The wisdom of federalism, our Constitution’s plan

[Vandalshandle]

I hate to burst anyone's bubble here, but the Federalist Party disbanded sometime in the 1820's. There were reasons for that.

 

[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.

So you want the 60% of Americans who support keeping Roe v Wade in place to be able to trump any SCOTUS ruling that overturns it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 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.

Waaa, translation...the Government of the United States doesn't march in lockstep with us extremists on the right so they must be violating some (imaginary) sacred mandates.

 

[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.

You're just plain ridiculous.

YOU ARE JUST PLAIN RETARDED AND IGNORANT.

.

 

[regent]

"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

"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!!!!

I just told you, by giving a boost to one's decision by citing the framers, founding fathers, Constitutionalist scholars, medal of honor winners, George Washington or anyone that will make their decision more in tune with that most people think of as America.
Do you think the Court is unaware of its image in America? Is the Congress, the president? The Court plays the political game also, it just does it on a slightly higher plane, that many Americans miss,

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Right, Article 5 commands congress to call a convention when requested by 2/3rds of the States, so far the 50 States have made more than 600 such requests, what has congress done, nothing!

 

[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.

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.

They are dumbass, the States created the feds to manage their union, the feds were not part of the writing or the ratification of the Constitution, they were the result of it. The States chose to grant the feds limited sovereignty while retaining the remainder for themselves. The States gave themselves a path to exercise that superior sovereignty in Article 5, if they chose they can change the Constitution at will.

This is comprehensively ignorant and wrong – in McCulloch the Court correctly acknowledged the fact that the United States did not exist as a mere 'alliance' of 'independent' states, but as a single National entity, whose Constitutional sovereignty was created and authorized by the people alone, not the states, reflecting the will and desire of the people to have a single National government superior to the states and local jurisdictions.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

So you want the 60% of Americans who support keeping Roe v Wade in place to be able to trump any SCOTUS ruling that overturns it?

I don't foresee any court overturning Roe, I could see the States negating or amending it if they had the opportunity. Personally I'd like to see an amendment outlawing abortion beyond the first trimester, except when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

They are dumbass, the States created the feds to manage their union, the feds were not part of the writing or the ratification of the Constitution, they were the result of it. The States chose to grant the feds limited sovereignty while retaining the remainder for themselves. The States gave themselves a path to exercise that superior sovereignty in Article 5, if they chose they can change the Constitution at will.

This is comprehensively ignorant and wrong – in McCulloch the Court correctly acknowledged the fact that the United States did not exist as a mere 'alliance' of 'independent' states, but as a single National entity, whose Constitutional sovereignty was created and authorized by the people alone, not the states, reflecting the will and desire of the people to have a single National government superior to the states and local jurisdictions.

Having grown up in the South, during the civil rights struggles, and seeing what outrages were passed into law by Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc., I flat out do not trust the states beyond a severely limited role in legal authority and power.

Georgia even allowed municipalities to run speed traps all over the state in pre-expressway days so that yankees driving from New York to Florida financed their municipal expenses.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Clementine Said:
"There is no focus on this in schools today."

And appropriately so – given the fact it's wrongheaded nonsense.

 

[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 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.

Waaa, translation...the Government of the United States doesn't march in lockstep with us extremists on the right so they must be violating some (imaginary) sacred mandates.

Only thing around here is your imaginary belief that there are no mandates.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Thanks to the millions in this country through their own complacency, keep themselves blissfully uninformed.

 

[johnwk]

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

Actually, abiding by the intent of legislative acts is a fundamental principle of law dating back to Roman Times. But let us review what our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903) emphasizes regarding the importance of legislative intent:


But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :


"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858) puts it as follows:


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.



It is also interesting to note that a recent Supreme Court decision references the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to document the intent of our Constitution and enforce it. See:UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995). Also see: GREGORY v. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) and: Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993).



Unfortunately, we have law students who are no longer taught the most fundamental rule of constitutional law [enforcing the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted]. They are taught case law, and then to apply “precedent” as set by our Supreme Court. But the fact is, our Constitution is the ultimate “precedent” and not supreme court written opinions designed to circumvent the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.


Also note that under the rules of constitutional construction

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law

Meaning of Language

Ordinary meaning, generally


”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) The Court is not free to make the words or phrases in our Constitution mean whatever they so desire, but are confined to their original understanding as understood by our founding fathers. This fundamental rule was not followed in the Kelo decision in which Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion in Kelo effectively expanded the meaning of “public use” to allow the taking of private property for purposes other than what our Constitution declares.

The bottom line is, I believe we agree on this important issue.

JWK

 

[thereisnospoon]

Clementine Said:
"There is no focus on this in schools today."

And appropriately so – given the fact it's wrongheaded nonsense.

Yeah....Brilliantly, the public schools no longer teach civics as this does not fit the liberal agenda of indoctrination.

 

[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.

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.

They are dumbass, the States created the feds to manage their union, the feds were not part of the writing or the ratification of the Constitution, they were the result of it. The States chose to grant the feds limited sovereignty while retaining the remainder for themselves. The States gave themselves a path to exercise that superior sovereignty in Article 5, if they chose they can change the Constitution at will.

This is comprehensively ignorant and wrong – in McCulloch the Court correctly acknowledged the fact that the United States did not exist as a mere 'alliance' of 'independent' states, but as a single National entity, whose Constitutional sovereignty was created and authorized by the people alone, not the states, reflecting the will and desire of the people to have a single National government superior to the states and local jurisdictions.

Right, that's why it takes a 3/4ths majority of voters in a national referendum to approve constitutional amendments, OH WAIT! It take 3/4ths of the States, doesn't it? The people are represented by who, right, THE STATES. Just another example where the courts got it 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.

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.

They are dumbass, the States created the feds to manage their union, the feds were not part of the writing or the ratification of the Constitution, they were the result of it. The States chose to grant the feds limited sovereignty while retaining the remainder for themselves. The States gave themselves a path to exercise that superior sovereignty in Article 5, if they chose they can change the Constitution at will.

This is comprehensively ignorant and wrong – in McCulloch the Court correctly acknowledged the fact that the United States did not exist as a mere 'alliance' of 'independent' states, but as a single National entity, whose Constitutional sovereignty was created and authorized by the people alone, not the states, reflecting the will and desire of the people to have a single National government superior to the states and local jurisdictions.

Having grown up in the South, during the civil rights struggles, and seeing what outrages were passed into law by Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc., I flat out do not trust the states beyond a severely limited role in legal authority and power.

Georgia even allowed municipalities to run speed traps all over the state in pre-expressway days so that yankees driving from New York to Florida financed their municipal expenses.

No government can be trusted – Federal, state, or local.

Which goes to the inconsistent idiocy advocated by most on the right, who fear overreach on the part of the Federal government yet take no issue when state governments do the same.

Of course this has to do with partisan rightwing politics, not concern with the original intent of federalism, where many on the right wish to see state governments disadvantage the privacy rights of women or the equal protection rights of gay Americans, for example, for no other reason than conservatives' unwarranted, subjective hostility to the protected liberty of women and gay Americans.

 

[johnwk]

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.

Is that so? Then why did our Supreme Court cite the Federalist Papers 18 times in one case to establish legislative intent? See:UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995). Also see: GREGORY v. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) and: Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

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)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This is unmitigated idiocy and completely contrary to our republican form of government and the right of the people to be subject solely to the rule of law; where – again – citizens' rights are not subject to 'majority rule'; whether that's a majority of individual voters or a majority of the states.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

That might have been the first real test, but it's constitutional...

Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right, you expect the court to determine their own abuses of power unconstitutional, will never happen.

Liberals LOVE the courts. Take a look at history. Every single piece of major liberal legislation has become law as a result of lawsuits and complaints from the Left.
The Courts have been dictating social policy absent of Congressional action for decades.
And here we go.....We will now be treated to barrage of the typical liberal screech. Brown v Board of Ed. Roe v Wade. They may even go for non hetero marriage.
The fact is the Courts exist so that any aggrieved party may seek redress against government action. And that is a good thing, However, liberals believe this right is exclusive to THEIR point of view.
For example. The Courts have been used by liberals to affirm THEIR right to free speech in the same instance quashing the free speech rights of those with which liberals disagree.
When liberals protest the actions of Christians, they use the courts as a means to claim their rights are being violated. So en essence, the Courts issue these convoluted rulings that are not neutral.

 

[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!

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!

I do not have to correct your unsubstantiated, and insulting charge. Perhaps if you had asked me about what I posted in a civil manner I would have cleared the air for you.

Aside from that your adolescent name calling suggests you are not worth communicating with.

JWK