1.It’s the age-old battle: human nature vs. the limits of the human mind.
With all the study and experience that went into constructing the brilliant document, the United States Constitution, the seeds of our own destruction was buried deep within it.
Where?
“Article III of the Constitution establishes and empowers the judicial branch of the national government. The very first sentence of Article III says:
“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” (Google)
2. The problem is that the limits to the power of the Supreme Court is not specified, and this allowed the power-grab that that has resulted in today’s judicial tyranny.
“The most striking thing about judicial review, at first, is that it is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, although it was unprecedented in English law—the source of our basic legal institutions and practices—and poses an obvious threat to representative self-government.
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.” https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
3. That’s the ‘human nature’ problem: self-aggrandizement, often rationalized as beneficence. No doubt, John Marshall, and all of the other judges who have utilized activism believed that it was best for the nation to have a central government with unlimited power.
This was not the basis on which the country was built, nor the Constitution ratified!!!!
4. Let's go over that again: rather than having federal courts with the power to decide any kinds of cases, the document ratified by the people created a federal judiciary which left most judicial power to the state governments.
That would include flag burning, abortion, state government recognition of religion, e.g., public prayer, and homosexual marriage. State courts....not federal.
See Gutzman, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," p.26-28.
Federalists who voted to ratify the Constitution were very clear on this issue.
Soooo…..what happened?
Chief Justice John Marshall happened.
Explained next…..
With all the study and experience that went into constructing the brilliant document, the United States Constitution, the seeds of our own destruction was buried deep within it.
Where?
“Article III of the Constitution establishes and empowers the judicial branch of the national government. The very first sentence of Article III says:
“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” (Google)
2. The problem is that the limits to the power of the Supreme Court is not specified, and this allowed the power-grab that that has resulted in today’s judicial tyranny.
“The most striking thing about judicial review, at first, is that it is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, although it was unprecedented in English law—the source of our basic legal institutions and practices—and poses an obvious threat to representative self-government.
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.” https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
3. That’s the ‘human nature’ problem: self-aggrandizement, often rationalized as beneficence. No doubt, John Marshall, and all of the other judges who have utilized activism believed that it was best for the nation to have a central government with unlimited power.
This was not the basis on which the country was built, nor the Constitution ratified!!!!
4. Let's go over that again: rather than having federal courts with the power to decide any kinds of cases, the document ratified by the people created a federal judiciary which left most judicial power to the state governments.
That would include flag burning, abortion, state government recognition of religion, e.g., public prayer, and homosexual marriage. State courts....not federal.
See Gutzman, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," p.26-28.
Federalists who voted to ratify the Constitution were very clear on this issue.
Soooo…..what happened?
Chief Justice John Marshall happened.
Explained next…..
