Bet You Don't Know The Real Job Of The Supreme Court

[PoliticalChic]

1. OK....here it is:
The Supreme Court was meant to compare legislation passed by the Congress, and signed by the President, to the specific language of the Constitution.

That, and only that, is its job.




... the Constitution lists the specific limitation of the federal government, in article 1, section 8, and reserves all other functions to the states (10th amendment).

That is not what has developed: the Court now sees its role as ubiquitous, and unlimited, and includes writing laws among its roles. It’s pronouncements beyond the role established by the Founders, should be either ignored, or treated as red and green lights are in Rome…as merely suggestions.

The irony is that a court of law has purloined…stolen…power not relegated to it.




2. Here is a perfect example of an issue the Court should not have taken on, because it is not a function of the federal government.....abortion.

Thom Hartmann, extreme Liberal radio show host, discusses the abortion case as it was decided by the Supreme Court:

“…D&C procedures, an abbreviation for dilation and curettage, the opening of the cervix and removal of the uterine lining. If there was a fertilized egg implanted on that lining, it came out along with the uterine tissue. This was a generally safe method for girls to get abortions, if their parents could afford the hospital and a friendly family doctor would certify that the girl was having “difficult periods” and thus needed the D&C procedure. But for most women in the United States, options were far more limited and far more dangerous.

The Supreme Court took the case because it recognized the growing number of young women dying from illegal procedures, and the class issues involved. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, and it’s hardly mentioned in any of the nonmedical literature of that era. With no constitutional foundation, the Court had to find some basis on which to decide the case.” “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,” Thom Hartmann, P. 90




3. Consider carefully what Hartmann is admitting…”With no constitutional foundation….”

Why should the Court have decided it at all????


In order to understand what the Court has stolen, one must be historically astute, must have studied the basis on which our nation was created: Federalism. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..."
Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each state should be allowed to have its own statutes, customs, and traditions….with the exception of any issues and specifications spelled out in the Constitution.




Based on the concept of federalism, there was no need for a Supreme Court making certain that every locality had the very same view of culture, custom, tradition, and values.

Ronald Reagan used the phrase ‘voting with your feet,’ meaning move to where you are more comfortable with the rules, and the laws.
This nation was founded on individualism, not on collectivism.

That is not what has developed.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

1. OK....here it is:
The Supreme Court was meant to compare legislation passed by the Congress, and signed by the President, to the specific language of the Constitution.

That, and only that, is its job.




... the Constitution lists the specific limitation of the federal government, in article 1, section 8, and reserves all other functions to the states (10th amendment).

That is not what has developed: the Court now sees its role as ubiquitous, and unlimited, and includes writing laws among its roles. It’s pronouncements beyond the role established by the Founders, should be either ignored, or treated as red and green lights are in Rome…as merely suggestions.

The irony is that a court of law has purloined…stolen…power not relegated to it.




2. Here is a perfect example of an issue the Court should not have taken on, because it is not a function of the federal government.....abortion.

Thom Hartmann, extreme Liberal radio show host, discusses the abortion case as it was decided by the Supreme Court:

“…D&C procedures, an abbreviation for dilation and curettage, the opening of the cervix and removal of the uterine lining. If there was a fertilized egg implanted on that lining, it came out along with the uterine tissue. This was a generally safe method for girls to get abortions, if their parents could afford the hospital and a friendly family doctor would certify that the girl was having “difficult periods” and thus needed the D&C procedure. But for most women in the United States, options were far more limited and far more dangerous.

The Supreme Court took the case because it recognized the growing number of young women dying from illegal procedures, and the class issues involved. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, and it’s hardly mentioned in any of the nonmedical literature of that era. With no constitutional foundation, the Court had to find some basis on which to decide the case.” “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,” Thom Hartmann, P. 90




3. Consider carefully what Hartmann is admitting…”With no constitutional foundation….”

Why should the Court have decided it at all????


In order to understand what the Court has stolen, one must be historically astute, must have studied the basis on which our nation was created: Federalism. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..."
Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each state should be allowed to have its own statutes, customs, and traditions….with the exception of any issues and specifications spelled out in the Constitution.

That all ended in 1865.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. OK....here it is:
The Supreme Court was meant to compare legislation passed by the Congress, and signed by the President, to the specific language of the Constitution.

That, and only that, is its job.




... the Constitution lists the specific limitation of the federal government, in article 1, section 8, and reserves all other functions to the states (10th amendment).

That is not what has developed: the Court now sees its role as ubiquitous, and unlimited, and includes writing laws among its roles. It’s pronouncements beyond the role established by the Founders, should be either ignored, or treated as red and green lights are in Rome…as merely suggestions.

The irony is that a court of law has purloined…stolen…power not relegated to it.




2. Here is a perfect example of an issue the Court should not have taken on, because it is not a function of the federal government.....abortion.

Thom Hartmann, extreme Liberal radio show host, discusses the abortion case as it was decided by the Supreme Court:

“…D&C procedures, an abbreviation for dilation and curettage, the opening of the cervix and removal of the uterine lining. If there was a fertilized egg implanted on that lining, it came out along with the uterine tissue. This was a generally safe method for girls to get abortions, if their parents could afford the hospital and a friendly family doctor would certify that the girl was having “difficult periods” and thus needed the D&C procedure. But for most women in the United States, options were far more limited and far more dangerous.

The Supreme Court took the case because it recognized the growing number of young women dying from illegal procedures, and the class issues involved. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, and it’s hardly mentioned in any of the nonmedical literature of that era. With no constitutional foundation, the Court had to find some basis on which to decide the case.” “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,” Thom Hartmann, P. 90




3. Consider carefully what Hartmann is admitting…”With no constitutional foundation….”

Why should the Court have decided it at all????


In order to understand what the Court has stolen, one must be historically astute, must have studied the basis on which our nation was created: Federalism. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..."
Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each state should be allowed to have its own statutes, customs, and traditions….with the exception of any issues and specifications spelled out in the Constitution.

That all ended in 1865.

Do you mean the real function of the Supreme Court, or what it has assumed as its function?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

1. OK....here it is:
The Supreme Court was meant to compare legislation passed by the Congress, and signed by the President, to the specific language of the Constitution.

That, and only that, is its job.




... the Constitution lists the specific limitation of the federal government, in article 1, section 8, and reserves all other functions to the states (10th amendment).

That is not what has developed: the Court now sees its role as ubiquitous, and unlimited, and includes writing laws among its roles. It’s pronouncements beyond the role established by the Founders, should be either ignored, or treated as red and green lights are in Rome…as merely suggestions.

The irony is that a court of law has purloined…stolen…power not relegated to it.




2. Here is a perfect example of an issue the Court should not have taken on, because it is not a function of the federal government.....abortion.

Thom Hartmann, extreme Liberal radio show host, discusses the abortion case as it was decided by the Supreme Court:

“…D&C procedures, an abbreviation for dilation and curettage, the opening of the cervix and removal of the uterine lining. If there was a fertilized egg implanted on that lining, it came out along with the uterine tissue. This was a generally safe method for girls to get abortions, if their parents could afford the hospital and a friendly family doctor would certify that the girl was having “difficult periods” and thus needed the D&C procedure. But for most women in the United States, options were far more limited and far more dangerous.

The Supreme Court took the case because it recognized the growing number of young women dying from illegal procedures, and the class issues involved. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, and it’s hardly mentioned in any of the nonmedical literature of that era. With no constitutional foundation, the Court had to find some basis on which to decide the case.” “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,” Thom Hartmann, P. 90




3. Consider carefully what Hartmann is admitting…”With no constitutional foundation….”

Why should the Court have decided it at all????


In order to understand what the Court has stolen, one must be historically astute, must have studied the basis on which our nation was created: Federalism. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..."
Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each state should be allowed to have its own statutes, customs, and traditions….with the exception of any issues and specifications spelled out in the Constitution.

That all ended in 1865.

Do you mean the real function of the Supreme Court, or what it has assumed as its function?

The idea of the United States as an entity consisting of sovereign states united under a constitution granting limited power to a central federal government.

The Court problems began with Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

 

[Gdjjr]

There are those who believe the 14th amendment is the culprit for the Roe vs Wade -

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. However, it held that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life


The SC are just lawyers- lawyers pay others to teach them to intentionally misinterpret-
I agree with the OP but I would say it differently- their job is to decide if a law is constitutional-
Of course when you throw intentional misinterpretation in the mix all bets are off as to their role- lower court judges are to apply law, not make it up or question it or allow an ambiguous word salad to sway their opinion.
Yet, here we are- the non-constitutional education system failed, again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are those who believe the 14th amendment is the culprit for the Roe vs Wade -

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. However, it held that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life


The SC are just lawyers- lawyers pay others to teach them to intentionally misinterpret-
I agree with the OP but I would say it differently- their job is to decide if a law is constitutional-
Of course when you throw intentional misinterpretation in the mix all bets are off as to their role- lower court judges are to apply law, not make it up or question it or allow an ambiguous word salad to sway their opinion.
Yet, here we are- the non-constitutional education system failed, again.

The problem is solipsism of the black-robed faction.


Here, writ large....


The overthrow of America began with Franklin Roosevelt openly admitting that he didn't obey the Constitution, and with Chief Justice Hughes’ famous aphorism that
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

No, it isn't.

He should have been jailed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. In order to understand what the Court has stolen, one must have studied the basis on which our nation was created: Federalism.

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




5. "Laboratories of democracy" is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann to describe how a "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."[1]

This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of state autonomy where state and local governments act as social "laboratories," where laws and policies are created and tested at the state level of the democratic system, in a manner similar (in theory, at least) to the scientific method. An example today would be the legalization of marijuana in Colorado despite the fact that it is illegal federally.

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "all 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." This is a basis for the "laboratories of democracy" concept,…” Laboratories of democracy - Wikipedia



Somehow, the view has been obtained, that every person in every state must be governed by exactly the statutes, regulations, and laws that none unelected Justices decide.

That's not the basis on which this nation was created.

 

[Gdjjr]

Porter Rockwell Silver Member

Seems to be up to speed on the 14th amendment- I'm not.

 

[Gdjjr]

The problem is solipsism of the black-robed idiots.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Gdjjr]

These type threads validate my opinion(s) on the education system and peoples lack of interest in reading- some call it apathetic, I call it willfully remaining ignorant and letting others decide for you, which, restricts the most basic of rights, that of choice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem is solipsism of the black-robed idiots.

Fixed it for you.

Did you know that a current member of the Supreme Court agrees with my premise, that not all issues are under their purview?

I'll do a thread quoting him in the future.

 

[PoliticalChic]

These type threads validate my opinion(s) on the education system and peoples lack of interest in reading- some call it apathetic, I call it willfully remaining ignorant and letting others decide for you, which, restricts the most basic of rights, that of choice.

"These type threads validate my opinion(s) on the education system"

Let's not get carried away.
The vast majority of government school grads are clueless.

For a chuckle, I regularly ask said grads to name a few of the books that have informed their views....
and they look confused…and tilt their head like a Cocker Spaniel…so cute.


Unless we pry the school system away from Liberals/Democrats....this nation has no future.




"The next step forward in building an inclusive society is making sure that every young American gets a great education and the opportunity to achieve the American Dream. Yet, for too long, countless American children have been trapped in failing government schools. To rescue these students, 18 States have created school choice in the form of Opportunity Scholarships. The programs are so popular, that tens of thousands of students remain on waiting lists. One of those students is Janiyah Davis, a fourth grader from Philadelphia. Janiyah’s mom Stephanie is a single parent. She would do anything to give her daughter a better future. But last year, that future was put further out of reach when Pennsylvania’s Governor vetoed legislation to expand school choice for 50,000 children."
Trump, SOTU 2020

 

[Gdjjr]

Let's not get carried away.
The vast majority of government school grads are clueless.

You asking, or telling me not to get carried away? Then you make the above statement about grad school which validates my belief?
The "vast majority" of voters are clueless- they don't care unless/until they can't make their installment payments-
I asked a fairly intelligent (by most accounts) man a few years ago; why, since the gov't has the authority to coin money and set the value do they borrow it? His response: I don't know.

I like books but education/knowledge isn't bias in its origin- I've learned a lot from links on message boards and personal observation and a natural inquisitiveness - there is no one source I prefer over another, except maybe, gut instinct and observation of results- results speak for themselves- both sides of the aisle (which exists solely for entertainment and divisiveness purposes) subscribe to the unconstitutional education system- they both subscribe to the same spend to borrow economic system- they (elected representatives) are ALL form the same education system-

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's not get carried away.
The vast majority of government school grads are clueless.

You asking, or telling me not to get carried away? Then you make the above statement about grad school which validates my belief?
The "vast majority" of voters are clueless- they don't care unless/until they can't make their installment payments-
I asked a fairly intelligent (by most accounts) man a few years ago; why, since the gov't has the authority to coin money and set the value do they borrow it? His response: I don't know.

I like books but education/knowledge isn't bias in its origin- I've learned a lot from links on message boards and personal observation and a natural inquisitiveness - there is no one source I prefer over another, except maybe, gut instinct and observation of results- results speak for themselves- both sides of the aisle (which exists solely for entertainment and divisiveness purposes) subscribe to the unconstitutional education system- they both subscribe to the same spend to borrow economic system- they (elected representatives) are ALL form the same education system-

Did you actually mistake " government school grads " for "grad school"???????????


Do you actually not know the difference?????



"I've learned a lot from links on message boards and personal observation and a natural inquisitiveness -"

Be serious.

Unless you are legally blind, there is no excuse for not reading.

I'd be happy to provide a list to start you off.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. 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.


From the moment that the Supreme Court seized powers not appropriated to it by the Constitution, it became the most powerful branch of the federal government. No one voted them in, nor are the nine accountable to anyone….and power corrupts.

“The tendency of elite domination, moreover, is to press America ever more steadily towards the cultural left.” “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values” By Robert H. Bork

“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.”
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf






7. Lino Graglia speaks of the powers that judges and Justices have assumed:

“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.”

“Today, however, the judiciary seems to have surpassed Congress and rival even the executive branch as it has, particularly in the last century, assumed powers unto itself that the Constitution's framers never intended."




The Constitution lists those powers authorized to the national government, and amendment #10, those to the states.

Issues such as marriage and abortion are not found under the purview of the federal government, nor, therefore the Supreme Court.

Nor is there an amendment altering that view.

 

[Gdjjr]

Unless you are legally blind, there is no excuse for not reading.

I read at least one book a week- I don't need or want a list- hows that grab you- and NO book can legitimately refute my observations- knowledge isn't biased in it's origin-

Be serious.

I'm serious as cancer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Unless you are legally blind, there is no excuse for not reading.

I read at least one book a week- I don't need or want a list- hows that grab you- and NO book can legitimately refute my observations- knowledge isn't biased in it's origin-

Be serious.

I'm serious as cancer.

Not shocked....I've seen others who forgo education.

 

[Gdjjr]

Not shocked....I've seen others who forgo education.

Education is merely passing on knowledge. Knowledge is not bias in it's origin. It can manifest itself in ways unimaginable.
Truth is constant, knowledge evolves.

 

[Gdjjr]

This guy is much more eloquent than I- he is a bit verbose but it's necessary to cover all the subjects he confronts.
He also reflects, though probably not intentionally, many of my observations- observing is educational-
His article is off topic to this thread, but, speaks to where we've wandered.

The United States of America’s Doll House
A Vast Tapestry of Lies and Illusions

I'm going to start a thread about it- see how many actually read it vs attacking me personally or introducing a straw man argument to validate my "observations" about people don't care- they want to be willfully ignorant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not shocked....I've seen others who forgo education.

Education is merely passing on knowledge. Knowledge is not bias in it's origin. It can manifest itself in ways unimaginable.
Truth is constant, knowledge evolves.

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit.

Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.