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

[Gdjjr]

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

I like cranberries and sometimes apples or maybe a small amount of orange slices or pineapple chunks in my salad.
One size does not fut all.

Educate yourself, read the link I posted.

 

[Gdjjr]

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit.

My grandmother put sugar on her tomato's- I like salt- she put salt on her grapefruit, I prefer sugar IF I eat a grapefriuit.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Once again, you knocked it out of the park and beyond Lot AA (and the far end of the stadium).

Earl Warren (who Eisenhower called one of his two biggest mistakes), didn't ask if it was constitutional....his question became "Is it right". According to who, Earl....you loser.

He pushed to take on Roe and subverted the constitution in several ways.

They need to dig him up, shoot his carcas, and let the vultures take care of what remains.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

I don't get what you are saying.

Are you going after the OP ?

 

[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.

Once again, you knocked it out of the park and beyond Lot AA (and the far end of the stadium).

Earl Warren (who Eisenhower called one of his two biggest mistakes), didn't ask if it was constitutional....his question became "Is it right". According to who, Earl....you loser.

He pushed to take on Roe and subverted the constitution in several ways.

They need to dig him up, shoot his carcas, and let the vultures take care of what remains.

.....you've penned quite a compliment. (curtsy)

I'm speechless!

 

[Gdjjr]

I don't get what you are saying.

Are you going after the OP ?

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.

I don't know how much clearer I can be.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

A real issue for the country was the 14th amendment.

Have you read how it was shoved down the throats of the southern states ?

We have the Federalist Papers to provide us guidance on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Writings by those who put together the 14th are very ambiguous as to what they mean.

The 14th is used as the basis for the perversion called "incorporation" or "selective incorporation".

We shouldn't have to put up with this kind of mind reading.

The 14th should be repealed and rewritten to be more clear on it's intent.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Once again, you knocked it out of the park and beyond Lot AA (and the far end of the stadium).

Earl Warren (who Eisenhower called one of his two biggest mistakes), didn't ask if it was constitutional....his question became "Is it right". According to who, Earl....you loser.

He pushed to take on Roe and subverted the constitution in several ways.

They need to dig him up, shoot his carcas, and let the vultures take care of what remains.

.....you've penned quite a compliment. (curtsy)

I'm speechless!

I cal it like I see it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I don't get what you are saying.

Are you going after the OP ?

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.

I don't know how much clearer I can be.

O.K. Thanks.

In looking at the rest of the post....I wasn't sure.

And I would agree. People today are ignorant.

I stood in front of a group of 20 "conservatives" (these are folks who are vocal on today's issues and are full on Trump supporters) giving a small lesson on the constitution. I started to make a comment about the 10th amendment. I then turned and asked how many of them knew what the 10th said or it's intention.

Not one could say they knew.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

That's correct"
" With no constitutional foundation"...for deciding about abortion other then their own interest in the subject.
They never should have accepted the case, and left it for individual states to decide.



8. Hartmann goes on to write:

“Even those who strongly support “a woman’s right to choose” (including this author) often wonder out loud—given how rapidly women’s rights were moving in the 1960s and early 1970s in the United States—how long it would have taken for most states, and eventually the entire nation, to legalize abortion through the legislative process. Had this happened, it’s likely that the murders of several abortion doctors wouldn’t have occurred, and the country may well have been spared the pain and spectacle of years of public harassment of family planning clinics, because the legislative process around hot-button social issues involves public hearings and testimony and usually resolves into law only when there’s majority public opinion in favor of it.

But by taking on a legislative process—right down to defining the three trimesters of a pregnancy and prescribing specific rules for abortion in each separately (done later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey)—the Court unquestionably went beyond anything the framers of the Constitution considered for its role.”
“The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,” Thom Hartmann, p.93



Way-Left Liberal Hartmann hit the nail on the head:
"...the Court unquestionably went beyond anything the framers of the Constitution considered for its role.”



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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. “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

The Founders envisioned a government sensitive to the people, and this is reflected by who is voted into office. That alone should prove how third-rate in power, the Supreme Court is meant to be. Who among us feel that the nine black-robed folks know better about morality, values, and political attitudes than we, the people. Not I.



Liberal author, Thom Hartmann, is afraid that conservative Justices will no longer allow the making-up of laws based on the Justice's biases….and will only be allowed to do what they were intended to do.

[Justice Brett] “Kavanaugh was still on the DC Circuit Court in 2017, he ruled in Mexichem Fluor v. EPA that the EPA could not regulate the atmosphere- destroying refrigeration chemicals known as HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons). He argued that the Clean Air Act didn’t give the EPA the power to regulate HFCs because they aren’t explicitly and specifically named in the law. The Supreme Court hasn’t heard a challenge to the ruling, and Kavanaugh’s strict interpretation stands. Juliana has the potential to be a landmark case, like Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, and Citizens United.” “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,” Thom Hartmann, P. 107


"...strict interpretation....."

Imagine that. A Supreme Court Justice actually demanding allegiance to the Constitution, and demanding the legislature say what they mean, and mean what they say.

It sure isn’t Lochner Time anymore with Trump Justices on the Court.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."


The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!


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.


Yet the Court encroached on powers they were denied…..and neither of the elected branches put up a fuss.

Why?


In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.


At this time, the states are no more that vassals, agencies of an all-powerful federal monolith.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

That's correct"
" With no constitutional foundation"...for deciding about abortion other then their own interest in the subject.
They never should have accepted the case, and left it for individual states to decide.



8. Hartmann goes on to write:

“Even those who strongly support “a woman’s right to choose” (including this author) often wonder out loud—given how rapidly women’s rights were moving in the 1960s and early 1970s in the United States—how long it would have taken for most states, and eventually the entire nation, to legalize abortion through the legislative process. Had this happened, it’s likely that the murders of several abortion doctors wouldn’t have occurred, and the country may well have been spared the pain and spectacle of years of public harassment of family planning clinics, because the legislative process around hot-button social issues involves public hearings and testimony and usually resolves into law only when there’s majority public opinion in favor of it.

But by taking on a legislative process—right down to defining the three trimesters of a pregnancy and prescribing specific rules for abortion in each separately (done later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey)—the Court unquestionably went beyond anything the framers of the Constitution considered for its role.”
“The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,” Thom Hartmann, p.93



Way-Left Liberal Hartmann hit the nail on the head:
"...the Court unquestionably went beyond anything the framers of the Constitution considered for its role.”



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.

It has long been said that Harry Blackmunn (who belongs in the Hall of Shame) was looking for an excuse to rule in favor of Roe. Supposedly his wife was really there egging him on. I read this once....don't know if it is true.

The decision was total bullshit. Even Ruth BG, a young lawyer wrote it was one of the most poorly writtend decisions she had ever seen.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

10. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."


The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!


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.


Yet the Court encroached on powers they were denied…..and neither of the elected branches put up a fuss.

Why?


In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.


At this time, the states are no more that vassals, agencies of an all-powerful federal monolith.

Federalist 45 is quite clear on the role of the states and federal government.

As one author put it,....it was expected that the federal government might occupy a large corner buliding. That was about what would be needed for them to do their jobs. Today, half of Virginia works for the fed.

 

[alang1216]

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.

I know you don't believe in evolution but the fact is that everything evolves or it breaks. Federalism ("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") is a fine ideal but the reality of it was very different. If one state condoned slavery but another did not what was to become of runaway slaves? If one state wanted to discriminate against a group that didn't exist when the Constitution was written, did they have that right?

 

[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.

I know you don't believe in evolution but the fact is that everything evolves or it breaks. Federalism ("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") is a fine ideal but the reality of it was very different. If one state condoned slavery but another did not what was to become of runaway slaves? If one state wanted to discriminate against a group that didn't exist when the Constitution was written, did they have that right?

"I know you don't believe in evolution"


You know nothing of the kind.


In fact, you know nothing.

 

[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.

I know you don't believe in evolution but the fact is that everything evolves or it breaks. Federalism ("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") is a fine ideal but the reality of it was very different. If one state condoned slavery but another did not what was to become of runaway slaves? If one state wanted to discriminate against a group that didn't exist when the Constitution was written, did they have that right?

" Federalism ("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") is a fine ideal but the reality of it was very different. If one state condoned slavery but another did not what was to become of runaway slaves? "

They don't teach you how to read in government school, huh?


The very first item in the OP...

The Real Job Of The Supreme Court

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.

The Constitution includes the amendments.....you don know what an amendment is, don't you, you dunce????

Is slavery covered in the above???????????



Now....where does the Constitution say that every state must have the very same rules, regulations, laws, statutes, customs, and traditions??????



WHERE???????



"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.

 

[alang1216]

"I know you don't believe in evolution"


You know nothing of the kind.


In fact, you know nothing.

Please enlighten me. Do you believe life on earth evolved from a common ancestor (regardless of how it happened)?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"I know you don't believe in evolution"


You know nothing of the kind.


In fact, you know nothing.

Please enlighten me. Do you believe life on earth evolved from a common ancestor (regardless of how it happened)?

"Please enlighten me."

That would be a full-time job.



You wrote this....
"I know you don't believe in evolution"
Do you have any links to prove that?

 

[alang1216]

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.

I know you don't believe in evolution but the fact is that everything evolves or it breaks. Federalism ("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") is a fine ideal but the reality of it was very different. If one state condoned slavery but another did not what was to become of runaway slaves? If one state wanted to discriminate against a group that didn't exist when the Constitution was written, did they have that right?

" Federalism ("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") is a fine ideal but the reality of it was very different. If one state condoned slavery but another did not what was to become of runaway slaves? "

They don't teach you how to read in government school, huh?


The very first item in the OP...

The Real Job Of The Supreme Court

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.

The Constitution includes the amendments.....you don know what an amendment is, don't you, you dunce????

Is slavery covered in the above???????????



Now....where does the Constitution say that every state must have the very same rules, regulations, laws, statutes, customs, and traditions??????



WHERE???????



"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.

"Now....where does the Constitution say that every state must have the very same rules, regulations, laws, statutes, customs, and traditions??????"
The Constitution provides protections for the right of gun ownership and free speech. Every state must have the same (minimum) protections for those rights. The right to an abortion was seen by the Court in the light as these other rights.