Challenging Constitutionalists

[Onyx]

- Justice Clarence Thomas

How can you defend the constitution when it essentially authorizes unlimited powers to the Judicial branch in defining how the US is governed?

I have long pointed out how meaningless the constitution was in preventing the expansion of state powers, but lets make a thread about it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

How can you defend the constitution when it essentially authorizes unlimited powers to the Judicial branch in defining how the US is governed?

It doesn't. That power was usurped in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

 

[Onyx]

How can you defend the constitution when it essentially authorizes unlimited powers to the Judicial branch in defining how the US is governed?

It doesn't. That power was usurped in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Judicial review? That is evidence of judicial fiat, so you just supported my case.

The primary check and balance on the supreme court is presidential appointment with approval of the senate. In other words, jackshit nothing!

 

[Timmy]

Unlimited powers ? How do you figure ?

 

[Onyx]

Unlimited powers ? How do you figure ?

The supreme court is practically unchallenged in its ability to redefine the constitution.

They have been spoiled with lots of powers as well, to the point where the supreme court can essentially invent new laws.

 

[NYcarbineer]

- Justice Clarence Thomas

How can you defend the constitution when it essentially authorizes unlimited powers to the Judicial branch in defining how the US is governed?

I have long pointed out how meaningless the constitution was in preventing the expansion of state powers, but lets make a thread about it.

The judicial branch does not have unlimited powers.

 

[Onyx]

The judicial branch does not have unlimited powers.

Practically so.

The highest officials in government are always above the rule of law, and this is especially true for Judicial branch which determines the constitutionality of laws and the constitution itself.

The empty words of the constitution that Justice Clarence referred to can be spinned to support partisan political positions. The decision on the unconstitutionality of same sex marriage in 2015 was an example of the Supreme court stretching to fulfill a political agenda, or did you not hear the majority opinion on that case?

The justices are affiliated by party, have the ability to choose cases, and can exercise court orders. The Supreme Court is essentially a government all by itself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The judicial branch does not have unlimited powers.

Practically so.

The highest officials in government are always above the rule of law, and this is especially true for Judicial branch which determines the constitutionality of laws and the constitution itself.

The empty words of the constitution that Justice Clarence referred to can be spinned to support partisan political positions. The decision on the unconstitutionality of same sex marriage in 2015 was an example of the Supreme court stretching to fulfill a political agenda, or did you not hear the majority opinion on that case?

The justices are affiliated by party, have the ability to choose cases, and can exercise court orders. The Supreme Court is essentially a government all by itself.

There is no better alternative.

 

[bripat9643]

- Justice Clarence Thomas

How can you defend the constitution when it essentially authorizes unlimited powers to the Judicial branch in defining how the US is governed?

I have long pointed out how meaningless the constitution was in preventing the expansion of state powers, but lets make a thread about it.

The Supreme Court is nothing more than a mechanism for destroying our constitution rights.

 

[bripat9643]

The judicial branch does not have unlimited powers.

Practically so.

The highest officials in government are always above the rule of law, and this is especially true for Judicial branch which determines the constitutionality of laws and the constitution itself.

The empty words of the constitution that Justice Clarence referred to can be spinned to support partisan political positions. The decision on the unconstitutionality of same sex marriage in 2015 was an example of the Supreme court stretching to fulfill a political agenda, or did you not hear the majority opinion on that case?

The justices are affiliated by party, have the ability to choose cases, and can exercise court orders. The Supreme Court is essentially a government all by itself.

There is no better alternative.

Yes there is.

 

[OKTexas]

- Justice Clarence Thomas

How can you defend the constitution when it essentially authorizes unlimited powers to the Judicial branch in defining how the US is governed?

I have long pointed out how meaningless the constitution was in preventing the expansion of state powers, but lets make a thread about it.

Well there are only 3 solutions to the courts unwillingness to keep their oaths and adhere to the Constitution.

1. Congress does their job and impeaches judges that stray. They have proven that ain't gonna happen.

2. The States convene an Article 5 convention and put the leviathan back in it's box, including the courts.

3. The Second Amendment solution and the people take back the power stolen by the feds and the courts.

Personally, I prefer number 2.

 

[Onyx]

The Supreme Court is nothing more than a mechanism for destroying our constitution rights.

I am tired of this stone age thinking.

The constitution cannot give you rights, and you cannot trust the government to not abuse them. The constitution authorizes the state and its powers, and I have no desire to trust a piece of paper in defending my basic honor and integrity as a self-respecting individual.

In the words of Lysander Spooner....

The constitution is a far more authoritarian document than the original articles of confederation. The founding fathers sold out as soon as the common man started fighting back against their new taxes and laws. Proof that you cannot tame a machine.

 

[Onyx]

Well there are only 3 solutions to the courts unwillingness to keep their oaths and adhere to the Constitution.

1. Congress does their job and impeaches judges that stray. They have proven that ain't gonna happen.

2. The States convene an Article 5 convention and put the leviathan back in it's box, including the courts.

3. The Second Amendment solution and the people take back the power stolen by the feds and the courts.

Personally, I prefer number 2.

How will any of those "solutions" prevent the courts from gaining unlimited power again?

Do you really believe revising a piece of paper will be the fix for everything? I never understand statists and their fascination with ink on tree pulp.

 

[OKTexas]

Well there are only 3 solutions to the courts unwillingness to keep their oaths and adhere to the Constitution.

1. Congress does their job and impeaches judges that stray. They have proven that ain't gonna happen.

2. The States convene an Article 5 convention and put the leviathan back in it's box, including the courts.

3. The Second Amendment solution and the people take back the power stolen by the feds and the courts.

Personally, I prefer number 2.

How will any of those "solutions" prevent the courts from gaining unlimited power again?

Do you really believe revising a piece of paper will be the fix for everything? I never understand statists and their fascination with ink on tree pulp.

Guess you haven't bothered to read some of the proposed amendments that are floating around. One would give 2/3rds of the States veto power over SCOTUS decisions.

 

[Onyx]

Guess you haven't bothered to read some of the proposed amendments that are floating around. One would give 2/3rds of the States veto power over SCOTUS decisions.

That backfires too.

You are now giving the senate a stake in the process of determining constitutionality. That opens up the interpretation of the constitution to further politicization.

 

[bripat9643]

Guess you haven't bothered to read some of the proposed amendments that are floating around. One would give 2/3rds of the States veto power over SCOTUS decisions.

That backfires too.

You are now giving the senate a stake in the process of determining constitutionality. That opens up the interpretation of the constitution to further politicization.

Not the Senate. 2/3rds of the state legislatures. I think it should be a simple majority. If that many state legislatures are opposed to it, then it's probably a bad decision.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How can you defend the constitution when it essentially authorizes unlimited powers to the Judicial branch in defining how the US is governed?

Where does it say that? How? If that's true, why did it establish the three branches of government if it only gives all the power to one?

The Judicial branch is supposed to hold the government in check with the Constitution. It isn't supposed to run the government.

 

[OKTexas]

Guess you haven't bothered to read some of the proposed amendments that are floating around. One would give 2/3rds of the States veto power over SCOTUS decisions.

That backfires too.

You are now giving the senate a stake in the process of determining constitutionality. That opens up the interpretation of the constitution to further politicization.

Not the US Senate, States as in State legislatures.

 

[Onyx]

Where does it say that? How? If that's true, why did it establish the three branches of government if it only gives all the power to one?

The constitution did not need to spell it out to authorize it.

The Judicial branch is supposed to hold the government in check with the Constitution. It isn't supposed to run the government.

Supposed to does not matter.

 

[Onyx]

Not the US Senate, States as in State legislatures.

So the United States constitution is only applicable when the states want it via popular consensus?

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like you are saying individual state legislatures can opt out of a supreme court ruling.