Bat-Crazy Jefferson, Nullification, and the Supreme Court

[Dante]

Bat-Crazy Jefferson, Nullification, and the Supreme Court​

source:::

Jeffrey Rosen: The Supreme Court
The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America​

paraphrased comments: Jefferson's views became extreme. His hatred of the Supreme Court under his cousin Chief Justice John Marshall drove him to distraction. Jefferson took the view that constitutional change could only come through the amendment process, and that the court had no role in striking down laws as unconstitutional.

Madison had to go against his friend and remind the bat-crazed Jefferson that the Framers of the US Constitution "clearly intended to make the court the final judge of conflicts between the state and federal governments."

---

Sure, people like the tea Party whackos and others like to appeal to the authority of Jefferson and Madison, but Jefferson and Madison were all over the place on issues regarding what the Constitution meant and the intent of the Framers.

Jefferson and Madison 'secretly' drafted the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, based on the idea that state legislatures had the authority to interpret the Constitution. The argument is that the Union is a compact among independent and sovereign states. The framers according to this argument made no decision about who was the 'ultimate interpreter' of the Constitution: nullification!!!

but: The US Constitution explicitly states federal laws are supreme over state laws.

 

[Oddball]

Seems that "bat-crazy" Jefferson and Madison were reading from the same book, when it came to jury rights.

You, OTOH, are this forum's living, breathing personification of bat-crazy.

In 1798, Jefferson and Madison articulated the concepts of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which were passed in response to to the hated Alienand Sedition Acts. But the ideas which support nullification and interposition were actually expressed earlier during the ratifying convention of Virginia by the Federalists themselves!

Given the fact, however, that most Americans cannot even correctly name all three branches of our federal government, it’s probably a safe bet that they have never heard of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions or the fact that nullification was used to assist runaway slaves.

The Untold History of Nullification: Resisting Slavery – Tenth Amendment Center

http://fija.org/2010/02/11/the-untold-history-of-nullification/

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Madison had to go against his friend and remind the bat-crazed Jefferson that the Framers of the US Constitution "clearly intended to make the court the final judge of conflicts between the state and federal governments."

...

Jefferson and Madison 'secretly' drafted the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, based on the idea that state legislatures had the authority to interpret the Constitution.

So Madison reminded Jefferson that the Court was the final judge of conflicts between the state and federal courts, as he drafted the Virginia Resolutions arguing the exact opposite?

"The US Constitution explicitly states federal laws are supreme over state laws."

No, it says only constitutional federal laws are supreme over the state laws.

 

[Dante]

Seems that "bat-crazy" Jefferson and Madison were reading from the same book, when it came to jury rights.

You, OTOH, are this forum's living, breathing personification of bat-crazy.

In 1798, Jefferson and Madison articulated the concepts of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which were passed in response to to the hated Alienand Sedition Acts. But the ideas which support nullification and interposition were actually expressed earlier during the ratifying convention of Virginia by the Federalists themselves!

Given the fact, however, that most Americans cannot even correctly name all three branches of our federal government, it’s probably a safe bet that they have never heard of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions or the fact that nullification was used to assist runaway slaves.

The Untold History of Nullification: Resisting Slavery – Tenth Amendment Center

Fully Informed Jury Association The Untold History of Nullification

relying on one ideologically based source just makes you about 2 levels below bat-crazed. keep trying and you may rise to a higher level yet.

--

now, it is the opinion of many that Jefferson's 'cure' for the Sedition Acts "was nearly as bad as the disease"(quote from Rosen). Hamilton in the Federalist Papers had enshrined the concept of "the rights of states to protect civil liberties." But the Kentucky resolution went much further: read the OP (originating post)

if you fall behind in context, and on nuance and distinctions with a difference, please, please, do not feel shame. ask and we shall lecture for free.

 

[Dante]

I never gave a crap what the ordinary person on the street knows or doesn't know. as a group, as a whole, I have nothing but contempt for the opinions of the majority of people, let alone their basic knowledge level.

 

[Dante]

Madison had to go against his friend and remind the bat-crazed Jefferson that the Framers of the US Constitution "clearly intended to make the court the final judge of conflicts between the state and federal governments."

...

Jefferson and Madison 'secretly' drafted the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, based on the idea that state legislatures had the authority to interpret the Constitution.

So Madison reminded Jefferson that the Court was the final judge of conflicts between the state and federal courts, as he drafted the Virginia Resolutions arguing the exact opposite?

"The US Constitution explicitly states federal laws are supreme over state laws."

No, it says only constitutional federal laws are supreme over the state laws.

and who gets to decide what federal laws are constitutional? but playing your game, where do those words get used in the Constitution "constitutional federal laws"?????

 

[Oddball]

Seems that "bat-crazy" Jefferson and Madison were reading from the same book, when it came to jury rights.

You, OTOH, are this forum's living, breathing personification of bat-crazy.

In 1798, Jefferson and Madison articulated the concepts of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which were passed in response to to the hated Alienand Sedition Acts. But the ideas which support nullification and interposition were actually expressed earlier during the ratifying convention of Virginia by the Federalists themselves!

Given the fact, however, that most Americans cannot even correctly name all three branches of our federal government, it’s probably a safe bet that they have never heard of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions or the fact that nullification was used to assist runaway slaves.

The Untold History of Nullification: Resisting Slavery – Tenth Amendment Center

Fully Informed Jury Association The Untold History of Nullification

relying on one ideologically based source just makes you about 2 levels below bat-crazed. keep trying and you may rise to a higher level yet.

--

now, it is the opinion of many that Jefferson's 'cure' for the Sedition Acts "was nearly as bad as the disease"(quote from Rosen). Hamilton in the Federalist Papers had enshrined the concept of "the rights of states to protect civil liberties." But the Kentucky resolution went much further: read the OP (originating post)

if you fall behind in context, and on nuance and distinctions with a difference, please, please, do not feel shame. ask and we shall lecture for free.

I fall behind nothing, dickweed.

FIJA is the nation's leading jury rights organization...If they were doing anything unlawful in spreading the word about jury rights, the people running the operation would've been locked up long ago....But they aren't and they haven't.

If anyone needs to extract their cranium from their rectal zone here, it's you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Madison had to go against his friend and remind the bat-crazed Jefferson that the Framers of the US Constitution "clearly intended to make the court the final judge of conflicts between the state and federal governments."

...

Jefferson and Madison 'secretly' drafted the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, based on the idea that state legislatures had the authority to interpret the Constitution.

So Madison reminded Jefferson that the Court was the final judge of conflicts between the state and federal courts, as he drafted the Virginia Resolutions arguing the exact opposite?

"The US Constitution explicitly states federal laws are supreme over state laws."

No, it says only constitutional federal laws are supreme over the state laws.

and who gets to decide what federal laws are constitutional? but playing your game, where do those words get used in the Constitution "constitutional federal laws"?????

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So only those federal laws which are in pursuance of the Constitution, or constitutional, are supreme over the states. When a law is not constitutional, or in pursuance of the Constitution, the states can nullify that law as per the 10th Amendment, since the Constitution does not forbid nullification.

 

[Dante]

Seems that "bat-crazy" Jefferson and Madison were reading from the same book, when it came to jury rights.

You, OTOH, are this forum's living, breathing personification of bat-crazy.



The Untold History of Nullification: Resisting Slavery – Tenth Amendment Center

Fully Informed Jury Association The Untold History of Nullification

relying on one ideologically based source just makes you about 2 levels below bat-crazed. keep trying and you may rise to a higher level yet.

--

now, it is the opinion of many that Jefferson's 'cure' for the Sedition Acts "was nearly as bad as the disease"(quote from Rosen). Hamilton in the Federalist Papers had enshrined the concept of "the rights of states to protect civil liberties." But the Kentucky resolution went much further: read the OP (originating post)

if you fall behind in context, and on nuance and distinctions with a difference, please, please, do not feel shame. ask and we shall lecture for free.

I fall behind nothing, dickweed.

FIJA is the nation's leading jury rights organization...If they were doing anything unlawful in spreading the word about jury rights, the people running the operation would've been locked up long ago....But they aren't and they haven't.

If anyone needs to extract their cranium from their rectal zone here, it's you.

are you this slow in real life? I never addressed your link in the way you portray it. I referenced your link as a source for defending Jefferson and Madison "reading from the same book, when it came to jury rights."

I commented on your source being an ideological entity.

WTF you are talking about with the term 'unlawful' escapes me. Are you on medications?

 

[Oddball]

My source -FIJA- is only "ideological" to the extent that they stand for the values which both Federalists and Anti-federalists agreed to, insofar as the powers of juries are concerned....That's the kind of ideology I can live with.

Is the topic of the thread jury rights, or not?

 

[Dante]

So Madison reminded Jefferson that the Court was the final judge of conflicts between the state and federal courts, as he drafted the Virginia Resolutions arguing the exact opposite?

"The US Constitution explicitly states federal laws are supreme over state laws."

No, it says only constitutional federal laws are supreme over the state laws.

and who gets to decide what federal laws are constitutional? but playing your game, where do those words get used in the Constitution "constitutional federal laws"?????

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So only those federal laws which are in pursuance of the Constitution, or constitutional, are supreme over the states. When a law is not constitutional, or in pursuance of the Constitution, the states can nullify that law as per the 10th Amendment, since the Constitution does not forbid nullification.

"federal laws which are in pursuance of the Constitution"

I think all the laws the Constitution pursues (lol) would be federal laws. But I digress.

---

You are making up things. I am almost at a loss on how to reasonably and rationally respond.

btw you may find this helpful: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article V: Annotations pg. 2 of 3

The Supreme Court rules what federal laws are constitutional.

 

[Dante]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -10th

 

[Oddball]

Did the "...or to the people" part slide past you?

The people impose their authoritahhh in both the ballot and jury boxes.

 

[Dante]

My source -FIJA- is only "ideological" to the extent that they stand for the values which both Federalists and Anti-federalists agreed to, insofar as the powers of juries are concerned....That's the kind of ideology I can live with.

Is the topic of the thread jury rights, or not?

I think being a libertarian org qualifies as being ideological.

"Larry Dodge, former Chair of the Montana Libertarian party, decided to educate the American people of this available but unused right. He also conceived of the Fully Informed Jury Association/Act/ Amendment (FIJA)"

the thread is about what it is about. Nullification by juries or the so-called right of state nullification that led to a civil war.

The Constitution was a compromise that all who signed agreed would not be taken apart -- "A republic if you can keep it" -Franklin paraphrase and most who take apart the Constitution are clueless to what they are doing.

 

[Dante]

Did the "...or to the people" part slide past you?

The people impose their authoritahhh in both the ballot and jury boxes.

meanings are important. 'people' 'state' 'legislature' all these terms were used.

The jury and the ballot box are sacrosanct. So what is your issue?

 

[jillian]

My source -FIJA- is only "ideological" to the extent that they stand for the values which both Federalists and Anti-federalists agreed to, insofar as the powers of juries are concerned....That's the kind of ideology I can live with.

Is the topic of the thread jury rights, or not?

I think being a libertarian org qualifies as being ideological.

"Larry Dodge, former Chair of the Montana Libertarian party, decided to educate the American people of this available but unused right. He also conceived of the Fully Informed Jury Association/Act/ Amendment (FIJA)"

the thread is about what it is about. Nullification by juries or the so-called right of state nullification that led to a civil war.

The Constitution was a compromise that all who signed agreed would not be taken apart -- "A republic if you can keep it" -Franklin paraphrase and most who take apart the Constitution are clueless to what they are doing.

but therein lies the rub... the cluelessness... and the insistence of some that the constitution means whatever they say it does, without thought to its meanings, construction or interpretation.

 

[Dante]

Seems that "bat-crazy" Jefferson and Madison were reading from the same book, when it came to jury rights.

You, OTOH, are this forum's living, breathing personification of bat-crazy.

In 1798, Jefferson and Madison articulated the concepts of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which were passed in response to to the hated Alienand Sedition Acts. But the ideas which support nullification and interposition were actually expressed earlier during the ratifying convention of Virginia by the Federalists themselves!

Given the fact, however, that most Americans cannot even correctly name all three branches of our federal government, it’s probably a safe bet that they have never heard of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions or the fact that nullification was used to assist runaway slaves.

The Untold History of Nullification: Resisting Slavery – Tenth Amendment Center

Fully Informed Jury Association The Untold History of Nullification

Oh I see.

never mind.

you've confused nullification by jury with the term nullification being used in discussing the nullification as a principle in response to the Sedition Acts.

 

[Oddball]

^^^^
Speaking of clueless...Or seditious...Take your pick.

If FIJA were doing anything that was unlawful, they would've been scooped up and thrown behind bars long ago.

Fact remains that, whether you believe it to be "ideological" or not, jury nullification of bad law is not only a right of the juror, but their duty.

Get yourself an education and Google "Laura Kriho".

 

[Dante]

My source -FIJA- is only "ideological" to the extent that they stand for the values which both Federalists and Anti-federalists agreed to, insofar as the powers of juries are concerned....That's the kind of ideology I can live with.

Is the topic of the thread jury rights, or not?

I think being a libertarian org qualifies as being ideological.

"Larry Dodge, former Chair of the Montana Libertarian party, decided to educate the American people of this available but unused right. He also conceived of the Fully Informed Jury Association/Act/ Amendment (FIJA)"

the thread is about what it is about. Nullification by juries or the so-called right of state nullification that led to a civil war.

The Constitution was a compromise that all who signed agreed would not be taken apart -- "A republic if you can keep it" -Franklin paraphrase and most who take apart the Constitution are clueless to what they are doing.

but therein lies the rub... the cluelessness... and the insistence of some that the constitution means whatever they say it does, without thought to its meanings, construction or interpretation.

It actually goes back to the stuff people like Kevin dwell on -- the early court cases that established our history as a nation. The Southern Confederacy was an insurrection based on a flawed idea from the lunatic side of Jefferson that says states can willy nilly opt out.

Jefferson is held up as some kind of Golden Idol on this even as he is cited for why one must believe federalist principles that establish the Constitution. The hypocrisy inherent in Jeffersonian outbursts is astounding when taken in as a whole.

Jefferson says that future generations owe no allegiance to an old document, yet his followers cite that document as why we must do this or that. What is it? does the Constitution reign or not?

 

[Dante]

^^^^
Speaking of clueless...Or seditious...Take your pick.

If FIJA were doing anything that was unlawful, they would've been scooped up and thrown behind bars long ago.

Fact remains that, whether you believe it to be "ideological" or not, jury nullification of bad law is not only a right of the juror, but their duty.

Get yourself an education and Google "Laura Kriho".

please sober up or go away? no one here is talking about unlawful groups or locking people up. do you watch much FOX News or listen to much talk radio? Do you like tea parties?