America Changed From The Founder's Vision

[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.

"Informative"

I like that, gonna start doing that, too.

"informative" "funny and agree" "winner" and "STFU"

 

[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.

"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.

I recall some of this....but if you could include the source it would only help me be more educated.

And while we might not agree to the extent that the courts should have reach (in terms of enforcement).

I do think we agree:

1. The we currently allow them to create laws (Griswold....penumbra of rights) which they should not be doing.
2. Any law they reject should not then be used as "settled case law", but instead should be clarrified so that congress can then taylor the law to make it constitutional.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

You are correct.

I pushed my local legislator to introduce the 10th amendment resolution where I used to live. No traction.

The last time (and maybe the only time) I've heard the right invoke the 10th amendment was over Obamacare and even then it was a last ditch effort.

You don't see the RNC website touting any of this.

They are corrupt beyond corrupt.

 

[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.

I recall some of this....but if you could include the source it would only help me be more educated.

And while we might not agree to the extent that the courts should have reach (in terms of enforcement).

I do think we agree:

1. The we currently allow them to create laws (Griswold....penumbra of rights) which they should not be doing.
2. Any law they reject should not then be used as "settled case law", but instead should be clarrified so that congress can then taylor the law to make it constitutional.

Can Congress pass laws that conflict with the Constitution?
Did you know that all laws in the United States must agree with the Constitution? Sometimes Congress passes a law with a conflict, but the law can then be challenged in court. If the Supreme Court decides that a challenged law is unconstitutional, it cannot take effect.

Legislation and the Constitution - Youth Leadership Initiative

 

[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.

I recall some of this....but if you could include the source it would only help me be more educated.

And while we might not agree to the extent that the courts should have reach (in terms of enforcement).

I do think we agree:

1. The we currently allow them to create laws (Griswold....penumbra of rights) which they should not be doing.
2. Any law they reject should not then be used as "settled case law", but instead should be clarrified so that congress can then taylor the law to make it constitutional.

"settled case law"


There is no such thing.


The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴



The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵

4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions



I am not a fan of the bogus 'stare decisis' view.

Any decision must be based on the language of the Constitution.



Chief Justice Rehnquist states that, that Justices and judges need be restricted to decisions in accord with the Constitution, not their personal views, here:

“The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal government, and there is even less justification for a federal legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states.”
https://lc.org/071218TheNotionofaLivingConstitution.doc.pdf

 

[Ava]

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"

I like that, gonna start doing that, too.

"informative" "funny and agree" "winner" and "STFU"

I like that idea, Marion. I am going to start using "informative" and "thank you". I miss those buttons big time. "Funny and agree" was one I used often, too. May start doing that one, too.

 

[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.

"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.

I recall some of this....but if you could include the source it would only help me be more educated.

And while we might not agree to the extent that the courts should have reach (in terms of enforcement).

I do think we agree:

1. The we currently allow them to create laws (Griswold....penumbra of rights) which they should not be doing.
2. Any law they reject should not then be used as "settled case law", but instead should be clarrified so that congress can then taylor the law to make it constitutional.

Can Congress pass laws that conflict with the Constitution?
Did you know that all laws in the United States must agree with the Constitution? Sometimes Congress passes a law with a conflict, but the law can then be challenged in court. If the Supreme Court decides that a challenged law is unconstitutional, it cannot take effect.
Legislation and the Constitution - Youth Leadership Initiative

In answer to your question.....you bet.

Look at Social Security.

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS can be manipulated.

 

[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.

"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.

I recall some of this....but if you could include the source it would only help me be more educated.

And while we might not agree to the extent that the courts should have reach (in terms of enforcement).

I do think we agree:

1. The we currently allow them to create laws (Griswold....penumbra of rights) which they should not be doing.
2. Any law they reject should not then be used as "settled case law", but instead should be clarrified so that congress can then taylor the law to make it constitutional.

"settled case law"


There is no such thing.


The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴



The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵

4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions



I am not a fan of the bogus 'stare decisis' view.

Any decision must be based on the language of the Constitution.



Chief Justice Rehnquist states that, that Justices and judges need be restricted to decisions in accord with the Constitution, not their personal views, here:

“The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal government, and there is even less justification for a federal legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states.”
https://lc.org/071218TheNotionofaLivingConstitution.doc.pdf

Agreed.....

Nothing is ever settled to the point it can't be unsettled....thus meaning it was never settled to begin with.

 

[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.

I recall some of this....but if you could include the source it would only help me be more educated.

And while we might not agree to the extent that the courts should have reach (in terms of enforcement).

I do think we agree:

1. The we currently allow them to create laws (Griswold....penumbra of rights) which they should not be doing.
2. Any law they reject should not then be used as "settled case law", but instead should be clarrified so that congress can then taylor the law to make it constitutional.

Can Congress pass laws that conflict with the Constitution?
Did you know that all laws in the United States must agree with the Constitution? Sometimes Congress passes a law with a conflict, but the law can then be challenged in court. If the Supreme Court decides that a challenged law is unconstitutional, it cannot take effect.
Legislation and the Constitution - Youth Leadership Initiative

In answer to your question.....you bet.

Look at Social Security.

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS can be manipulated.

I suppose that,. at one time or another, we all make the mistake of assigning a higher level of integrity and honesty to some stranger just because he has a title, is an 'expert,' some sort of bureaucrat.
But recognizing that proclivity, the wisest of us make it part of the calculation: don't expect the best.

"Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from birth what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government to do good."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[MadChemist]

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 assume that the questions you are asking are general and not specific to PoliticalChic. This is because conservatives, by and large need to account for their failure in this area and in the appeal to the 9th and 10th amendments.

Generally, the answers are no.

And a quick search of the web finds little recent activity in this area. There used to be a web-sited dedicated to this. I can't find it anymore.

The following article from the Heritage Foundation is disappointing in it's title:

Some Conservatives Want to Repeal the 17th Amendment. Here’s Why They’re Misguided.

Repealing the 17th Amendment, which would end the direct election of U.S. senators and return the power of appointing senators to state legislatures, is a popular idea among many conservatives. They argue that giving state governments a more formal and direct representation in Congress would...

www.heritage.org

The content gives little solace to those who want states to be doing more and the Federal Government doing less. Conservatives, the so-called guardians of our freedoms are not even talking about this (and are busy helping to spend Trillions of dollars).

PoliticalChic (PC) raised the issue. You responded with almost rhetorical questions.

The real question is....how do we get a unified movement going on this ?

 

[MadChemist]

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.

Understood.

What do you suggest we do.

 

[MadChemist]

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.

Are these all quotes ?

If so, where did the last one come from ?

 

[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.

Are these all quotes ?

If so, where did the last one come from ?

Moi

 

[MadChemist]

Moi

Thanks for the clarrifcation.

 

[MadChemist]

The thread seems to have wondered away from the OP which was about the 17th amendment.

Again, looking for peoples thoughts on what we can do to start moving in that direction ?