Judicial Review vs. Constitutional Government

[Kevin_Kennedy]

One overlooked effect of judicial review – the power of American judges to declare laws unconstitutional – is that it gives judges power to adopt amendments the people, through their representatives, have rejected. "Constitutional law," the body of decisions of American judges implementing the Constitution, not only does not reflect the people’s wishes in adopting constitutional language, but often flatly contradicts it.

The first, and perhaps most significant, instance of the courts’ use of judicial review as an amendment power came in 1819, with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland. That case concerned the constitutionality of the 1816 bill chartering the second Bank of the United States.

Judicial Review vs. Constitutional Government by Kevin R. C. Gutzman

I thought this article was interesting concerning the nature of the discussion in the Feds Override Montana State Law thread.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Gutzman is a sharp cat, but he is also a professional student who lacks the balls to actually apply what he has learned in his pursuit of what I believe to be 6 degrees. I have a hard time respecting opinions on law from people that study for a living.

That said, it is a very interesting piece that is completely irrelevant in practice. Marshall was correct in interpreting what the Constitution actually says and not the intent of teh Framers. Intent was not ratfied, a document was.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Gutzman is a sharp cat, but he is also a professional student who lacks the balls to actually apply what he has learned in his pursuit of what I believe to be 6 degrees. I have a hard time respecting opinions on law from people that study for a living.

That said, it is a very interesting piece that is completely irrelevant in practice. Marshall was correct in interpreting what the Constitution actually says and not the intent of teh Framers. Intent was not ratfied, a document was.

Yet the Constitution was ratified with a certain interpretation, otherwise the Anti-Federalists would have put up a much stronger fight against it. If you suddenly change the interpretation after the fact then you are committing fraud.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Gutzman is a sharp cat, but he is also a professional student who lacks the balls to actually apply what he has learned in his pursuit of what I believe to be 6 degrees. I have a hard time respecting opinions on law from people that study for a living.

That said, it is a very interesting piece that is completely irrelevant in practice. Marshall was correct in interpreting what the Constitution actually says and not the intent of teh Framers. Intent was not ratfied, a document was.

Yet the Constitution was ratified with a certain interpretation, otherwise the Anti-Federalists would have put up a much stronger fight against it. If you suddenly change the interpretation after the fact then you are committing fraud.

It was ratified in Virginia with a certain interpretation. It was ratified in 12 other states with different interpretations. That s what makes Gutzman's Virginia reference irrelvant.

 

[Oddball]

Marshall was correct in interpreting what the Constitution actually says and not the intent of teh Framers. Intent was not ratfied, a document was.

Thank you, George Orwell.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Marshall was correct in interpreting what the Constitution actually says and not the intent of teh Framers. Intent was not ratfied, a document was.

Thank you, George Orwell.

So what is the root of ths reference? Socal injustce, anti-totalitarnism, democratic socialism or a belief in clearer meanings?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Gutzman is a sharp cat, but he is also a professional student who lacks the balls to actually apply what he has learned in his pursuit of what I believe to be 6 degrees. I have a hard time respecting opinions on law from people that study for a living.

That said, it is a very interesting piece that is completely irrelevant in practice. Marshall was correct in interpreting what the Constitution actually says and not the intent of teh Framers. Intent was not ratfied, a document was.

Yet the Constitution was ratified with a certain interpretation, otherwise the Anti-Federalists would have put up a much stronger fight against it. If you suddenly change the interpretation after the fact then you are committing fraud.

It was ratified in Virginia with a certain interpretation. It was ratified in 12 other states with different interpretations. That s what makes Gutzman's Virginia reference irrelvant.

I disagree. The states were made up of Federalists and Anti-Federalists and to get the Anti-Federalists on board with the Constitution the Federalists had to assure them that the Constitution did in fact create a strictly limited government and that a Bill of Rights would be added just to make sure. I believe all the states ratified the Constitution believing that it was going to strictly limit the government to exactly what it said. Of course, it turns out the fears of the Anti-Federalists were very well founded but that doesn't change anything.

 

[Oddball]

Marshall was correct in interpreting what the Constitution actually says and not the intent of teh Framers. Intent was not ratfied, a document was.

Thank you, George Orwell.

So what is the root of ths reference? Socal injustce, anti-totalitarnism, democratic socialism or a belief in clearer meanings?

The reference has to do with making up the definitions of words as you go along.

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Thank you, George Orwell.

So what is the root of ths reference? Socal injustce, anti-totalitarnism, democratic socialism or a belief in clearer meanings?

The reference has to do with making up the definitions of words as you go along.

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

Sure, because that is exactly what I have done. Do you have anything useful to add or are you simply going to continue showering us with useless literture references.

 

[Oddball]

You mean "useless literature references" like the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers??

check.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

You mean "useless literature references" like the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers??

check.

Or perhaps SCOTUS decisions that get ignored in favor of opinion. Case law that gets shouted down with rants of, "It doesn't say that n the Consititution."

My excercise in exposure of hypocrisy is obviously failing. I'm calling it quits for the night.

 

[Oddball]

You mean "useless literature references" like the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers??

check.

Or perhaps SCOTUS decisions that get ignored in favor of opinion. Case law that gets shouted down with rants of, "It doesn't say that n the Consititution."

My excercise in exposure of hypocrisy s obviously failing. I'm calling it quits for the night.

Or SCOTUS decisions like Dred Scott and Kelo, which are obvious abominations....Take your pick.

G'head....Take the side of The Man.