Where are the people that understand the Constitution?

[Natural Citizen]

Something else people don't likely know is that there hasn't always been just 9 people on the SCOTUS throughout history. Nope. And for good reason. Why the heck should 1 person have the power to define the Constitution?

No reason why there can't be 100 SC judges. Throughout history there have been 6, 5, back to 6, 9, 7, 10, 9...

 

[Natural Citizen]

Where in Article 3 of the Constitution does it state that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review?

It's not there. You win the debate.

They can pop off all they want, but their argument is just a bunch of white noise.

You're right and they're wrong. Heh heh.

 

[Sunsettommy]

So where is the power derived for the Federalist Papers to have any power over any aspect of the government? Calling the papers federalist does not make them a part of any government agency or the power to make government laws. Three men, Madison, Jay and Hamilton wrote letters to the editor hopefully to get the Constitution approved by the states.

They're completely blind to the tenor of #78. Chuckle and move along. Nothing to see here. Heh heh.

#78 was written on the assumption that the Congress would not become so derelict in their duty to allow the Judiciary to become so powerful. No place in Article III do we find judicial review. Jefferson fought it the forst time they tried it. He prevailed and he shtut them down. When he died, they went right back to it. It was Marbury v Madison that the SCOTUS gave themselves the power of judicial review.

But, as we see, the opposite of the tenor in #78 has happened, The Judiciary routinely vetos Congress, which is outside the parameters of its constitutional function in terms of our system of checks and balances, therefore rendering the tenor in #78 redundant.

You are fighting Hamilton on this because those papers (published in 1788) were written to help people understand various parts of the Constitution that was being ratified in 1789

Wikipedia

""Federalist No. 78", also written by Hamilton, lays the groundwork for the doctrine of judicial review by federal courts of federal legislation or executive acts."

You completely avoided this comment:

"I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?

Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78? "

Here is a simple discussion of the paper:

"In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton said that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Federalist No. 78 quotes Montesquieu: "Of the three powers [...], the judiciary is next to nothing." There was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the political branches; since Congress controlled the flow of money and the President the military, courts did not have nearly the same clout from a constitutional design standpoint. The Judiciary would depend on the political branches to uphold its judgments. Legal academics often argue over Hamilton's description of the judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch. Hamilton also explains how federal judges should retain life terms as long as those judges exhibit good behavior. [2]

Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress."

 

[Natural Citizen]

Sunsettommy, I'll tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna go onto the Fed 78 wiki page, I'm gonna edit it, and I'm gonna resolve it concisely. K?

Wait for it. Maybe tonight, I'll do it, if I feel like it. And then I'm gonna lock it.

So where is the power derived for the Federalist Papers to have any power over any aspect of the government? Calling the papers federalist does not make them a part of any government agency or the power to make government laws. Three men, Madison, Jay and Hamilton wrote letters to the editor hopefully to get the Constitution approved by the states.

They're completely blind to the tenor of #78. Chuckle and move along. Nothing to see here. Heh heh.

#78 was written on the assumption that the Congress would not become so derelict in their duty to allow the Judiciary to become so powerful. No place in Article III do we find judicial review. Jefferson fought it the forst time they tried it. He prevailed and he shtut them down. When he died, they went right back to it. It was Marbury v Madison that the SCOTUS gave themselves the power of judicial review.

But, as we see, the opposite of the tenor in #78 has happened, The Judiciary routinely vetos Congress, which is outside the parameters of its constitutional function in terms of our system of checks and balances, therefore rendering the tenor in #78 redundant.

You are fighting Hamilton on this because those papers (published in 1788) were written to help people understand various parts of the Constitution that was being ratified in 1789

Wikipedia

""Federalist No. 78", also written by Hamilton, lays the groundwork for the doctrine of judicial review by federal courts of federal legislation or executive acts."

You completely avoided this comment:

"I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?

Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78? "

Here is a simple discussion of the paper:

"In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton said that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Federalist No. 78 quotes Montesquieu: "Of the three powers [...], the judiciary is next to nothing." There was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the political branches; since Congress controlled the flow of money and the President the military, courts did not have nearly the same clout from a constitutional design standpoint. The Judiciary would depend on the political branches to uphold its judgments. Legal academics often argue over Hamilton's description of the judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch. Hamilton also explains how federal judges should retain life terms as long as those judges exhibit good behavior. [2]

Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress."

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sunsettommy, I'll tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna go onto the Fed 78 wiki page, I'm gonna edit it, and I'm gonna resolve it concisely. K?

Wait for it. Maybe tonight, I'll do it, if I feel like it. And then I'm gonna lock it.

So where is the power derived for the Federalist Papers to have any power over any aspect of the government? Calling the papers federalist does not make them a part of any government agency or the power to make government laws. Three men, Madison, Jay and Hamilton wrote letters to the editor hopefully to get the Constitution approved by the states.

They're completely blind to the tenor of #78. Chuckle and move along. Nothing to see here. Heh heh.

#78 was written on the assumption that the Congress would not become so derelict in their duty to allow the Judiciary to become so powerful. No place in Article III do we find judicial review. Jefferson fought it the forst time they tried it. He prevailed and he shtut them down. When he died, they went right back to it. It was Marbury v Madison that the SCOTUS gave themselves the power of judicial review.

But, as we see, the opposite of the tenor in #78 has happened, The Judiciary routinely vetos Congress, which is outside the parameters of its constitutional function in terms of our system of checks and balances, therefore rendering the tenor in #78 redundant.

You are fighting Hamilton on this because those papers (published in 1788) were written to help people understand various parts of the Constitution that was being ratified in 1789

Wikipedia

""Federalist No. 78", also written by Hamilton, lays the groundwork for the doctrine of judicial review by federal courts of federal legislation or executive acts."

You completely avoided this comment:

"I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?

Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78? "

Here is a simple discussion of the paper:

"In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton said that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Federalist No. 78 quotes Montesquieu: "Of the three powers [...], the judiciary is next to nothing." There was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the political branches; since Congress controlled the flow of money and the President the military, courts did not have nearly the same clout from a constitutional design standpoint. The Judiciary would depend on the political branches to uphold its judgments. Legal academics often argue over Hamilton's description of the judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch. Hamilton also explains how federal judges should retain life terms as long as those judges exhibit good behavior. [2]

Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress."

Go ahead, and make a fool of yourself.

I have the BOOK The Federalist Papers in my possession, which YOU can't edit. It clearly shows what Alexander Hamilton though about Judicial Power:

Wiki correctly states:

"Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress."

Go ahead be a fool.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Go ahead, and make a fool of yourself.

I have the BOOK The Federalist Papers in my possession, which YOU can't edit. It clearly shows what Alexander Hamilton though about Judicial Power:

Wiki correctly states:

"Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress."

Go ahead be a fool.

Oh, I do it all the time. Ha. That's how winning is done, Tommyboy.

Hamilton's horse pucky created the outline for every single unconstitutional federal act we've seen. As well as the nationalization of every nonsensical issue in America.Hamilton was the architect for big government in America.

''Implied powers'' were never part of the plan. Which is why they're not found in Article III.

It's no surprise to conservatives that our friends who are trustees in big government have an undying love for Hamilton. We get it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Go ahead, and make a fool of yourself.

I have the BOOK The Federalist Papers in my possession, which YOU can't edit. It clearly shows what Alexander Hamilton though about Judicial Power:

Wiki correctly states:

"Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress."

Go ahead be a fool.

Oh, I do it all the time. Ha. Tht's how winning is done, Tommyboy.

Hamilton's horse pucky created the outline for every single unconstitutional federal act we've seen. As well as the nationalization of every nonsensical issue in America.Hamilton was the architect for big government in America.

''Implied powers'' were never part of the plan. Which is why they're not found in Article III.

When will you ever answer two questions I have asked you several times now?


"I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?

Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78? "

 

[Natural Citizen]

Heck, truth be told, the majority of our elected ones are Hamiltonian.

It's why people are having their pants pulled down at the airport just to fly from point A to point B. Crazy.

 

[EGR one]

The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court; to understand that case law is to understand the Constitution.

Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution.

Pure BS. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and case law can be overturned at any time that five lawyers decide to do so. The Constitution is not a guide, it is the law.

 

[EGR one]

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.

No, they do not.

 

[beagle9]

The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?

We'll it could be that most are dead now, and the new generations could care less. It is why the master piece is vulnerable to these types of characters these days. If it isn't being empowered in the schools from 4th grade up, then each generation gets a little more lost, and a lot more sheeple they become in their ways.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Pure BS. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and case law can be overturned at any time that five lawyers decide to do so. The Constitution is not a guide, it is the law.

Yep. That's correct.

 

[koshergrl]

The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of). There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?

I carry a copy of the constitution in my purse.

 

[Natural Citizen]

We'll it could be that most are dead now, and the new generations could care less.

Yep. It's why we always hear those modern populist words "Our Democracy'' instead of the truth of the matter -- ''Our Republic"

 

[regent]

A number of Americans understand the Constitution besides the judges. Who teaches the judges, who teaches law school students, who teaches college students of the Constitution, who teaches high school students the Constitution?

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment, why do we have security problems in our free States.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" More Left Wing Quackery "

* Necessary Acts Without Knowing The Future *

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

An interesting digress in constitutional law on this topic has been informative and interesting , but to allege that the President and Congress at the time of wwii were , or should be , " guilty " is legally false and libel .

To second guess a military strategy that implemented imminent domain to secure an area of operations on the us pacific coast was more realistic than the contemporary reverse racist racist propaganda to vilify the history of us peoples and its administrators as contemptuous and morally bereft .

Should one surmise a further contempt of armchair absurdity that us should have sacrificed an estimated 500,000 fighting men above and beyond the nearly 400,000 who were to die altogether , to invade japan and force a capitulation of its emperor , rather than issuing the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia .

Alternatively , us could have ignored a persistent of japanese imperialism , except that it came to pass that they provoked a declaration of war through a clear infraction against us military and that was something germany was not so gawd awful stupid to do .

* Complaining About The Opportunity To Participate *

The relocated japanese were not deprived of first amendment for a redress of grievances and it certainly make strategic sense to blanket remove potential spies or conspirators and even to intern them for their own protection .

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
On August 10, 1988, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which had been sponsored by Representative Norman Mineta and Senator Alan K. Simpson, who had met while Mineta was interned at Heart Mountain Relocation Center in Wyoming. It provided financial redress of $20,000 for each surviving detainee, totaling $1.2 billion. The question of to whom reparations should be given, how much, and even whether monetary reparations were appropriate were subjects of sometimes contentious debate within the Japanese American community and Congress.[205]

On September 27, 1992, the Civil Liberties Act Amendments of 1992, appropriating an additional $400 million to ensure all remaining internees received their $20,000 redress payments, was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. He issued another formal apology from the U.S. government on December 7, 1991, on the 50th Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, saying:

* No Evidence Needed *

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.

The german conflict with other european countries was perceived to be isolated to europe and to those territories sought by germans for germany .

At the time , us posture in WWII was formally neutral and it was japan which attacked the us directly , and not germany which had more sense than to provoke the us directly into the war .

Yet , armchair propagandists with 10/10 revisionism , exercise skewed perceptions to character assassinate those responsible for the gravity of potential future outcomes .

Military history of the United States during World War II - Wikipedia
Highest priority went to the defeat of Germany in Europe, but first the war against Japan in the Pacific was more urgent after the sinking of the main battleship fleet at Pearl Harbor.

The military history of the United States in World War II covers the war against Germany, Italy, Japan and starting with the 7 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. During the first two years of World War II, the United States had maintained formal neutrality as made officially in the Quarantine Speech delivered by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937, while supplying Britain, the Soviet Union, and China with war materiel through the Lend-Lease Act which was signed into law on 11 March 1941, as well as deploying the U.S. military to replace the British invasion forces in Iceland. In the Pacific Theater, there was unofficial early U.S. combat activity such as the Flying Tigers.

Executive Order 9066 - Wikipedia
Executive Order 9066 was a United States presidential executive order signed and issued during World War II by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. This order authorized the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones, clearing the way for the incarceration of Japanese Americans, German Americans, and Italian Americans in U.S. concentration camps.

Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
The internment of Japanese Americans in the United States during World War II was the forced relocation and incarceration in concentration camps in the western interior of the country of between 110,000 and 120,000[5] people of Japanese ancestry, most of whom lived on the Pacific coast. Sixty-two percent of the internees were United States citizens.[6][7] These actions were ordered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt shortly after Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.[8]

 

[Sunsettommy]

" More Left Wing Quackery "

* Necessary Acts Without Knowing The Future *

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

An interesting digress in constitutional law on this topic has been informative and interesting , but to allege that the President and Congress at the time of wwii were , or should be , " guilty " is legally false and libel .

To second guess a military strategy that implemented imminent domain to secure an area of operations on the us pacific coast was more realistic than the contemporary reverse racist racist propaganda to vilify the history of us peoples and its administrators as contemptuous and morally bereft .

Should one surmise a further contempt of armchair absurdity that us should have sacrificed an estimated 500,000 fighting men above and beyond the nearly 400,000 who were to die altogether , to invade japan and force a capitulation of its emperor , rather than issuing the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia .

Alternatively , us could have ignored a persistent of japanese imperialism , except that it came to pass that they provoked a declaration of war through a clear infraction against us military and that was something germany was not so gawd awful stupid to do .

* Complaining About The Opportunity To Participate *

The relocated japanese were not deprived of first amendment for a redress of grievances and it certainly make strategic sense to blanket remove potential spies or conspirators and even to intern them for their own protection .

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
On August 10, 1988, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which had been sponsored by Representative Norman Mineta and Senator Alan K. Simpson, who had met while Mineta was interned at Heart Mountain Relocation Center in Wyoming. It provided financial redress of $20,000 for each surviving detainee, totaling $1.2 billion. The question of to whom reparations should be given, how much, and even whether monetary reparations were appropriate were subjects of sometimes contentious debate within the Japanese American community and Congress.[205]

On September 27, 1992, the Civil Liberties Act Amendments of 1992, appropriating an additional $400 million to ensure all remaining internees received their $20,000 redress payments, was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. He issued another formal apology from the U.S. government on December 7, 1991, on the 50th Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, saying:

* No Evidence Needed *

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.

The german conflict with other european countries was perceived to be isolated to europe and to those territories sought by germans for germany .

At the time , us posture in WWII was formally neutral and it was japan which attacked the us directly , and not germany which had more sense than to provoke the us directly into the war .

Yet , armchair reverse racist racist , with 10/10 revisionism , exercise skewed perceptions to character assassinate those responsible for the gravity of potential future outcomes .

Military history of the United States during World War II - Wikipedia
Highest priority went to the defeat of Germany in Europe, but first the war against Japan in the Pacific was more urgent after the sinking of the main battleship fleet at Pearl Harbor.

The military history of the United States in World War II covers the war against Germany, Italy, Japan and starting with the 7 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. During the first two years of World War II, the United States had maintained formal neutrality as made officially in the Quarantine Speech delivered by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937, while supplying Britain, the Soviet Union, and China with war materiel through the Lend-Lease Act which was signed into law on 11 March 1941, as well as deploying the U.S. military to replace the British invasion forces in Iceland. In the Pacific Theater, there was unofficial early U.S. combat activity such as the Flying Tigers.

Executive Order 9066 - Wikipedia
Executive Order 9066 was a United States presidential executive order signed and issued during World War II by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. This order authorized the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones, clearing the way for the incarceration of Japanese Americans, German Americans, and Italian Americans in U.S. concentration camps.

Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
The internment of Japanese Americans in the United States during World War II was the forced relocation and incarceration in concentration camps in the western interior of the country of between 110,000 and 120,000[5] people of Japanese ancestry, most of whom lived on the Pacific coast. Sixty-two percent of the internees were United States citizens.[6][7] These actions were ordered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt shortly after Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.[8]

Post 59 showed that the Roosevelt Administration realized they had no credible basis to continue the internment camps just before the Supreme Court Decision was posted in public.

Their actions showed they KNEW they were wrong as the quickly changed their minds BEFORE the 9-0 SCOTUS decision was made public, along with several reports showing there were no evidence that the Japanese Americans were a risk to America.:

Your statement here is dumb as hell:

"an interesting digress in constitutional law on this topic has been informative and interesting , but to allege that the President and Congress at the time of wwii were , or should be , " guilty " is legally false and libel ."

Ooops.

 

[longknife]

All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.

The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.

 

[regent]

The error of 1099 is probably the US had checked and tagged suspicious Germans and Italians and they were picked up and interred, that had not been done with the Japanese-Americans and the Japanese.