Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[Quantum Windbag]

You are willfuly refusing to realize that the Amendment is an expansion of rights, protected by the Constitution.

That's on you.

No it isn't, it is a restriction on the states.

The language does not support your conclusiion.

Really? How do you figure that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State..." does not support my conclusion that this is a restriction on the states? Please, explain that one to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are trying to say that the amendment is not an expansion of the citizens' rights.

Of course the rights are expanded.

For instance, when prohibition and poll taxes were in place, the citizen's rights were restricted.

 

[johnwk]

If you're going to take away the power of the Court to interpret laws and strike down those that in their opinion are unconstitutional,

how would you deal with a situation where a legislature somewhere outlawed gun ownership, outright?

We are not talking about interpreting the law, and especially not talking about interpreting our Constitution. We are talking about judges and Justices being held accountable when they arrive at decisions which violate the fundamental rules of constitutional law and are not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. As an example I cited Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005). In this decision Justice Stevens gave new meaning to the phrase “public use”, admitted it was a new meaning, and thereby ignored a fundamental rule of constitutional law which requires the meaning of words in our Constitution to be understood as they were understood when our Constitution was adopted. In addition, Justice Stevens violated the intended protections written into our Constitution to protect the owners of property and rights associated with the ownership of property. Justice Thomas on the other hand documented Steven’s expanded meaning of “public use” was “divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document”.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS is the aribter of constitutionality, not Congress, not the President, not johnwk.

 

[PrometheusBound]

The Constitution was a start-up document, no matter what the power-hungry framers intended it to be. They purposely excluded Jefferson, who was outraged by it and purposely violated it to gain for us the vast Lousiana Territory.


The judicial fatwa called Marbury v Madison was a logical fallacy called (petitio principii, poorly translated as "begging the question"). In it, the power-hungry Justices interpreted the Constitution as giving them a right to interpret to the Constitution. In an insulting pretense of humility, the judicial jihadists denied themselves the power to decide that one case.

The Supreme Court has judicial authority - that means they and the lessor courts settle all legal disputes. A dispute on how to interpret the law - whether it be statute or the Constitution itself, obviously is covered by that authority.[/QUOTE
Courts decide cases; they themselves are under the jurisdiction of the law that only the legislators can repeal, which is the same thing the Supremacy Court tries to do with its self-appointed power of judicial review. In whose interest is it to put us under such absolute authority? Unlike the well-tamed American sheep, I defy the Court's power and prestige. Nine clowns with gavels and gowns.

 

[PrometheusBound]

The Constitution was a start-up document, no matter what the power-hungry framers intended it to be. They purposely excluded Jefferson, who was outraged by it and purposely violated it to gain for us the vast Lousiana Territory.


The judicial fatwa called Marbury v Madison was a logical fallacy called (petitio principii, poorly translated as "begging the question"). In it, the power-hungry Justices interpreted the Constitution as giving them a right to interpret to the Constitution. In an insulting pretense of humility, the judicial jihadists denied themselves the power to decide that one case.

Weren't most of the founders still around at the time of Marbury v. Madison? If it was so outside their 'intent', why didn't they remedy it via amendment at the time?

Because the Chief Justice was part of the ruling clique. Having a document with Biblical authority and the Vatican-like absolute power to interpret it is useful to power-hungry opportunists who want to awe the people into submission to a fake democracy where the people are resigned to being told what to do.

 

[PrometheusBound]

If you're going to take away the power of the Court to interpret laws and strike down those that in their opinion are unconstitutional,

how would you deal with a situation where a legislature somewhere outlawed gun ownership, outright?

Our guns protect that right, not some lawyers' scribbling. If it dared to, the Court could easily interpret the Constitution as gun ownership only relating to the National Guard, when in uniform. Why would you trust an unelected tribunal more than your elected representatives?

 

[johnwk]

If you're going to take away the power of the Court to interpret laws and strike down those that in their opinion are unconstitutional,

how would you deal with a situation where a legislature somewhere outlawed gun ownership, outright?

We are not talking about interpreting the law, and especially not talking about interpreting our Constitution. We are talking about judges and Justices being held accountable when they arrive at decisions which violate the fundamental rules of constitutional law and are not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. As an example I cited Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005). In this decision Justice Stevens gave new meaning to the phrase “public use”, admitted it was a new meaning, and thereby ignored a fundamental rule of constitutional law which requires the meaning of words in our Constitution to be understood as they were understood when our Constitution was adopted. In addition, Justice Stevens violated the intended protections written into our Constitution to protect the owners of property and rights associated with the ownership of property. Justice Thomas on the other hand documented Steven’s expanded meaning of “public use” was “divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document”.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

SCOTUS is the aribter of constitutionality, not Congress, not the President, not johnwk.

I think most posters in the thread would agree with that, including me. But to continue your thought, let us not forget that Congress is the arbiter of impeachments!

And so, would repeated opinions handed down by a Justice of the Supreme Court which ignore fundamental rules of constitutional law, thus exhibiting incompetence, be within the definition of bad behavior as mentioned in our Constitution? How about decisions which are not in harmony with the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and exhibit malfeasance, misfeasance and/or nonfeasance? Certainly such charges have long been considered as prosecutable offenses under American Jurisprudence. And as pointed out above, Congress would be the initial arbiter in such a case. Our Constitution does places this power in the hands of Congress and may be applied to “Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts”.

The fact is, Congress also has broad authority under its power to legislate, including subpoenaing witnesses, such as public officials, to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to further its legislative functions see:Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927). And this could include legislation as may be applied to impeachment proceedings, the codification of the definition of words as they appear in our Constitution, or even legislation to enforce fundamental rules of constitutional law!

Bottom line is, Congress most certainly has constitutionally recognized authority to deal with judges and Justices who may exercise their authority in defiance of the rules of constitutional law and in a manner which subverts the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote

 

[Inthemiddle]

We are talking about judges and Justices being held accountable when they arrive at decisions which violate the fundamental rules of constitutional law and are not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

According to whom?

 

[johnwk]

We are talking about judges and Justices being held accountable when they arrive at decisions which violate the fundamental rules of constitutional law and are not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

According to whom?

Not according to "whom", but rather, according to the documentation.


JWK

 

[JakeStarkey]

johnwk refuses to accept that SCOTUS will trump Congress on what is constitutional.

Congress can impeach, and I find it refreshing that it rarely does so.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Not according to "whom", but rather, according to the documentation.

According to whom? Who is supposed to weigh the various writings and evidence etc, and determine its exact meaning and the intention of the founders? And which founders are we to rely on? Even the founders had varied views on constitutional interpretation.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You are trying to say that the amendment is not an expansion of the citizens' rights.

Of course the rights are expanded.

For instance, when prohibition and poll taxes were in place, the citizen's rights were restricted.

You are factually vacant. You should just not post anymore.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are trying to say that the amendment is not an expansion of the citizens' rights.

Of course the rights are expanded.

For instance, when prohibition and poll taxes were in place, the citizen's rights were restricted.

I have news for you, genius, everything you just mentioned came after that Amendment, not before. SCOTUS eventually got their act together and realized that the Constitution actually restricted the power of states to infringe on the rights of people, but the Constitution never gives gives anyone rights.

 

[johnwk]

johnwk refuses to accept that SCOTUS will trump Congress on what is constitutional.

I have never refused what you assert. Why are you misrepresenting what I have posted?

JWK



Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote.

 

[johnwk]

Not according to "whom", but rather, according to the documentation.

According to whom? Who is supposed to weigh the various writings and evidence etc, and determine its exact meaning and the intention of the founders? And which founders are we to rely on? Even the founders had varied views on constitutional interpretation.

I take it you are not paying attention to what has been posted. The Courts primary function is to enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. And, the legislative intent of our Constitution is determined by a preponderance of the evidence expressing those intentions. As to which founders are we to rely upon, common sense tells us it would be documenting the words of those who expressed the legislative intent during the framing and ratification process concerning what is in dispute in court.

Applying this rule to the much misrepresented meaning of the phrase “general welfare”, which has been used by many to attach their own meaning to our Constitution, in Federalist No. 83, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“. Hamilton writes:

"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."

And Madison, in No. 41 Federalist writes with regard to the meaning of “general welfare“:

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."

follows to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95] [also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."]

Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.".[3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress or the courts to extended the federal government’s powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

And so, the question is and with regard to attempts to expand the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” by judicial interpretations, if the Anti Federalist feared such interpretations may be attached to the meaning of the phrase general welfare but were against such interpretations, and the Federalists assured such interpretations of the meaning of the phrase “general welfare were not within the intended meaning of the phrase, who can be pointed to substantiate such an interpretation of the phrase? Could it be those who now want the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean?


JWK


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson,

 

[JamesInFlorida]

You are trying to say that the amendment is not an expansion of the citizens' rights.

Of course the rights are expanded.

For instance, when prohibition and poll taxes were in place, the citizen's rights were restricted.

The reason why the Constitution restricts (or more accurately in some cases defines) the government and not the people/people's rights is very obvious. If the bill of rights (and following ammendments) serves to list the rights of citizens-then there's a lot that's missing. If the purpose was to list rights of citizens-then there would be tons of freedoms missing, and it would be nearly impossible to list everything. Thus they restricted the government (and state governments) in the Constitution.

Silly example here, but the point is the same: do you have the right to wear a blue shirt? According to your logic-you don't. Because the Constitution doesn't say you have the right to wear a blue shirt.

Notice what he refers to when he talks about the enumeration. He said "powers"-NOT "rights". Again big distinction.

James Madison himself said:

"My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided that it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration."

-Letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1788

 

[Inthemiddle]

I take it you are not paying attention to what has been posted.

I'm paying attention. You just have gaping holes in your thinking.

The Courts primary function is to enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

This is flat out wrong. The court's function is to decide cases and controversies that arise under the laws of the US and constitution. This is the crux of your failed reasoning. You seem to think that all judges have an obligation to be inside the heads of the founders, and not only that but to apply the same political beliefs the founders had, in all matters, at all times. This is not only an impossible chore, it's a plain silly notion. While the intent of the founders is indeed important, and such things are heavily considered in constitutional cases, you are simply wrong to suggest that the constitution was written with such specific implications at all points and on all things.

As to which founders are we to rely upon, common sense tells us it would be documenting the words of those who expressed the legislative intent during the framing and ratification process concerning what is in dispute in court.

This is your way of babbling out something, hoping that it will gain some kind of traction. No, common sense tells us that since the founders often agreed up on parts of the constitution with different views of how those parts would be applied and interpreted, there is no "easy button" as such you are attempting to describe. The constitution never meant for judges to be held to a standard of infallibility. The founders adopted the constitution as a pragmatic option for a form of government that might not always yield the best results, but maintains checks and balances so that no portion of government can become all intrusive into the lives of the citizenry. A law can be passed, but the executive does not have to approve or enforce it. And if he does, the courts can ensure that the accused's rights are protected, and can invalidate a law it finds unconstitutional. The people can then change the constitution if there is enough public support for such.

Applying this rule to the much misrepresented meaning of the phrase “general welfare”, which has been used by many to attach their own meaning to our Constitution......

Yawn. In all of that, I didn't see a single example of where the courts have allegedly "abused" the general welfare clause.

And so, the question is and with regard to attempts to expand the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” by judicial interpretations

Such as?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are trying to say that the amendment is not an expansion of the citizens' rights.

Of course the rights are expanded.

For instance, when prohibition and poll taxes were in place, the citizen's rights were restricted.

The reason why the Constitution restricts (or more accurately in some cases defines) the government and not the people/people's rights is very obvious. If the bill of rights (and following ammendments) serves to list the rights of citizens-then there's a lot that's missing. If the purpose was to list rights of citizens-then there would be tons of freedoms missing, and it would be nearly impossible to list everything. Thus they restricted the government (and state governments) in the Constitution.

Silly example here, but the point is the same: do you have the right to wear a blue shirt? According to your logic-you don't. Because the Constitution doesn't say you have the right to wear a blue shirt.

Notice what he refers to when he talks about the enumeration. He said "powers"-NOT "rights". Again big distinction.

James Madison himself said:

"My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided that it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration."

-Letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1788

Which in no way invalidates my point about the poll tax or prohibition.

Do you understand what "enumeration" means?

It does not mean you get to throw in thing you do not like.

 

[PrometheusBound]

If you're going to take away the power of the Court to interpret laws and strike down those that in their opinion are unconstitutional,

how would you deal with a situation where a legislature somewhere outlawed gun ownership, outright?

We are not talking about interpreting the law, and especially not talking about interpreting our Constitution. We are talking about judges and Justices being held accountable when they arrive at decisions which violate the fundamental rules of constitutional law and are not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. As an example I cited Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005). In this decision Justice Stevens gave new meaning to the phrase “public use”, admitted it was a new meaning, and thereby ignored a fundamental rule of constitutional law which requires the meaning of words in our Constitution to be understood as they were understood when our Constitution was adopted. In addition, Justice Stevens violated the intended protections written into our Constitution to protect the owners of property and rights associated with the ownership of property. Justice Thomas on the other hand documented Steven’s expanded meaning of “public use” was “divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document”.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

SCOTUS is the aribter of constitutionality, not Congress, not the President, not johnwk.

I think most posters in the thread would agree with that, including me. But to continue your thought, let us not forget that Congress is the arbiter of impeachments!

And so, would repeated opinions handed down by a Justice of the Supreme Court which ignore fundamental rules of constitutional law, thus exhibiting incompetence, be within the definition of bad behavior as mentioned in our Constitution? How about decisions which are not in harmony with the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and exhibit malfeasance, misfeasance and/or nonfeasance? Certainly such charges have long been considered as prosecutable offenses under American Jurisprudence. And as pointed out above, Congress would be the initial arbiter in such a case. Our Constitution does places this power in the hands of Congress and may be applied to “Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts”.

The fact is, Congress also has broad authority under its power to legislate, including subpoenaing witnesses, such as public officials, to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to further its legislative functions see:Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927). And this could include legislation as may be applied to impeachment proceedings, the codification of the definition of words as they appear in our Constitution, or even legislation to enforce fundamental rules of constitutional law!

Bottom line is, Congress most certainly has constitutionally recognized authority to deal with judges and Justices who may exercise their authority in defiance of the rules of constitutional law and in a manner which subverts the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote

This is an old trick by power-hungry cliques such as the economic-government-educational-media complex that overpowers the American people. Using the illusion that they are not all in it together, they establish a check on themselves that they don't use. Jefferson used impeachment in order to veto Marbury v Madisonand actually forced the judicial dictators to declare that their opinions were non-binding, but he was out of power when they reneged and went back to their original intent. The clique uses judicial dictatorship to get something they want that they can also get votes out of by pretending to be against it, which is of course a lie because they could stop it through impeachment. For example, the businessmen who own the Republican Party want cheap illegal labor but tell their political flunkies to oppose the Court's protection of it, knowing full well that it is all posture and no punch.