the Supreme Court 'destroyed' federalism is unfounded nonsense; just as ridiculous is the notion that the Supreme Court 'expanded' its power, when in fact the Court is exercising the same authority today as afforded it by Articles III and VI during the advent of the Republic.

And there was no 'mistake' made by the Framers – they wisely and appropriately created a Constitutional Republic whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; and a judiciary tasked to determine what laws are Constitutional, and to invalidate laws repugnant to Constitutional jurisprudence.

The Constitution, our National government, and Federalism were the creation of the people alone, establishing a relationship solely between the people and their National government, immune from interference by the states:

“There can be no doubt, if we are to respect the republican origins of the Nation and preserve its federal character, that there exists a federal right of citizenship, a relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government, with which the States may not interfere.”

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

As a fact of law and Constitutional history the states neither 'created' our federal system nor our National government immune from attack by the states; the states never had the 'final say' with regard to the Constitutionality of Federal, state, and local measures, as the Constitution protects the rights of all American citizens, regardless their state of residence, where one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' and citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence.

BULLSHIT

REPEATING , FEDERALISM IS NO LONGER A VIABLE POLICY.


WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS IN EFFECT , THE STATES WERE SOVEREIGN EXCEPT IN MATTERS DEALING WITH FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THOSE MATTERS SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

You're as ridiculous as you are wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong.

It was the original intent of the Framing Generation that the Federal government, Federal laws, the Constitution and its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts be the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions:

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

Consequently, the notion that the Supreme Court 'destroyed' federalism is unfounded nonsense; just as ridiculous is the notion that the Supreme Court 'expanded' its power, when in fact the Court is exercising the same authority today as afforded it by Articles III and VI during the advent of the Republic.

And there was no 'mistake' made by the Framers – they wisely and appropriately created a Constitutional Republic whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; and a judiciary tasked to determine what laws are Constitutional, and to invalidate laws repugnant to Constitutional jurisprudence.

The Constitution, our National government, and Federalism were the creation of the people alone, establishing a relationship solely between the people and their National government, immune from interference by the states:

“There can be no doubt, if we are to respect the republican origins of the Nation and preserve its federal character, that there exists a federal right of citizenship, a relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government, with which the States may not interfere.”

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

As a fact of law and Constitutional history the states neither 'created' our federal system nor our National government immune from attack by the states; the states never had the 'final say' with regard to the Constitutionality of Federal, state, and local measures, as the Constitution protects the rights of all American citizens, regardless their state of residence, where one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' and citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence.

BULLSHIT

REPEATING , FEDERALISM IS NO LONGER A VIABLE POLICY.


WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS IN EFFECT , THE STATES WERE SOVEREIGN EXCEPT IN MATTERS DEALING WITH FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THOSE MATTERS SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

You're just plain ridiculous.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Wrong.

It was the original intent of the Framing Generation that the Federal government, Federal laws, the Constitution and its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts be the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions:

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

Consequently, the notion that the Supreme Court 'destroyed' federalism is unfounded nonsense; just as ridiculous is the notion that the Supreme Court 'expanded' its power, when in fact the Court is exercising the same authority today as afforded it by Articles III and VI during the advent of the Republic.

And there was no 'mistake' made by the Framers – they wisely and appropriately created a Constitutional Republic whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; and a judiciary tasked to determine what laws are Constitutional, and to invalidate laws repugnant to Constitutional jurisprudence.

The Constitution, our National government, and Federalism were the creation of the people alone, establishing a relationship solely between the people and their National government, immune from interference by the states:

“There can be no doubt, if we are to respect the republican origins of the Nation and preserve its federal character, that there exists a federal right of citizenship, a relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government, with which the States may not interfere.”

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

As a fact of law and Constitutional history the states neither 'created' our federal system nor our National government immune from attack by the states; the states never had the 'final say' with regard to the Constitutionality of Federal, state, and local measures, as the Constitution protects the rights of all American citizens, regardless their state of residence, where one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' and citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence.

Sure, that's what federal employees say, the founders mistakenly assumed that the federal government would be populated by honorable men who would take their oaths of office seriously, history has shown that not to have been the case. Article 5 allows the States to change the Constitution at will, with NO input from the feds. The sole intent of Article 5 was to give the States the power to reign in an abusive federal government and make the appropriate changes required over time.

The supreme court has proven itself to be schizophrenic, in some cases they say black letter law is king, regardless of congressional intent, in others they say intent is king, screw black letter law. The 14th Amendment being a perfect example of the former and the ACA being an example of the latter.

Both congress and the executive have abused their authority under the Constitution with the acquiescence of the courts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Somebody has to have the final say.

Yep, should be a majority of the States.

How in hell would that work?

Simple, any court decision would be stayed for 180 days, then State legislators would vote to accept or reject the opinion. Could it get messy, you bet, but given the present political climate there is no way congress will hold the courts feet to the fire when they stray from their defined duties, like ignoring black letter law and entering into the realm of legislation, like they did twice with the ACA.

The states already have two bites on the SCOTUS apple, so to speak.

1. When their electors vote for President, who nominates SCOTUS justices, and,

2. When their elected Senators get to vote on whether to confirm those nominations.

What you're proposing is just rightwing self interest in the form of governmental chaos.

No, I'm proposing that the folks that created the feds have the ultimate say and be the final check as to whether the feds are operating as intended. I can understand how that would scare the hell out of stateist like you.

They have. They can amend the Constitution.