On the Dangers of the Courts.

[PoliticalChic]

The Founders understood that man, by nature is not 'good,' but will always rationalize self aggrandizement, whether that be for money, power, or status.
They believed that a system of checks and balances would neutralize same....
...but the courts found a way around that, and in a government of three "co-equal" branches, one branch has no check on its power: the judiciary.





If America is to continue in the image of the Founders, the Supreme Court must be slapped down and put in its place.





1. " Article 7 is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, and once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble. Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.”
For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”

a. In 1919 there was an international conference to establish the International Labor Organization (ILO). The plan was that members would vote on labor standards, and member nations would automatically adopt those standards.

The American members declined, saying that this would be contrary to the Constitution, specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body: we would be surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution. In 90 years, we have unilaterally adopted just three of the standards. Today, there is no longer a consensus on the principle of non-delegation."

(From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.)






2. "A DISTINGUISHED legal scholar and member of Congress from Virginia, Henry St. George Tucker, wrote a book called 'Limitations on the Treaty-Making Power,' published in 1915, in which he prophetically characterized the treaty clause of the Constitution (Article VI) as a Trojan horse, ready to unload its hidden soldiery into our midst, destroy the Bill of Rights and shatter the dream of the founding fathers that they were creating a government of laws and not of men.

3. The acuity of this lawyer-statesman's perception was demonstrated on June 2, 1952, when Chief Justice Vinson and two other dissenting members of the United States Supreme Court held that the United Nations Charter and other treaties adhered
to by the United States authorized President Truman to seize and operate the nation's steel industry.





4. Clarence Manion, former Dean of the Law School of Notre Dame University, told a
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee that when the Supreme Court decided the steel seizure case, the United States was just He was not exaggerating. If two other justices had concurred in the Vinson dissenting opinion,
it would be the law of the land and the president could take any measures he might deem necessary to prosecute a war pursuant to a United Nations recommendation.

5. ... if the president could seize and operate the steel industry on the pretext of a war emergency, he could seize all industry, nationalize agriculture, draft men and women into
military service or labor battalions, and carry out a program of national socialism just as Hitler did in Germany.





"....two justices short of revolution"

Who can claim that there have not been decisions in which tyrants in black robes inserted their views in place of the doctrines that the Founders gave us?

 

[Mr. H.]

Carter seized the private assets of an entire industry in the guise of a "Windfall Profits Tax".

 

[Darkwind]

Custody4Cash | A Muckraker Publication

Judicial corruption is rampant. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. The Chief Justice, Vinson, in his revolutionary dissenting opinion, justified the President's action on the ground of necessity, which was precisely the excuse given by Hitler when he subverted the Weimar Constitution of the German Republic. "Those who suggest that this is a case involving extraordinary powers should be mindful that these are extraordinary times," said Vinson.


a. "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Rahm Emanuel


b. In requesting approval by the Reichstag of a law which became the foundation of his dictatorship, Hitler, on March 21, 1933, said: "The government will only make use of these powers insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures."




7. According to the Vinson argument, the uninterrupted production of steel was indispensable for the prosecution of the war in Korea, and the United States, as a party to the United Nations Charter, was obligated to carry out a resolution by the Security Council calling upon member nations to do everything necessary to repel the aggression in Korea..... in support of his contention that the United States had accepted "in full measure its responsibility in the world community" and could not hope to fulfill its obligations under a "messenger boy concept" of the president's office.
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," chapter 12.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Custody4Cash | A Muckraker Publication

Judicial corruption is rampant. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

I have never heard of custody4cash before. This is news to me. The Georgia Senator AND her husband were murdered. She was working on a high profile paedophile ring case that was connected to the government agency CPS at the time of her death. She had a list of names and had announced she was going public with the information. Shortly after she was found dead with her husband - initial reports were she had cancer ( not true ) and it was a murder - suicide ( not true either ) and later the facts came out and we learned they were murdered. The list of names was never found in their home, offices. It disappeared into thin air.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The false statement "one branch has no check on its power: the judiciary" undermines PC's argument.

$$$ can be withheld from the court.

Jurisdiction can be withdrawn from the court.

Membership can be increased or decreased.

The Jacksonian type rail against "the court" only means somebody is not getting her way.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Something that concerns me is the civil asset forfeiture laws that are being used to seize the property of private citizens. Even if the persons have not been convicted of anything. The govt - neither state, Local nor federal has the right to profit from such laws. It is wrong and is leading to great corruption within the court system.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Convicted, hell...people have lost everything when they have not even been CHARGED!

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. World War II taught the Leftists that the people can be drawn into national socialism gradually if they are sufficiently frightened by an external "crisis" to endure destructive taxes, inflationary government expenditures, and encroaching economic controls. The Vinson doctrine would greatly accelerate the revolutionary process. Although rejected by the Supreme Court majority, it dramatically illustrated the use of foreign policy as a road to revolution.



9. Sixty-four senators, two thirds of the Senate, have sponsored a Constitutional amendment by Senator Bricker (R., 0.) which provides that:
". . . A provision of a treaty which denies or abridges any right enumerated in this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect. ... No treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control or adjudicate rights of citizens of the United States within the United States enumerated in this Constitution.... A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress."
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," chapter 12.



10. ."Despite the initial support, the Bricker Amendment was blocked through the intervention of President Eisenhower and failed in the Senate by a single vote in 1954." Bricker Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

How does he court decide when the Constitution clearly specifies what the federal government can do, i.e., the enumerated powers.....and, respecting federalism, leaves else to the prerogative of the states?

Does the court follow the Constitution?

" Missouri v. Holland.... several states objected to this theory and successfully sued to have the law declared unconstitutional, on the premise that the United States Constitution gave Congress no enumerated power to regulate migratory bird hunting, and hence the regulation of such hunting, if there was to be any, was the province of the states according to the Tenth Amendment.

The treaty was subsequently ratified and came into force, and required the Federal Government to enact laws regulating the capturing, killing, or selling of protected migratory birds, an obligation that it fulfilled in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.[1] The state of Missouri then sued on the basis that the federal government had no authority to negotiate a treaty on this topic." Missouri v. Holland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





But....but....isn't the Constitution the 'law of the land'????

Sometimes....according to the Supreme Court.





11. Beware the double-talking by the Supreme Court, the "definitely- but sometimes" sort of decisions, as this, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Missouri v. Holland:

"Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention. We do not mean to imply that there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power; but they must be ascertained in a different way.

It is obvious that there may be matters of the sharpest exigency for the national well being that an act of Congress could not deal with but that a treaty followed by such an act could, and it is not lightly to be assumed that, in matters requiring national action, 'a power which must belong to and somewhere reside in every civilized government' is not to be found."






a. Raymond Moley wrote in 1953 that Holland meant "the protection of an international duck takes precedence over the constitutional protections of American citizens" Newsweek, August 10, 1953. p. 88.


Why no checks and balances to curb an outlaw Supreme Court?

Here is the answer, and it applies to all three branches of the federal government: There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government:
Rule no.1: Always try to expand;
Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1.
Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115

 

[Derideo_Te]

Every once in a while even a blind squirrel like PoliticalSpice finds a nut albeit more by accident than design.

But let's put this in perspective, the "outlaw Supreme Court" depends entirely on whose ox is being gored. PoliticalSpice was an adoring sycophant of the SCOTUS when it passed Citizens United and wanting to lynch them when DOMA was overturned.

So I suspect that this is really just another PoliticalSpice hissyfit for the purpose of generating faux outrage while she hurls abuse at those who expose her duplicity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Every once in a while even a blind squirrel like PoliticalSpice finds a nut albeit more by accident than design.

But let's put this in perspective, the "outlaw Supreme Court" depends entirely on whose ox is being gored. PoliticalSpice was an adoring sycophant of the SCOTUS when it passed Citizens United and wanting to lynch them when DOMA was overturned.

So I suspect that this is really just another PoliticalSpice hissyfit for the purpose of generating faux outrage while she hurls abuse at those who expose her duplicity.

It really galls you that I know more than you, doesn't it.
Don't you realize that just about everyone does?


The question, you moron, is whether the there are checks on the power of the Supreme Court, not whether I agree with each and every decision.

Now....if you do agree with every decision of the Supreme Court, .....still standing by Dred Scott?



Is the Constitution the law of the land....or the whims of the Court?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Every once in a while even a blind squirrel like PoliticalSpice finds a nut albeit more by accident than design.

But let's put this in perspective, the "outlaw Supreme Court" depends entirely on whose ox is being gored. PoliticalSpice was an adoring sycophant of the SCOTUS when it passed Citizens United and wanting to lynch them when DOMA was overturned.

So I suspect that this is really just another PoliticalSpice hissyfit for the purpose of generating faux outrage while she hurls abuse at those who expose her duplicity.

It really galls you that I know more than you, doesn't it.
Don't you realize that just about everyone does?


The question, you moron, is whether the there are checks on the power of the Supreme Court, not whether I agree with each and every decision.

Now....if you do agree with every decision of the Supreme Court, .....still standing by Dred Scott?



Is the Constitution the law of the land....or the whims of the Court?

Gosh, golly, jeepers there PoliticalSpice. No need to get all hot and bothered about your ignorance again.

Yes, there are "checks on the power of the Supreme Court". Legislation can and has been passed to nullify SCOTUS decisions. The most notable in my opinion being the SCOTUS decision that the state cannot be sued. This was overturned by the 11th amendment. The 13th and14th Amendments overturned the Dred Scott decision. The 26th amendment is another instance where a SCOTUS decision was overturned.

Now I know you love to pat yourself on the back wrt to your faux erudition but if you were in fact as educated as you allege then you would have known about these landmark instances of "checks on the power of the Supreme Court".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Every once in a while even a blind squirrel like PoliticalSpice finds a nut albeit more by accident than design.

But let's put this in perspective, the "outlaw Supreme Court" depends entirely on whose ox is being gored. PoliticalSpice was an adoring sycophant of the SCOTUS when it passed Citizens United and wanting to lynch them when DOMA was overturned.

So I suspect that this is really just another PoliticalSpice hissyfit for the purpose of generating faux outrage while she hurls abuse at those who expose her duplicity.

It really galls you that I know more than you, doesn't it.
Don't you realize that just about everyone does?


The question, you moron, is whether the there are checks on the power of the Supreme Court, not whether I agree with each and every decision.

Now....if you do agree with every decision of the Supreme Court, .....still standing by Dred Scott?



Is the Constitution the law of the land....or the whims of the Court?

Gosh, golly, jeepers there PoliticalSpice. No need to get all hot and bothered about your ignorance again.

Yes, there are "checks on the power of the Supreme Court". Legislation can and has been passed to nullify SCOTUS decisions. The most notable in my opinion being the SCOTUS decision that the state cannot be sued. This was overturned by the 11th amendment. The 13th and14th Amendments overturned the Dred Scott decision. The 26th amendment is another instance where a SCOTUS decision was overturned.

Now I know you love to pat yourself on the back wrt to your faux erudition but if you were in fact as educated as you allege then you would have known about these landmark instances of "checks on the power of the Supreme Court".

"....faux erudition but if you were in fact as educated as you allege then you would have known about these landmark instances of "checks on the power of the Supreme Court".



Watch as I reveal that you are a moron.

The 11th amendment is one of my areas of expertise.


1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.





2. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As they own the schools and the media, the simpleminded, e.g., you. have been trained to foam at the mouth whenever they hear the phrase "states rights."

a. Again: the understanding of the colonies that ratified the Constitution was one in which they retained a degree of sovereignty.




3. But, in 1793, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state (Chisholm v. Georgia).


a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism




4. This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!

a. The 11th amendment explicitly denies the federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

b. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman





5. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.




And so you see, oh, dense one, that the Supreme Court obviated the 11th amendment almost as soon as the ink was dry on the paper!



You know what your problem is? Your mouth is writing checks that your intellect can't cash.





BTW....you wrote: "...these landmark instances of "checks on the power of the Supreme Court".

Next time remember that the punctuation belongs inside the quotation marks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think I hear you:

 

[Derideo_Te]

It really galls you that I know more than you, doesn't it.
Don't you realize that just about everyone does?


The question, you moron, is whether the there are checks on the power of the Supreme Court, not whether I agree with each and every decision.

Now....if you do agree with every decision of the Supreme Court, .....still standing by Dred Scott?



Is the Constitution the law of the land....or the whims of the Court?

Gosh, golly, jeepers there PoliticalSpice. No need to get all hot and bothered about your ignorance again.

Yes, there are "checks on the power of the Supreme Court". Legislation can and has been passed to nullify SCOTUS decisions. The most notable in my opinion being the SCOTUS decision that the state cannot be sued. This was overturned by the 11th amendment. The 13th and14th Amendments overturned the Dred Scott decision. The 26th amendment is another instance where a SCOTUS decision was overturned.

Now I know you love to pat yourself on the back wrt to your faux erudition but if you were in fact as educated as you allege then you would have known about these landmark instances of "checks on the power of the Supreme Court".

"....faux erudition but if you were in fact as educated as you allege then you would have known about these landmark instances of "checks on the power of the Supreme Court".



Watch as I reveal that you are a moron.

The 11th amendment is one of my areas of expertise.


1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.





2. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As they own the schools and the media, the simpleminded, e.g., you. have been trained to foam at the mouth whenever they hear the phrase "states rights."

a. Again: the understanding of the colonies that ratified the Constitution was one in which they retained a degree of sovereignty.




3. But, in 1793, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state (Chisholm v. Georgia).


a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism




4. This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!

a. The 11th amendment explicitly denies the federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

b. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman





5. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.




And so you see, oh, dense one, that the Supreme Court obviated the 11th amendment almost as soon as the ink was dry on the paper!



You know what your problem is? Your mouth is writing checks that your intellect can't cash.





BTW....you wrote: "...these landmark instances of "checks on the power of the Supreme Court".

Next time remember that the punctuation belongs inside the quotation marks.

You conveniently ignored the passage of the 11th amendment in your timeline. Talk about "writing checks that your intellect can't cash"!

FYI what is "inside the quotation marks" is what YOU wrote, PoliticalSpice. The reek of your desperation is coming across loud and clear in your posts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gosh, golly, jeepers there PoliticalSpice. No need to get all hot and bothered about your ignorance again.

Yes, there are "checks on the power of the Supreme Court". Legislation can and has been passed to nullify SCOTUS decisions. The most notable in my opinion being the SCOTUS decision that the state cannot be sued. This was overturned by the 11th amendment. The 13th and14th Amendments overturned the Dred Scott decision. The 26th amendment is another instance where a SCOTUS decision was overturned.

Now I know you love to pat yourself on the back wrt to your faux erudition but if you were in fact as educated as you allege then you would have known about these landmark instances of "checks on the power of the Supreme Court".

"....faux erudition but if you were in fact as educated as you allege then you would have known about these landmark instances of "checks on the power of the Supreme Court".



Watch as I reveal that you are a moron.

The 11th amendment is one of my areas of expertise.


1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.





2. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As they own the schools and the media, the simpleminded, e.g., you. have been trained to foam at the mouth whenever they hear the phrase "states rights."

a. Again: the understanding of the colonies that ratified the Constitution was one in which they retained a degree of sovereignty.




3. But, in 1793, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state (Chisholm v. Georgia).


a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism




4. This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!

a. The 11th amendment explicitly denies the federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

b. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman





5. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.




And so you see, oh, dense one, that the Supreme Court obviated the 11th amendment almost as soon as the ink was dry on the paper!



You know what your problem is? Your mouth is writing checks that your intellect can't cash.





BTW....you wrote: "...these landmark instances of "checks on the power of the Supreme Court".

Next time remember that the punctuation belongs inside the quotation marks.

You conveniently ignored the passage of the 11th amendment in your timeline. Talk about "writing checks that your intellect can't cash"!

FYI what is "inside the quotation marks" is what YOU wrote, PoliticalSpice. The reek of your desperation is coming across loud and clear in your posts.

So....you don't want to admit that I schooled you?

Figures.



BTW...you probably don't recognize 'em, but those things in your avi are called 'books.'

That makes you the winner in the category of unintentional humor.....

.A picture of books in your avi????
That's like Dr. Kevorkian having a poster of the Heimlich Maneuver in his office.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"....faux erudition but if you were in fact as educated as you allege then you would have known about these landmark instances of "checks on the power of the Supreme Court".



Watch as I reveal that you are a moron.

The 11th amendment is one of my areas of expertise.


1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.





2. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As they own the schools and the media, the simpleminded, e.g., you. have been trained to foam at the mouth whenever they hear the phrase "states rights."

a. Again: the understanding of the colonies that ratified the Constitution was one in which they retained a degree of sovereignty.




3. But, in 1793, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state (Chisholm v. Georgia).


a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism




4. This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!

a. The 11th amendment explicitly denies the federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

b. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman





5. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.




And so you see, oh, dense one, that the Supreme Court obviated the 11th amendment almost as soon as the ink was dry on the paper!



You know what your problem is? Your mouth is writing checks that your intellect can't cash.





BTW....you wrote: "...these landmark instances of "checks on the power of the Supreme Court".

Next time remember that the punctuation belongs inside the quotation marks.

You conveniently ignored the passage of the 11th amendment in your timeline. Talk about "writing checks that your intellect can't cash"!

FYI what is "inside the quotation marks" is what YOU wrote, PoliticalSpice. The reek of your desperation is coming across loud and clear in your posts.

So....you don't want to admit that I schooled you?

Figures.



BTW...you probably don't recognize 'em, but those things in your avi are called 'books.'

That makes you the winner in the category of unintentional humor.....

.A picture of books in your avi????
That's like Dr. Kevorkian having a poster of the Heimlich Maneuver in his office.

Still trying to pretend that you have what it takes to "school me", sweetcheecks?



FYI my avi is a fountain sculpture made to resemble books, hence the "font of all knowledge" tag line pun.

 

[freedombecki]

Carter seized the private assets of an entire industry in the guise of a "Windfall Profits Tax".

I'm guessing it wasn't the peanut industry.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You conveniently ignored the passage of the 11th amendment in your timeline. Talk about "writing checks that your intellect can't cash"!

FYI what is "inside the quotation marks" is what YOU wrote, PoliticalSpice. The reek of your desperation is coming across loud and clear in your posts.

So....you don't want to admit that I schooled you?

Figures.



BTW...you probably don't recognize 'em, but those things in your avi are called 'books.'

That makes you the winner in the category of unintentional humor.....

.A picture of books in your avi????
That's like Dr. Kevorkian having a poster of the Heimlich Maneuver in his office.

Still trying to pretend that you have what it takes to "school me", sweetcheecks?



FYI my avi is a fountain sculpture made to resemble books, hence the "font of all knowledge" tag line pun.

"...pretend that you have what it takes to "school me"...



I just did.