Where are the people that understand the Constitution?

[regent]

The judicial power is to interpret the constitution. So says the federalist papers. The judiciary has not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law.

Thus, if a law is contradicted by the constitution, the judiciary overturns that law and affirms the constitution.

And 'oligarchy'? I don't think that term means what you think it means.

Irrelevant to the point made...In in NO Federalist Paper is it delineated that USSC should be the final word on anything.

In the Federalist papers it states that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the constitution and interpret the meaning of any given law. And if there is an irreconcilable variance between a law and the constitution, that the judiciary should put the constitution above the law.

It is the role of the judiciary to act as an intermediary between the people and the legislature and keep the legislature within the bounds of its authority. If the legislature oversteps and passes laws in contradiction of the constitution, the judiciary puts the constitution over the law. As its is the judiciary that interprets the *meaning* of the constitution.

Just because you don't know what the Federalist papers say on the matter doesn't mean the Federalist papers change. Or the the judicial power doesn't include the authority to interpret the constitution.

The Federalist Papers are simply letters to the editor and have no legal power. The Constitution is not clear on the role of the Supreme Court but America has accepted Marbury as the law of the land.

 

[longknife]

I am amazed by the so-called controversies surrounding the U.S. Constitution.

No such document was ever written more clearly. It says what it says and that should be the basis for every political and legal decision made in this country.

If someone doesn't like what it says, go through the amendment process it provides for.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Again, that is opinion. The constitution was designed to limit the authority of the federal government over the states.

No, that's the explicit findings of the US Supreme Court. They found that while Baltimore had clearly violated the rights of Barron.....they could do nothing about it as the federal courts weren't empowered to apply the Bill of Rights to the State of Maryland.

The assumptions of the founders, that the States would preserve the rights of the people, was found to be factually inaccurate by the Supreme Court.

And it is these inaccurate assumptions that render the founders judgment flawed and in need of correction. Which, of course, we did.

It was the opinion of the court.

The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.

You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.

I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...

Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.

You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.

I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.

The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.

The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.

The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.

There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Federalist Papers are simply letters to the editor and have no legal power. The Constitution is not clear on the role of the Supreme Court but America has accepted Marbury as the law of the land.

I'm afraid the Federalist is a bit more than mere trivialization. Respectfully.

As Madison wrote Jefferson on February 8, 1825:

"The 'Federalist' may fairly enough be regarded as the most authentic exposition of the text of the federal Constitution, as understood by the Body which prepared & the Authority which accepted it."

Relevant reading: "The Federalist"--A Rich Source of Sound Knowledge

That's a great read, and I recommend it for any and all who might be interested in why the Federalist is often introduced into discussion with regard to the Constitution, and, in fact, the thought process which led to the beginnings of our compound Repubic.

 

[Skylar]

No, that's the explicit findings of the US Supreme Court. They found that while Baltimore had clearly violated the rights of Barron.....they could do nothing about it as the federal courts weren't empowered to apply the Bill of Rights to the State of Maryland.

The assumptions of the founders, that the States would preserve the rights of the people, was found to be factually inaccurate by the Supreme Court.

And it is these inaccurate assumptions that render the founders judgment flawed and in need of correction. Which, of course, we did.

It was the opinion of the court.

The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.

You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.

I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...

Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.

You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.

I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.

The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.

The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.

The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.

There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.

Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions.

Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government.

Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.

 

[Skylar]

The Federalist Papers are simply letters to the editor and have no legal power. The Constitution is not clear on the role of the Supreme Court but America has accepted Marbury as the law of the land.

I'm afraid the Federalist is a bit more than mere trivialization. Respectfully.

As Madison wrote Jefferson on February 8, 1825:

"The 'Federalist' may fairly enough be regarded as the most authentic exposition of the text of the federal Constitution, as understood by the Body which prepared & the Authority which accepted it."

Relevant reading: "The Federalist"--A Rich Source of Sound Knowledge

That's a great read, and I recommend it for any and all who might be interested in why the Federalist is often introduced into discussion with regard to the Constitution, and, in fact, the thought process which led to the beginnings of our compound Repubic.

They also lay out the form of government advocated by the Federalists in opposition to the Anti-Federalists.

And the Federalists won.

 

[Natural Citizen]

They also lay out the form of government advocated by the Federalists in opposition to the Anti-Federalists.

And the Federalists won.

Yeah. They sure did.

As it turns out, the anti-federalists were correct in their predictions, though. Government has got way to big and way to powerful while our liberties continue to erode bill by bill.

If I was alive back then, I'd have been an anti-federalist, for sure.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It was the opinion of the court.

The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.

You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.

I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...

Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.

You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.

I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.

The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.

The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.

The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.

There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.

Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions.

Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government.

Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.

What have they done that is amoral?

 

[Skylar]

The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.

You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.

I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...

Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.

You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.

I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.

The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.

The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.

The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.

There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.

Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions.

Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government.

Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.

What have they done that is amoral?

Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress. The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.

If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...

Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.

You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.

I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.

The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.

The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.

The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.

There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.

Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions.

Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government.

Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.

What have they done that is amoral?

Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress. The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.

If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.

Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.

"3. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens. In a cruel and ironic twist, this was also the first time the Court applied strict scrutiny to racial discrimination by the U.S. government, belying the idea that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact."

LINK

Their Constitutional rights as citizens were VIOLATED!

 

[Skylar]

Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.

You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.

I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.

The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.

The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.

The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.

There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.

Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions.

Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government.

Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.

What have they done that is amoral?

Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress. The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.

If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.

Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.

Fred Korematsu was already interned by the President. Executive Order 9066 was issued in Febuary of 1942. The Korematsu decision didn't come down until 1944.....more than 2 years later.

The President was the one who took the 'evil action' in your own estimation.

Does that mean that the Executive doesn't have the Executive Power mentioned by the Constitution? Of course not.

Your entire argument is a red herring. As poor execution of constitutional powers has nothing to do with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.

The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.

The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.

There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.

Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions.

Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government.

Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.

What have they done that is amoral?

Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress. The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.

If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.

Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.

Fred Korematsu was already interned by the President. Executive Order 9066 was issued in Febuary of 1942. The Korematsu decision didn't come down until 1944.....more than 2 years later.

The President was the one who took the 'evil action' in your own estimation.

Does that mean that the Executive doesn't have the Executive Power mentioned by the Constitution? Of course not.

Your entire argument is a red herring. As poor execution of constitutional powers has nothing to do with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution.

You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the President and Congress were guilty.

You also forgot that SCOTUS made a decision, which if they had agreed with Fred, would have overturned the vile Executive order, why didn't you think of that possibility, that SCOTUS could have shot down the illegal Executive order since he had NO evidence of sabotage to fall on.

How come he didn't round up the Germans and the Italians into camps, as they also enemies at the time?



Meanwhile read about the finding of Congress in December 1982:

Justice Denied

Summary

Germans and German Americans

Executive Order 9066 was illegal.

 

[Skylar]

Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions.

Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government.

Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.

What have they done that is amoral?

Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress. The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.

If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.

Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.

Fred Korematsu was already interned by the President. Executive Order 9066 was issued in Febuary of 1942. The Korematsu decision didn't come down until 1944.....more than 2 years later.

The President was the one who took the 'evil action' in your own estimation.

Does that mean that the Executive doesn't have the Executive Power mentioned by the Constitution? Of course not.

Your entire argument is a red herring. As poor execution of constitutional powers has nothing to do with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution.

You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the President and Congress were guilty.

Then by your own argument, Congress no longer has the Legislative Power granted them by the Constitution? And the President doesn't have the Executive Power.....because Congress and the President were both 'guilty' of 'evil' uses of their authority?

Of course not.

Again, your entire argument is a red herring. As poor execution of constitutional powers has nothing to do with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution. Which is what we're discussing. And the point you're willfully ignoring.

 

[regent]

So do the Federalist Papers have any legal authority?
Where in Article 3 of the Constitution does it state that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What's difficult to understand? It's the most brilliant document in human history and basically outlines what limits are set on government over individual rights.

And then people start from this point, saying it's simple, then set about misinterpreting it for their own gain.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The SCOTUS is, itself, limited by the Constitution.

Article VI trumps. Additionally, any decision in any case is limited to the 'law of the case' and binds only those parties involved in it.

See Federalist 83 here.

Not since they seized power under Marbury v. Madison....Ever since, we've had judicial oligarchy.

The judicial power is to interpret the constitution. So says the federalist papers. The judiciary has not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law.

Thus, if a law is contradicted by the constitution, the judiciary overturns that law and affirms the constitution.

And 'oligarchy'? I don't think that term means what you think it means.

Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What have they done that is amoral?

Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress. The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.

If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.

Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.

Fred Korematsu was already interned by the President. Executive Order 9066 was issued in Febuary of 1942. The Korematsu decision didn't come down until 1944.....more than 2 years later.

The President was the one who took the 'evil action' in your own estimation.

Does that mean that the Executive doesn't have the Executive Power mentioned by the Constitution? Of course not.

Your entire argument is a red herring. As poor execution of constitutional powers has nothing to do with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution.

You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the President and Congress were guilty.

Then by your own argument, Congress no longer has the Legislative Power granted them by the Constitution? And the President doesn't have the Executive Power.....because Congress and the President were both 'guilty' of 'evil' uses of their authority?

Of course not.

Again, your entire argument is a red herring. As poor execution of constitutional powers has nothing to do with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution. Which is what we're discussing. And the point you're willfully ignoring.

You are truly too stupid to realize that NO ONE can be above the law, including the President who by an Executive Order rounded up legal citizens over a bogus claim that NEVER existed, which YOU keep ignoring. There was no demonstrated evidence of danger from the people he rounded up. No evidence of organized unlawful activities were ever found, which begs the question of what were Executive orders designed for in the first place:

Wikipedia on Executive Orders:

"Basis in the United States Constitution
The United States Constitution does not have a provision that explicitly permits the use of executive orders. The term executive power in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution is not entirely clear. The term is mentioned as direction to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and is part of Article II, Section 3. The consequence of failing to comply could possibly be removal from office.[4][5]

The U.S. Supreme Court has held[6] that all executive orders from the President of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch.[7] Specifically, such orders must be rooted in Article II of the US Constitution or enacted by the congress in statutes. Attempts to block such orders have been successful at times when such orders exceeded the authority of the president or could be better handled through legislation.[8]

The Office of the Federal Register is responsible for assigning the executive order a sequential number after receipt of the signed original from the White House and printing the text of the executive order in the daily Federal Register and Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations.[9] "

bolding mine

Oops, there NO specific mention of Executive orders in the first place!

 

[Skylar]

Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress. The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.

If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.

Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.

Fred Korematsu was already interned by the President. Executive Order 9066 was issued in Febuary of 1942. The Korematsu decision didn't come down until 1944.....more than 2 years later.

The President was the one who took the 'evil action' in your own estimation.

Does that mean that the Executive doesn't have the Executive Power mentioned by the Constitution? Of course not.

Your entire argument is a red herring. As poor execution of constitutional powers has nothing to do with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution.

You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the President and Congress were guilty.

Then by your own argument, Congress no longer has the Legislative Power granted them by the Constitution? And the President doesn't have the Executive Power.....because Congress and the President were both 'guilty' of 'evil' uses of their authority?

Of course not.

Again, your entire argument is a red herring. As poor execution of constitutional powers has nothing to do with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution. Which is what we're discussing. And the point you're willfully ignoring.

You are truly too stupid to realize that NO ONE can be above the law, including the President who by an Executive Order rounded up legal citizens over a bogus claim that NEVER existed, which YOU keep ignoring. There was no demonstrated evidence of danger from the people he rounded up. No evidence of organized unlawful activities were ever found, which begs the question of what were Executive orders designed for in the first place:

Wikipedia on Executive Orders:

"Basis in the United States Constitution
The United States Constitution does not have a provision that explicitly permits the use of executive orders. The term executive power in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution is not entirely clear. The term is mentioned as direction to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and is part of Article II, Section 3. The consequence of failing to comply could possibly be removal from office.[4][5]

The U.S. Supreme Court has held[6] that all executive orders from the President of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch.[7] Specifically, such orders must be rooted in Article II of the US Constitution or enacted by the congress in statutes. Attempts to block such orders have been successful at times when such orders exceeded the authority of the president or could be better handled through legislation.[8]

The Office of the Federal Register is responsible for assigning the executive order a sequential number after receipt of the signed original from the White House and printing the text of the executive order in the daily Federal Register and Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations.[9] "

bolding mine

Oops, there NO specific mention of Executive orders in the first place!

Yawning....

Again, your entire argument is a red herring. As poor execution of constitutional powers has nothing to do with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution. Which is what we're discussing.

And the point you're willfully ignoring.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It gets worse when this was decided the same year:

"Ex parte Endo, or Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944),[1] was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast—which they had found not to violate citizen rights in their Korematsu v. United States decision on the same date—the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II."

Since there was ZERO evidence as pointed out in TWO reports, one requested by President Roosevelt himself, that Japanese Americans were NOT a threat to security of the nation.

"Japanese Americans and other Asians in the U.S. had suffered for decades from prejudice and racially-motivated fear. Laws preventing Asian Americans from owning land, voting, testifying against whites in court, and other racially discriminatory laws existed long before World War II. Additionally, the FBI, Office of Naval Intelligence and Military Intelligence Division had been conducting surveillance on Japanese American communities in Hawaii and the U.S. mainland from the early 1930s.[5] In early 1941, President Roosevelt secretly commissioned a study to assess the possibility that Japanese Americans would pose a threat to U.S. security. The report, submitted exactly one month before Pearl Harbor was bombed, found that, "There will be no armed uprising of Japanese" in the United States. "For the most part," the Munson Report said, "the local Japanese are loyal to the United States or, at worst, hope that by remaining quiet they can avoid concentration camps or irresponsible mobs."[4] A second investigation started in 1940, written by Naval Intelligence officer Kenneth Ringle and submitted in January 1942, likewise found no evidence of fifth column activity and urged against mass incarceration.[6] Both were ignored."

Over two-thirds of the people of Japanese ethnicity were incarcerated—almost 70,000—were American citizens. Many of the rest had lived in the country between 20 and 40 years. Most Japanese Americans, particularly the first generation born in the United States (the nisei), considered themselves loyal to the United States of America. No Japanese American citizen or Japanese national residing in the United States was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage.[4]

It goes on to show that the Roosevelt administration quickly realized they had no legal justification to keep the camps in place:

"The unanimous opinion ruling in Endo's favor was written by Justice William O. Douglas, with Justices Frank Murphy and Owen Roberts concurring. It stopped short of addressing the question of the government's right to exclude citizens based on military necessity, instead focusing on the actions of the WRA: "In reaching that conclusion [that Endo should be freed] we do not come to the underlying constitutional issues which have been argued. ... [W]e conclude that, whatever power the War Relocation Authority may have to detain other classes of citizens, it has no authority to subject citizens who are concededly loyal to its leave procedure."[1]

Because of this avoidance, it is very difficult to reconcile Endo with Korematsu, which was decided the same day. As Justice Roberts pointed out in his Korematsu dissent, distinguishing the cases required a reliance on the legal fiction that Korematsu only dealt with the exclusion of Japanese Americans, not their detention—that Fred Korematsu could have gone anywhere else in the United States, when in reality he would have been subject to the detainment found illegal in Endo.[4] In short, while Endo determined that a citizen could not be imprisoned if the government was unable to prove she was disloyal, Korematsu allowed the government a loophole to criminally punish that citizen for refusing to be illegally imprisoned.[5]

The Roosevelt administration, having been alerted to the Court's decision, issued Public Proclamation No. 21 the day before the Endo and Korematsu rulings were made public, on December 17, 1944, rescinding the exclusion orders and declaring that Japanese Americans could begin returning to the West Coast in January 1945.[5]"

boldings mine

You are too stupid to realize you have jack shit. Your red herring claims are STUPID as hell.

Sop defending the proven terrible SCOTUS decision and that lawless Executive Order 9066!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.

Fred Korematsu was already interned by the President. Executive Order 9066 was issued in Febuary of 1942. The Korematsu decision didn't come down until 1944.....more than 2 years later.

The President was the one who took the 'evil action' in your own estimation.

Does that mean that the Executive doesn't have the Executive Power mentioned by the Constitution? Of course not.

Your entire argument is a red herring. As poor execution of constitutional powers has nothing to do with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution.

You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the President and Congress were guilty.

Then by your own argument, Congress no longer has the Legislative Power granted them by the Constitution? And the President doesn't have the Executive Power.....because Congress and the President were both 'guilty' of 'evil' uses of their authority?

Of course not.

Again, your entire argument is a red herring. As poor execution of constitutional powers has nothing to do with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution. Which is what we're discussing. And the point you're willfully ignoring.

You are truly too stupid to realize that NO ONE can be above the law, including the President who by an Executive Order rounded up legal citizens over a bogus claim that NEVER existed, which YOU keep ignoring. There was no demonstrated evidence of danger from the people he rounded up. No evidence of organized unlawful activities were ever found, which begs the question of what were Executive orders designed for in the first place:

Wikipedia on Executive Orders:

"Basis in the United States Constitution
The United States Constitution does not have a provision that explicitly permits the use of executive orders. The term executive power in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution is not entirely clear. The term is mentioned as direction to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and is part of Article II, Section 3. The consequence of failing to comply could possibly be removal from office.[4][5]

The U.S. Supreme Court has held[6] that all executive orders from the President of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch.[7] Specifically, such orders must be rooted in Article II of the US Constitution or enacted by the congress in statutes. Attempts to block such orders have been successful at times when such orders exceeded the authority of the president or could be better handled through legislation.[8]

The Office of the Federal Register is responsible for assigning the executive order a sequential number after receipt of the signed original from the White House and printing the text of the executive order in the daily Federal Register and Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations.[9] "

bolding mine

Oops, there NO specific mention of Executive orders in the first place!

Yawning....

Again, your entire argument is a red herring. As poor execution of constitutional powers has nothing to do with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution. Which is what we're discussing.

And the point you're willfully ignoring.

This is my FIRST post in reply to YOU:

"The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.

The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.

The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.

There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten."

which a was a reply to YOUR comment, you made to Vasator :

"Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.

You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.

I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution."

From the start I was talking about their TERRIBLE "authoritative" Supreme court decisions, which was a legitimate reply to your comment. YOU wrote,

"....You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution."

You talked about RULINGS they have made such as this statement YOU WROTE:

"It is the role of the judiciary to act as an intermediary between the people and the legislature and keep the legislature within the bounds of its authority. If the legislature oversteps and passes laws in contradiction of the constitution, the judiciary puts the constitution over the law. As its is the judiciary that interprets the *meaning* of the constitution."

Which is why I brought up the evidence that even Supreme Courts make bad decisions too. You talked about SCOTUS keeping the Legislature in their place by ruling the constitution over bad law congress makes.

Thus my SCOTUS making bad decisions applies here, it is NOT a Red Herring at all.


============================

From Wikipedia:

"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation."

Never disputed their constitutional authority, but points out they can make terrible decisions from time to time, which you keep claiming is a red herring, which is demonstrably false.

Your comments are truly stupid as hell.