Sun Devil 92
Diamond Member
- Apr 2, 2015
- 32,078
- 11,097
- 1,410
- Banned
- #141
1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:
“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”
2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?
It says no such thing.
The authority for same does not exist.
3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.
Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:
"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."
5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?
Nada.
“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”
Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address
Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).
Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???
All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.
My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.
"My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. "
That appears to be the result of your lack of education....
....or, do you still stand behind the Dred Scott decision?
Now...here's where you get an education:
The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴
The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵
4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. I'll even go you one further:
Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment on the pretext of making blacks equal to whites. In fact, what that amendment did was to nullify the concept of unalienable Rights and scrap the Bill of Rights, making it a Bill of Privileges for subjects (as opposed to Rights of Citizens.)
No, I don't live in a delusional world. Every position has a downside. But, when the United States Supreme Court reinterprets the Constitution, they are legislating from the bench. If you are for allowing it, then there is no point in having a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. George Washington admonished people like you:
“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Robert Bork disagrees with you.
He called the decision a mistake.
And credits it with starting the Civil War.
I believe that he stated Tanney should have just refused standing to Scott and let it be at that.
Bet you've read about the deal....today we call it quid pro quo....between Roger Taney and Buchanan.
"President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision"
President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine
Actually, no.
Thanks for sharing.
Update: Article was very interesting. Thank you again.