America Changed From The Founder's Vision

[PoliticalChic]

There are several momentous events that altered the America envisioned by our Founders.
And not for the better.
A key element of American History is left out of the education provided by government schooling.

Federalism.

The Constitution was ratified by the colonies with the proviso that the concept of 'federalism' would be the basic doctrine of the new nation.



Federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That's America. We didn't vote for a king, even if you call it 'the federal government,'' or 'the Supreme Court,' or 'the President.'

The only rules we agreed to be governed by is the Constitution.



On this date in 1913, the power of the federal government over the states.....'sovereign' states....was ended, and they became no more than agencies of the unitary central power.

Senators now had allegiance to the central government, not their home states.


https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...hUKEwiWoe2sgtnoAhWDgXIEHePsBiEQ420oBHoECAcQCw


Passed by Congress May 13, 1912, and ratified April 8, 1913, the 17th amendment modified Article I, section 3, of the Constitution by allowing voters to cast direct votes for U.S. Senators. Prior to its passage, Senators were chosen by state legislatures.

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ... - Our Documents

 

[Gdjjr]

On this date in 1913, the power of the federal government over the states.....'sovereign' states....was ended, and they became no more than agencies of the unitary central power.

Have Republicans thwarted this? If so, when? Have they tried to abolish the other 1913 acts of despotism?
Have they thwarted unconstututional Wars, foreign and Domestic? Have they done away with forfeiture acts?
Have they over ruled the SC about a fine being a tax? Have they stood up against the war on the Bill of Rights?
Did they call out, or censure, Bush jr when he said it's just a goddamn piece of paper? Are they defending the constitution as we speak? If so, how?

 

[whitehall]

You could say the Civil War determined that the federal government was the ultimate authority. Decisions by unelected judges in the last hundred years eroded the Bill of Rights to the point where a "right to privacy" not found in the Constitution sanctioned the Nazi doctrine of "eugenics" and resulted in the new Holocaust murder of the unborn. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme court by FDR wrote the majority opinion that justified incarceration of Japanese American citizens without due process in violation of the 5th Amendment. The same Justice found a "separation of Church and State" which did not appear in the Constitution and undermined the 1st Amendment freedom of religion to the point that a lawsuit by a single agnostic who was personally offended by a Christian Cross led to the order by a federal judge to bulldoze a Korean War memorial.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You could say the Civil War determined that the federal government was the ultimate authority. Decisions by unelected judges in the last hundred years eroded the Bill of Rights to the point where a "right to privacy" not found in the Constitution sanctioned the Nazi doctrine of "eugenics" and resulted in the new Holocaust murder of the unborn. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme court by FDR wrote the majority opinion that justified incarceration of Japanese American citizens without due process in violation of the 5th Amendment. The same Justice found a "separation of Church and State" which did not appear in the Constitution and undermined the 1st Amendment freedom of religion to the point that a lawsuit by a single agnostic who was personally offended by a Christian Cross led to the order by a federal judge to bulldoze a Korean War memorial.

This was the first line of the OP:
There are several momentous events that altered the America envisioned by our Founders.
And not for the better.


Yup.....you mentioned a number of 'em.

But....if you'd like to do that, I hope you go back very near the start:

The question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

 

[whitehall]

You have to consider the power of the media to influence the opinion of the masses. When the media becomes the propaganda arm of a particular political party, all bets are off regarding Constitutional law.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

On this date in 1913, the power of the federal government over the states.....'sovereign' states....was ended, and they became no more than agencies of the unitary central power.

Have Republicans thwarted this? If so, when? Have they tried to abolish the other 1913 acts of despotism?
Have they thwarted unconstututional Wars, foreign and Domestic? Have they done away with forfeiture acts?
Have they over ruled the SC about a fine being a tax? Have they stood up against the war on the Bill of Rights?
Did they call out, or censure, Bush jr when he said it's just a goddamn piece of paper? Are they defending the constitution as we speak? If so, how?

I recall briefly some of the arguments back when Obama was running for Senator. Alan Keyes brought it up.

The GOP, as a whole, has been mum on this topic.

Very few people even understand it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You could say the Civil War determined that the federal government was the ultimate authority. Decisions by unelected judges in the last hundred years eroded the Bill of Rights to the point where a "right to privacy" not found in the Constitution sanctioned the Nazi doctrine of "eugenics" and resulted in the new Holocaust murder of the unborn. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme court by FDR wrote the majority opinion that justified incarceration of Japanese American citizens without due process in violation of the 5th Amendment. The same Justice found a "separation of Church and State" which did not appear in the Constitution and undermined the 1st Amendment freedom of religion to the point that a lawsuit by a single agnostic who was personally offended by a Christian Cross led to the order by a federal judge to bulldoze a Korean War memorial.

This was the first line of the OP:
There are several momentous events that altered the America envisioned by our Founders.
And not for the better.


Yup.....you mentioned a number of 'em.

But....if you'd like to do that, I hope you go back very near the start:

The question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

I am not an expert by any stretch of the immagination.

But Robert Bork did address this in his book The Tempting of America.

He states that Marbury decision was necessary....

Not that I take that as gospel......but Bork was always pretty good in his analysis.

That aside....you are correct...judical review isn't called out in the consitution. I think Bork argues that what the court does now goes way beyond what Marshall states.

What I applaud is that you are raising the issue.

Most GOP are CLUELESS on this issue and it is important !!!!!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I have read all kinds of articles on the 17th amendment.

I really don't care what justificaiton people utilize.....it does not matter.

As PC states....the stupid states managed to create a huge structural weakness in our government.

Sentators (the morons like Chuck Schumer, and Patty nobrains (Washington)) are now "super representatives".

They were to represent the interests of the states. Not people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have to consider the power of the media to influence the opinion of the masses. When the media becomes the propaganda arm of a particular political party, all bets are off regarding Constitutional law.

That's step two.


Step one:
Unless we can pry the schools from them, as earlier American pried their slaves from them.....America is lost.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You could say the Civil War determined that the federal government was the ultimate authority. Decisions by unelected judges in the last hundred years eroded the Bill of Rights to the point where a "right to privacy" not found in the Constitution sanctioned the Nazi doctrine of "eugenics" and resulted in the new Holocaust murder of the unborn. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme court by FDR wrote the majority opinion that justified incarceration of Japanese American citizens without due process in violation of the 5th Amendment. The same Justice found a "separation of Church and State" which did not appear in the Constitution and undermined the 1st Amendment freedom of religion to the point that a lawsuit by a single agnostic who was personally offended by a Christian Cross led to the order by a federal judge to bulldoze a Korean War memorial.

This was the first line of the OP:
There are several momentous events that altered the America envisioned by our Founders.
And not for the better.


Yup.....you mentioned a number of 'em.

But....if you'd like to do that, I hope you go back very near the start:

The question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

I am not an expert by any stretch of the immagination.

But Robert Bork did address this in his book The Tempting of America.

He states that Marbury decision was necessary....

Not that I take that as gospel......but Bork was always pretty good in his analysis.

That aside....you are correct...judical review isn't called out in the consitution. I think Bork argues that what the court does now goes way beyond what Marshall states.

What I applaud is that you are raising the issue.

Most GOP are CLUELESS on this issue and it is important !!!!!

I'm a big fan of Bork.....and he is certainly more versed on the issue than I am.

But if the Founders had intended it......

“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #15

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You could say the Civil War determined that the federal government was the ultimate authority. Decisions by unelected judges in the last hundred years eroded the Bill of Rights to the point where a "right to privacy" not found in the Constitution sanctioned the Nazi doctrine of "eugenics" and resulted in the new Holocaust murder of the unborn. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme court by FDR wrote the majority opinion that justified incarceration of Japanese American citizens without due process in violation of the 5th Amendment. The same Justice found a "separation of Church and State" which did not appear in the Constitution and undermined the 1st Amendment freedom of religion to the point that a lawsuit by a single agnostic who was personally offended by a Christian Cross led to the order by a federal judge to bulldoze a Korean War memorial.

This was the first line of the OP:
There are several momentous events that altered the America envisioned by our Founders.
And not for the better.


Yup.....you mentioned a number of 'em.

But....if you'd like to do that, I hope you go back very near the start:

The question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

I am not an expert by any stretch of the immagination.

But Robert Bork did address this in his book The Tempting of America.

He states that Marbury decision was necessary....

Not that I take that as gospel......but Bork was always pretty good in his analysis.

That aside....you are correct...judical review isn't called out in the consitution. I think Bork argues that what the court does now goes way beyond what Marshall states.

What I applaud is that you are raising the issue.

Most GOP are CLUELESS on this issue and it is important !!!!!

I'm a big fan of Bork.....and he is certainly more versed on the issue than I am.

But if the Founders had intended it......

“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #15

And the fears were founded.

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

 

[whitehall]

On this date in 1913, the power of the federal government over the states.....'sovereign' states....was ended, and they became no more than agencies of the unitary central power.

Have Republicans thwarted this? If so, when? Have they tried to abolish the other 1913 acts of despotism?
Have they thwarted unconstututional Wars, foreign and Domestic? Have they done away with forfeiture acts?
Have they over ruled the SC about a fine being a tax? Have they stood up against the war on the Bill of Rights?
Did they call out, or censure, Bush jr when he said it's just a goddamn piece of paper? Are they defending the constitution as we speak? If so, how?

The "illegal war" cliche is part of the power of the press. Most pop culture educated lefties use Bush's invasion of Iraq as an example of an "illegal war" because the media was generally against it but Bush sought and obtained permission from Congress to use U.S Troops in a mission to punish a dictator for violating about a hundred U.N. sanctions. Constitutional scholars are still arguing over Harry Truman's executive order bypassing Congress and Constitutional review, that authorized the Korean Conflict but Truman was a democrat and there was no argument by the media at the time and little outrage over the loss of an estimated 50,000 Americans in three years. Democrat LBJ's adventure in Vietnam initiated by a bogus "Tonkin Gulf Crisis" was supported by the media at first until republican Nixon was elected. Bill Clinton's bombing of a defenseless country in Europe when he was caught with his pants down was probably the most egregious violation of the use of the U.S. Military in modern history but the media supported it and it goes down in the plus column among ignorant left wing democrat party sycophants.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You could say the Civil War determined that the federal government was the ultimate authority. Decisions by unelected judges in the last hundred years eroded the Bill of Rights to the point where a "right to privacy" not found in the Constitution sanctioned the Nazi doctrine of "eugenics" and resulted in the new Holocaust murder of the unborn. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme court by FDR wrote the majority opinion that justified incarceration of Japanese American citizens without due process in violation of the 5th Amendment. The same Justice found a "separation of Church and State" which did not appear in the Constitution and undermined the 1st Amendment freedom of religion to the point that a lawsuit by a single agnostic who was personally offended by a Christian Cross led to the order by a federal judge to bulldoze a Korean War memorial.

This was the first line of the OP:
There are several momentous events that altered the America envisioned by our Founders.
And not for the better.


Yup.....you mentioned a number of 'em.

But....if you'd like to do that, I hope you go back very near the start:

The question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

I am not an expert by any stretch of the immagination.

But Robert Bork did address this in his book The Tempting of America.

He states that Marbury decision was necessary....

Not that I take that as gospel......but Bork was always pretty good in his analysis.

That aside....you are correct...judical review isn't called out in the consitution. I think Bork argues that what the court does now goes way beyond what Marshall states.

What I applaud is that you are raising the issue.

Most GOP are CLUELESS on this issue and it is important !!!!!

I'm a big fan of Bork.....and he is certainly more versed on the issue than I am.

But if the Founders had intended it......

“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #15

And the fears were founded.

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

But......as strong President can poke his finger in their eye!



“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).

 

[whitehall]

Reagan was a strong president but democrats, along with unrelenting biased support in the media, almost impeached him over the lame argument about protecting Central America from left wing revolutionaries barely a couple of decades after JFK used the CIA to illegally raise and train an army to invade Cuba. Bush was a rather weak president who clearly wasn't comfortable with firing Clinton appointees and dealing with the media. Thanks to pop-culture historians we have a generation of idiots who think Bush was a war criminal for using U.S. Troops in a (successful) mission to enforce U.N. sanctions but Clinton was a hero for using U.S. bombers to obliterate a cosmopolitan city in Europe while 9-11 terrorists were attending flight school in freaking Florida. To paraphrase a Clinton campaign slogan "it's the media, stupid".

 

[Gdjjr]

The "illegal war" cliche is part of the power of the press. Most pop culture educated lefties use Bush's invasion of Iraq as an example of an "illegal war" because the media was generally against it but Bush sought and obtained permission from Congress to use U.S Troops in a mission to punish a dictator for violating about a hundred U.N. sanctions. Constitutional scholars are still arguing over Harry Truman's executive order bypassing Congress and Constitutional review, that authorized the Korean Conflict but Truman was a democrat and there was no argument by the media at the time and little outrage over the loss of an estimated 50,000 Americans in three years. Democrat LBJ's adventure in Vietnam initiated by a bogus "Tonkin Gulf Crisis" was supported by the media at first until republican Nixon was elected. Bill Clinton's bombing of a defenseless country in Europe when he was caught with his pants down was probably the most egregious violation of the use of the U.S. Military in modern history but the media supported it and it goes down in the plus column among ignorant left wing democrat party sycophants.

Can you point out where I said illegal war? No, because that isn't what I said. It's what you wanted to react to.
However, the Constitution is pretty clear about who can Declare War- and authorizing Military Force is just that. It's not a declaration of war. A declaration is a public announcement of intent.

The constitution is in simple English. It doesn't need or require scholarly study by people full of themselves.
Lawyers and judges (who were lawyers before being judges) pay others to teach them to lie, legally, and hoow to intentionally obfuscate with "interpretation" which cannot exist without definition and words in simple English words have clear definitions. Legal mumbo jumbo is a CYA because of the very ones who proclaim an esoteric knowledge have made them necessary = job justification. Period.

 

[Gdjjr]

And still no evidence of what The Saints on the right side of the (for pure theatrics) aisle have done to thwart the Devils on the other side of the (for theatrics only) aisle. And there won't be because there is none.

 

[Marion Morrison]

You have to consider the power of the media to influence the opinion of the masses. When the media becomes the propaganda arm of a particular political party, all bets are off regarding Constitutional law.

Valid point.
Free press my ass.
Every single one of them sumbitches is pushing for a depression bigger than the one started in 1929.

They think they're above the Hoi Polloi and it won't affect them.

They are dead wrong, and if people get wise, they are dead. Along with any other dumbasses advocating the same thing.

That's IF people get wise to their game.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You could say the Civil War determined that the federal government was the ultimate authority. Decisions by unelected judges in the last hundred years eroded the Bill of Rights to the point where a "right to privacy" not found in the Constitution sanctioned the Nazi doctrine of "eugenics" and resulted in the new Holocaust murder of the unborn. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme court by FDR wrote the majority opinion that justified incarceration of Japanese American citizens without due process in violation of the 5th Amendment. The same Justice found a "separation of Church and State" which did not appear in the Constitution and undermined the 1st Amendment freedom of religion to the point that a lawsuit by a single agnostic who was personally offended by a Christian Cross led to the order by a federal judge to bulldoze a Korean War memorial.

This was the first line of the OP:
There are several momentous events that altered the America envisioned by our Founders.
And not for the better.


Yup.....you mentioned a number of 'em.

But....if you'd like to do that, I hope you go back very near the start:

The question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

I am not an expert by any stretch of the immagination.

But Robert Bork did address this in his book The Tempting of America.

He states that Marbury decision was necessary....

Not that I take that as gospel......but Bork was always pretty good in his analysis.

That aside....you are correct...judical review isn't called out in the consitution. I think Bork argues that what the court does now goes way beyond what Marshall states.

What I applaud is that you are raising the issue.

Most GOP are CLUELESS on this issue and it is important !!!!!

I'm a big fan of Bork.....and he is certainly more versed on the issue than I am.

But if the Founders had intended it......

“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #15

And the fears were founded.

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

But......as strong President can poke his finger in their eye!



“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).

I think there needs to be clarrification.

I do believe the SCOTUS has the duty to declare laws unconstitutional.

Now, what that means to the other two bodies is that they consider what has been rendered and decide if they agree or not (and they should have a very very good reason not to line up with the court).

The SCOTUS can't take a case and make something out of it.

Roe should never have happened.

And Earl Warren (one man - one vote) was one of the worst things to ever happen to the court.

Roosevelt tried to get the court to go his way through his infamous court packing scheme. The court kept blocking New Deal measures and it pissed him off.

How, exactly, they interact I don't know.

What I do know is that the Court does way to much anymore.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You could say the Civil War determined that the federal government was the ultimate authority. Decisions by unelected judges in the last hundred years eroded the Bill of Rights to the point where a "right to privacy" not found in the Constitution sanctioned the Nazi doctrine of "eugenics" and resulted in the new Holocaust murder of the unborn. A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme court by FDR wrote the majority opinion that justified incarceration of Japanese American citizens without due process in violation of the 5th Amendment. The same Justice found a "separation of Church and State" which did not appear in the Constitution and undermined the 1st Amendment freedom of religion to the point that a lawsuit by a single agnostic who was personally offended by a Christian Cross led to the order by a federal judge to bulldoze a Korean War memorial.

This was the first line of the OP:
There are several momentous events that altered the America envisioned by our Founders.
And not for the better.


Yup.....you mentioned a number of 'em.

But....if you'd like to do that, I hope you go back very near the start:

The question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

I am not an expert by any stretch of the immagination.

But Robert Bork did address this in his book The Tempting of America.

He states that Marbury decision was necessary....

Not that I take that as gospel......but Bork was always pretty good in his analysis.

That aside....you are correct...judical review isn't called out in the consitution. I think Bork argues that what the court does now goes way beyond what Marshall states.

What I applaud is that you are raising the issue.

Most GOP are CLUELESS on this issue and it is important !!!!!

I'm a big fan of Bork.....and he is certainly more versed on the issue than I am.

But if the Founders had intended it......

“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #15

And the fears were founded.

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

But......as strong President can poke his finger in their eye!



“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).

I think there needs to be clarrification.

I do believe the SCOTUS has the duty to declare laws unconstitutional.

Now, what that means to the other two bodies is that they consider what has been rendered and decide if they agree or not (and they should have a very very good reason not to line up with the court).

The SCOTUS can't take a case and make something out of it.

Roe should never have happened.

And Earl Warren (one man - one vote) was one of the worst things to ever happen to the court.

Roosevelt tried to get the court to go his way through his infamous court packing scheme. The court kept blocking New Deal measures and it pissed him off.

How, exactly, they interact I don't know.

What I do know is that the Court does way to much anymore.

"Now, what that means to the other two bodies is that they consider what has been rendered and decide if they agree or not (and they should have a very very good reason not to line up with the court). "

First of all, when the Congress writes a law, it has a duty to judge it as constitutional
And when the President considers signing it.....the same duty.

So when it gets to the Court, supposedly honorable men have already made that judgment. Those on the Court must then make a similar judgment, and be able to point to specific elements in the Constitution when they render a decision.


Now....if the Congressfolks, and the President can't be counted on to be honorable, and stick to the Constitution.....why should we assume that Justices are any more honorable?

My view is that the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome......as merely a suggestion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have to consider the power of the media to influence the opinion of the masses. When the media becomes the propaganda arm of a particular political party, all bets are off regarding Constitutional law.

Valid point.
Free press my ass.
Every single one of them sumbitches is pushing for a depression bigger than the one started in 1929.

They think they're above the Hoi Polloi and it won't affect them.

They are dead wrong, and if people get wise, they are dead. Along with any other dumbasses advocating the same thing.

That's IF people get wise to their game.

"Informative"