Judicial Review

[Wry Catcher]

You know what else is easy? Broad hyperbolic generalizations with no basis in reality.

You really need to buy a dictionary. I don't steal is a statement of fact, nothing hyperbolic there. Fact is, threads have been posted wherein 'conservatives' have claimed that they are more generous in their giving to the needy. Fact is, 'conservatives' have often claimed support for a safety net is what is keeping the poor poor. Not one bit of hyperbole in any of those statements.

You can disagree, feel free. But anyone who has read threads and posts on this message board knows these statements are factual and those who deny facts are liars.

Apparently you didn't see what I did there.

You did this: "Liberty to a liberal is the freedom to steal from their neighbor and then talk about how generous they are."

The inference was I'm a liberal, something I won't deny. So what?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The very first line of the Supremacy Clause undermines your own argument. Only those laws made within the strict limitations of the Constitution ("the pursuance thereof") are Supreme Law of the Land.

Since the 10th Amendment was ratified (and the Ninth) AFTER the original Constitution, how do you believe the 10th Amendment interacts with your interpretation of the Supremacy Clause?

Once again for the slow and stupid, the Supreme Court decides that. as delegated in the Constitution.

Interesting the the mainstream opinion, pre-1860's was in stark contrast to yours.

Once again article III grants the POWER and AUTHORITY to the Supreme Court to determine all laws and legal matters in regards the United States Government. In order to claim the 9th or 10th is violated by a federal law one must take their case to the Supreme Court and get Judgement from there.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You really need to buy a dictionary. I don't steal is a statement of fact, nothing hyperbolic there. Fact is, threads have been posted wherein 'conservatives' have claimed that they are more generous in their giving to the needy. Fact is, 'conservatives' have often claimed support for a safety net is what is keeping the poor poor. Not one bit of hyperbole in any of those statements.

You can disagree, feel free. But anyone who has read threads and posts on this message board knows these statements are factual and those who deny facts are liars.

Apparently you didn't see what I did there.

You did this: "Liberty to a liberal is the freedom to steal from their neighbor and then talk about how generous they are."

The inference was I'm a liberal, something I won't deny. So what?

You made a broad hyperbolic generalization with no basis in reality regarding libertarians, and I made one regarding liberals in response.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Apparently you didn't see what I did there.

You did this: "Liberty to a liberal is the freedom to steal from their neighbor and then talk about how generous they are."

The inference was I'm a liberal, something I won't deny. So what?

You made a broad hyperbolic generalization with no basis in reality regarding libertarians, and I made one regarding liberals in response.

I have in the past made broad general comments about libertarians, but not in the specific post where you took offense. Libertarians cannot govern, the ideology is solely academic and would be an ineffective framework for a national government. Much like Communism or Socialism such a framework might be successful in a small unit, like a town, but could not govern 300 million people or 3 million. Human nature would not allow it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You did this: "Liberty to a liberal is the freedom to steal from their neighbor and then talk about how generous they are."

The inference was I'm a liberal, something I won't deny. So what?

You made a broad hyperbolic generalization with no basis in reality regarding libertarians, and I made one regarding liberals in response.

I have in the past made broad general comments about libertarians, but not in the specific post where you took offense. Libertarians cannot govern, the ideology is solely academic and would be an ineffective framework for a national government. Much like Communism or Socialism such a framework might be successful in a small unit, like a town, but could not govern 300 million people or 3 million. Human nature would not allow it.

Uh huh. And labeling them all "selfish and callous" wasn't a broad generalization with no basis in reality. Right. Just the collectivist mindset in action, I suppose.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You made a broad hyperbolic generalization with no basis in reality regarding libertarians, and I made one regarding liberals in response.

I have in the past made broad general comments about libertarians, but not in the specific post where you took offense. Libertarians cannot govern, the ideology is solely academic and would be an ineffective framework for a national government. Much like Communism or Socialism such a framework might be successful in a small unit, like a town, but could not govern 300 million people or 3 million. Human nature would not allow it.

Uh huh. And labeling them all "selfish and callous" wasn't a broad generalization with no basis in reality. Right. Just the collectivist mindset in action, I suppose.

LOL, "Collectivist mindset", gee did you forget to call me a "statist" too? Grow up, I've read enough Libertarian tripe to understand their guiding principle is all about "me". "It's my money, it's my gun"; The U.S. is a police state, government is evil, blah blah blah.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have in the past made broad general comments about libertarians, but not in the specific post where you took offense. Libertarians cannot govern, the ideology is solely academic and would be an ineffective framework for a national government. Much like Communism or Socialism such a framework might be successful in a small unit, like a town, but could not govern 300 million people or 3 million. Human nature would not allow it.

Uh huh. And labeling them all "selfish and callous" wasn't a broad generalization with no basis in reality. Right. Just the collectivist mindset in action, I suppose.

LOL, "Collectivist mindset", gee did you forget to call me a "statist" too? Grow up, I've read enough Libertarian tripe to understand their guiding principle is all about "me". "It's my money, it's my gun"; The U.S. is a police state, government is evil, blah blah blah.

You're the one making broad generalizations about a large group of people, and you have the nerve to tell anyone else to grow up? "All libertarians are jerks" is something a third grader would come up with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those who express such an opinion only exhibit their ignorance.

Glad to see you admitting that Obama is ignorant.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Uh huh. And labeling them all "selfish and callous" wasn't a broad generalization with no basis in reality. Right. Just the collectivist mindset in action, I suppose.

LOL, "Collectivist mindset", gee did you forget to call me a "statist" too? Grow up, I've read enough Libertarian tripe to understand their guiding principle is all about "me". "It's my money, it's my gun"; The U.S. is a police state, government is evil, blah blah blah.

You're the one making broad generalizations about a large group of people, and you have the nerve to tell anyone else to grow up? "All libertarians are jerks" is something a third grader would come up with.

I doubt it, most third graders are all about, "Me" too.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Once again for the slow and stupid, the Supreme Court decides that. as delegated in the Constitution.

Interesting the the mainstream opinion, pre-1860's was in stark contrast to yours.

Once again article III grants the POWER and AUTHORITY to the Supreme Court to determine all laws and legal matters in regards the United States Government. In order to claim the 9th or 10th is violated by a federal law one must take their case to the Supreme Court and get Judgement from there.

Seeing that California and 13 other States have ignored the SCOTUS decision that overturned their nullification of federal marijuana laws, I would say that your argument is without force.

The only recourse for the federal government in this scenario is to call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of Union...and that's if the States decide to relinquish control of their Militias for that purpose...so it appears that the States are the true sovereigns.

More likely the States would demand an amendment to overturn the SCOTUS decision if the federal government attempted to flex military might --- so again --- the States are the true sovereigns of the Compact between the States --- what other entity would be?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting the the mainstream opinion, pre-1860's was in stark contrast to yours.

Once again article III grants the POWER and AUTHORITY to the Supreme Court to determine all laws and legal matters in regards the United States Government. In order to claim the 9th or 10th is violated by a federal law one must take their case to the Supreme Court and get Judgement from there.

Seeing that California and 13 other States have ignored the SCOTUS decision that overturned their nullification of federal marijuana laws, I would say that your argument is without force.

The only recourse for the federal government in this scenario is to call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of Union...and that's if the States decide to relinquish control of their Militias for that purpose...so it appears that the States are the true sovereigns.

Ever hear of Revenue Sharing, states which did not comply with the federal mandate of 55 MPH years ago would have lost federal highway funds. None failed to comply.

More likely the States would demand an amendment to overturn the SCOTUS decision if the federal government attempted to flex military might --- so again --- the States are the true sovereigns of the Compact between the States --- what other entity would be?

Judicial Review is here to stay, no way over two centuries of law will be set aside 'cause a few radicals object to a ruling or two.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Once again article III grants the POWER and AUTHORITY to the Supreme Court to determine all laws and legal matters in regards the United States Government. In order to claim the 9th or 10th is violated by a federal law one must take their case to the Supreme Court and get Judgement from there.

Seeing that California and 13 other States have ignored the SCOTUS decision that overturned their nullification of federal marijuana laws, I would say that your argument is without force.

The only recourse for the federal government in this scenario is to call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of Union...and that's if the States decide to relinquish control of their Militias for that purpose...so it appears that the States are the true sovereigns.

Ever hear of Revenue Sharing, states which did not comply with the federal mandate of 55 MPH years ago would have lost federal highway funds. None failed to comply.

More likely the States would demand an amendment to overturn the SCOTUS decision if the federal government attempted to flex military might --- so again --- the States are the true sovereigns of the Compact between the States --- what other entity would be?

Judicial Review is here to stay, no way over two centuries of law will be set aside 'cause a few radicals object to a ruling or two.

Your own inserted statement contradicts yourself, because each State still had the right to withdraw from those benefits --- so the ultimate decision remained with them --- thus, they are sovereign.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Once again article III grants the POWER and AUTHORITY to the Supreme Court to determine all laws and legal matters in regards the United States Government. In order to claim the 9th or 10th is violated by a federal law one must take their case to the Supreme Court and get Judgement from there.

Seeing that California and 13 other States have ignored the SCOTUS decision that overturned their nullification of federal marijuana laws, I would say that your argument is without force.

The only recourse for the federal government in this scenario is to call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of Union...and that's if the States decide to relinquish control of their Militias for that purpose...so it appears that the States are the true sovereigns.

Ever hear of Revenue Sharing, states which did not comply with the federal mandate of 55 MPH years ago would have lost federal highway funds. None failed to comply.

More likely the States would demand an amendment to overturn the SCOTUS decision if the federal government attempted to flex military might --- so again --- the States are the true sovereigns of the Compact between the States --- what other entity would be?

Judicial Review is here to stay, no way over two centuries of law will be set aside 'cause a few radicals object to a ruling or two.

Time to drop the hammer on you:​

The necessity of fixed principles of construction.
For the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights to have had ascertainable meanings in 1788 and 1791, a set of equally ascertainable principles of interpretation or construction of their language must then have existed. After all, constitutional questions “must be resolved not by past uncertainties, assumptions, or arguments, but by the application of the controlling principles of constitutional interpretation”.

Moreover, those principles themselves must have been fixed in substance, and their proper applications well understood, otherwise their very verbal ambiguity and political plasticity would have afforded a surreptitious means for serially amending the Constitution. “Surreptitious”, because the original Constitution contained an explicit and complex procedure for Amendments. And if effective amendment simply by alleged “interpretation” or “construction” were allowable, then this provision would have been utterly superfluous, even duplicitous, from the very outset --- in derogation of the opposite conclusion, obvious from the structure of the instrument itself, that no “clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect”. In derogation, too, of the very purpose of the provision for Amendments, which is to compel extremely careful deliberation by WE THE PEOPLE as a whole on any proposed change in their Constitution, so as to preserve self-conscious and fully informed popular self-government. Whereas, underhanded ersatz amendments juryrigged by specious “interpretations” or “constructions” of the Constitution aim at the subversion, if not the entire overthrow, of popular self-government—because the concocted “interpretations” or “constructions” derive, not from WE THE PEOPLE themselves, but instead from unelected judges and their law clerks, or nameless and faceless bureaucrats in “alphabet agencies” (the quintessence of political élitism); or from legislators almost always beholden to avaricious special-interest groups (the quintessence of political corruption).

Thus, not only is judicial review a power that the Court claimed for themselves, it is the most violent and egregious usurpation of the Constitution, as it fundamentally alters or outright abolishes the social contract (the Constitution) to which the people agreed to (ratified), without their Consent.

Judicial Review is the highest form of tyranny in the United States.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Seeing that California and 13 other States have ignored the SCOTUS decision that overturned their nullification of federal marijuana laws, I would say that your argument is without force.

The only recourse for the federal government in this scenario is to call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of Union...and that's if the States decide to relinquish control of their Militias for that purpose...so it appears that the States are the true sovereigns.

Ever hear of Revenue Sharing, states which did not comply with the federal mandate of 55 MPH years ago would have lost federal highway funds. None failed to comply.

More likely the States would demand an amendment to overturn the SCOTUS decision if the federal government attempted to flex military might --- so again --- the States are the true sovereigns of the Compact between the States --- what other entity would be?

Judicial Review is here to stay, no way over two centuries of law will be set aside 'cause a few radicals object to a ruling or two.

Time to drop the hammer on you:​

The necessity of fixed principles of construction.
For the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights to have had ascertainable meanings in 1788 and 1791, a set of equally ascertainable principles of interpretation or construction of their language must then have existed. After all, constitutional questions “must be resolved not by past uncertainties, assumptions, or arguments, but by the application of the controlling principles of constitutional interpretation”.

Moreover, those principles themselves must have been fixed in substance, and their proper applications well understood, otherwise their very verbal ambiguity and political plasticity would have afforded a surreptitious means for serially amending the Constitution. “Surreptitious”, because the original Constitution contained an explicit and complex procedure for Amendments. And if effective amendment simply by alleged “interpretation” or “construction” were allowable, then this provision would have been utterly superfluous, even duplicitous, from the very outset --- in derogation of the opposite conclusion, obvious from the structure of the instrument itself, that no “clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect”. In derogation, too, of the very purpose of the provision for Amendments, which is to compel extremely careful deliberation by WE THE PEOPLE as a whole on any proposed change in their Constitution, so as to preserve self-conscious and fully informed popular self-government. Whereas, underhanded ersatz amendments juryrigged by specious “interpretations” or “constructions” of the Constitution aim at the subversion, if not the entire overthrow, of popular self-government—because the concocted “interpretations” or “constructions” derive, not from WE THE PEOPLE themselves, but instead from unelected judges and their law clerks, or nameless and faceless bureaucrats in “alphabet agencies” (the quintessence of political élitism); or from legislators almost always beholden to avaricious special-interest groups (the quintessence of political corruption).

Thus, not only is judicial review a power that the Court claimed for themselves, it is the most violent and egregious usurpation of the Constitution, as it fundamentally alters or outright abolishes the social contract (the Constitution) to which the people agreed to (ratified), without their Consent.

Judicial Review is the highest form of tyranny in the United States.

What part of dispute between a State and the federal Government don't you understand? You claim that a tribunal of the States must make decisions. Yet NO WHERE in the Constitution is that even HINTED at. Article III STATES that all legal disputes between the States and the Federal Government or between individuals and the Federal Government are the sole purview of the Supreme Court. It is not ambiguous or full of contradictions. It is stated in plain English that ANY dispute as to law or between the States ( or Individuals) and the federal Government are decided BY THE SUPREME COURT.

Go ahead bury your head in the sand and chant nananananananana all you want it does not change what the Constitution says.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Judicial Review is here to stay, no way over two centuries of law will be set aside 'cause a few radicals object to a ruling or two.

Time to drop the hammer on you:​

The necessity of fixed principles of construction.
For the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights to have had ascertainable meanings in 1788 and 1791, a set of equally ascertainable principles of interpretation or construction of their language must then have existed. After all, constitutional questions “must be resolved not by past uncertainties, assumptions, or arguments, but by the application of the controlling principles of constitutional interpretation”.

Moreover, those principles themselves must have been fixed in substance, and their proper applications well understood, otherwise their very verbal ambiguity and political plasticity would have afforded a surreptitious means for serially amending the Constitution. “Surreptitious”, because the original Constitution contained an explicit and complex procedure for Amendments. And if effective amendment simply by alleged “interpretation” or “construction” were allowable, then this provision would have been utterly superfluous, even duplicitous, from the very outset --- in derogation of the opposite conclusion, obvious from the structure of the instrument itself, that no “clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect”. In derogation, too, of the very purpose of the provision for Amendments, which is to compel extremely careful deliberation by WE THE PEOPLE as a whole on any proposed change in their Constitution, so as to preserve self-conscious and fully informed popular self-government. Whereas, underhanded ersatz amendments juryrigged by specious “interpretations” or “constructions” of the Constitution aim at the subversion, if not the entire overthrow, of popular self-government—because the concocted “interpretations” or “constructions” derive, not from WE THE PEOPLE themselves, but instead from unelected judges and their law clerks, or nameless and faceless bureaucrats in “alphabet agencies” (the quintessence of political élitism); or from legislators almost always beholden to avaricious special-interest groups (the quintessence of political corruption).

Thus, not only is judicial review a power that the Court claimed for themselves, it is the most violent and egregious usurpation of the Constitution, as it fundamentally alters or outright abolishes the social contract (the Constitution) to which the people agreed to (ratified), without their Consent.

Judicial Review is the highest form of tyranny in the United States.

What part of dispute between a State and the federal Government don't you understand? You claim that a tribunal of the States must make decisions. Yet NO WHERE in the Constitution is that even HINTED at. Article III STATES that all legal disputes between the States and the Federal Government or between individuals and the Federal Government are the sole purview of the Supreme Court. It is not ambiguous or full of contradictions. It is stated in plain English that ANY dispute as to law or between the States ( or Individuals) and the federal Government are decided BY THE SUPREME COURT.

Go ahead bury your head in the sand and chant nananananananana all you want it does not change what the Constitution says.

Let's throw in an example here:

If the Supreme Court construed the Constitution to permit genocide, would the States have no recourse to nullify such a decision?

Do you sincerely believe that the Constitution contains no recourse to Judicial Tyranny?