State's Rights

[SwimExpert]

You were doing so well, but you stumbled here.

USMS is part of the DoJ, under the executive branch,

Yes, but their job is to effect and preserve the functionality of the courts. Including the execution of all federal warrants. Also, if you'll notice, the original claim was that the early federal government had no police force, which is not true. The Marshals date back to 1789.

 

[Skylar]

The judiciary still has no police force. So I don't know what you're talking about.

You were doing so well, but you stumbled here.

Save that the police force doesn't belong to the judiciary. Its part of the executive branch.....the branch tasked with enforcing the laws.
The judiciary has no police force. The judiciary is tasked with interpreting and adjudicating the law. The closest thing they have are bailiffs.

Also, if you'll notice, the original claim was that the early federal government had no police force, which is not true. The Marshals date back to 1789.

Whose 'original claim'? I never said a thing about the 'early federal government having no police force'. I said that the judiciary had no police force. And still doesn't. The marshals are and have been part of the executive branch.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You were doing so well, but you stumbled here.

USMS is part of the DoJ, under the executive branch,

Yes, but their job is to effect and preserve the functionality of the courts. Including the execution of all federal warrants.

All of which they do as a function of the executive branch

 

[SwimExpert]

Whose 'original claim'? I never said a thing about the 'early federal government having no police force'. I said that the judiciary had no police force. And still doesn't. The marshals are and have been part of the executive branch.

Go back and re-read your posts. The statement was made that the early federal government did not have a police force. Your reply was that the modern day judiciary does not have a police force.

The point is that while your posts have been mostly spot on, you are stumbling on this one point. You seem to be misunderstanding the argument that is being presented, leading to this particular straw man on your part. It seems to me that Wolfstrike's argument is that the federal government, at it's inception, lacked substantive enforcement power. While Wolfstrike's argument is factually flawed, your rebuttal is logically flawed.

 

[Skylar]

Go back and re-read your posts. The statement was made that the early federal government did not have a police force. Your reply was that the modern day judiciary does not have a police force.

It wasn't my claim. I've never said that the early federal government had no police force. So how is something I've never said a 'stumble' on my part?

The point is that while your posts have been mostly spot on, you are stumbling on this one point.

Save for one small problem: I never made the stumble you attributed to me. I've never said that the early federal government had no police force. I've said that the judiciary had no police force. And still doesn't. The marshals that you've cited are part of the executive branch. Not the judiciary.

Kind of a hiccup in the whole 'stumble' narrative, don't you think?

 

[Contumacious]

How do you prevent judges - who are nothing more than robed bureaucrats - from amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?

Judges are the arbiters of the law. Those delegated the authority and duty to interpret the law. Exactly as they were intended to.

HOW THE **** DID THE MAJORITY INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION TO INCLUDE THE PROVISO THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD DIRECT ME TO BUY OBAMA HELLCARE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!?

You don't have to buy healthcare. There's no requirement that you do in Obamacare. If you choose not to, you pay more taxes. If you choose to, you pay less taxes.

And taxation authority is thoroughly constitutional. Since the 16th amendment, even apportionment requirements have been lifted from the Federal authority to tax.

ANswer the question:

How do you prevent judges - who are nothing more than robed bureaucrats - from amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?

.

 

[Skylar]

How do you prevent judges - who are nothing more than robed bureaucrats - from amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?

Your question is predicated on false premises: that judges are nothing more than robed bureaucrats. And that they amend the constitution under the guise of interpreting it.

Neither is necessarily true. Ask me a question that doesn't involve the same logic as 'when did you stop beating your wife'. And I'll be happy to answer.....as I've answered about a dozen of your questions before this as you've cycled through claim after discarded claim that just didn't hold up.

 

[Listening]

Folks....

This has been a very good thread and I appreciated the thoughtful posts.

Thanks.

 

[Contumacious]

How do you prevent judges - who are nothing more than robed bureaucrats - from amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?

Your question is predicated on false premises: that judges are nothing more than robed bureaucrats. And that they amend the constitution under the guise of interpreting it.

Neither is necessarily true. Ask me a question that doesn't involve the same logic as 'when did you stop beating your wife'. And I'll be happy to answer.....as I've answered about a dozen of your questions before this as you've cycled through claim after discarded claim that just didn't hold up.

False premises? Are judges human or angels? Do they come on board with their own prejudices?


Justice Marshall Opposes Hearing Drug Dealer and Incest Appeals
September 01, 1987|United Press International

• • Email [TBODY] [/TBODY]

    Share [TBODY] [/TBODY] [TBODY] [/TBODY]

    [TBODY] [/TBODY]

NEW YORK — Thurgood Marshall, one of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, says he never votes for the court to hear the appeals of convicted drug dealers, a published report said Monday.

"If it's a dope case, I won't even read the petition," Marshall, 79, said in the fall 1987 issue of Life magazine. "I ain't giving no break to no drug dealer. I won't handle incest cases, either. Disgusting."

Marshall's comments appeared in a behind-the-scenes look at the nation's highest court in an issue of the magazine devoted to the 200th anniversary of the Constitution.

The eight sitting justices (Lewis F. Powell Jr. retired in June, after 15 years on the court, and has not yet been replaced) gave Life glimpses into their lives on the bench.

 

[Skylar]

False premises? Are judges human or angels? Do they come on board with their own prejudices?

They need not be angels to be the constitutionally delegated authorities on interpreting the constitution. Nor have you offered us anything to back up your claims that judges are 'robed bureaucrats. And that they amend the constitution under the guise of interpreting it.'

You've typed the claim. Which is insufficient to carry your argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“How do you prevent judges - who are nothing more than robed bureaucrats - from amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?”

Judges' opinions are subject to review to determine if there's reversible error.

Otherwise, that you don't like a judge's ruling because it conflicts with your personal, subjective, and unsubstantiated opinion doesn't mean judges are 'robed bureaucrats,' or that their rulings 'amend' the Constitution, as the notion is nonsense.

 

[Contumacious]

False premises? Are judges human or angels? Do they come on board with their own prejudices?

They need not be angels to be the constitutionally delegated authorities on interpreting the constitution. Nor have you offered us anything to back up your claims that judges are 'robed bureaucrats. And that they amend the constitution under the guise of interpreting it.'

You've typed the claim. Which is insufficient to carry your argument.

OK dickhead, identify the Article III proviso which authorized Thurgood Marshall to deny due process to those accuse of drug dealing or sexual offenses? Or Chief Justice Taney's basis for "concluding that Dred Scott was not a citizen of the US even though, as the dissent pointed out , blacks were considered to be citizens in 5 states.

.

 

[Skylar]

OK dickhead, identify the Article III proviso which authorized Thurgood Marshall to deny due process to those accuse of drug dealing or sexual offenses? Or Chief Justice Taney's basis for "concluding that Dred Scott was not a citizen of the US even though, as the dissent pointed out , blacks were considered to be citizens in 5 states.

And more petty insults from one who can't carry his argument with reason, evidence or a well composed argument. Shocker. Not to worry, friend.....I'll treat you with far more dignity and respect that you afford those who doesn't think exactly as you do.

The judiciary's jurisdiction over all cases that arise under the constitution grants them the authority to rule and interpret the constitution. Exactly as the founders intended.

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Federalist Paper 78
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers - THOMAS Library of Congress

It is their job to decide which laws are constitutional, which cases have constitutional significance and how to interpret the constitutoin. Their authority isn't based on YOUR agreement. Their jurisdictoin isn't based on whether or not you like judges. Its based in their constitutional jurisdiction and the intent of the founders that they interpret the law, assertain its meaning, and place the Constitution above any given piece of legislation.

The Constitution according to who? The Constitution according to their interpretations and their determination of its meaning.

Exactly as the founders intended it.

 

[Listening]

OK dickhead, identify the Article III proviso which authorized Thurgood Marshall to deny due process to those accuse of drug dealing or sexual offenses? Or Chief Justice Taney's basis for "concluding that Dred Scott was not a citizen of the US even though, as the dissent pointed out , blacks were considered to be citizens in 5 states.

And more petty insults from one who can't carry his argument with reason, evidence or a well composed argument. Shocker. Not to worry, friend.....I'll treat you with far more dignity and respect that you afford those who doesn't think exactly as you do.

The judiciary's jurisdiction over all cases that arise under the constitution grants them the authority to rule and interpret the constitution. Exactly as the founders intended.

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Federalist Paper 78
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers - THOMAS Library of Congress

It is their job to decide which laws are constitutional, which cases have constitutional significance and how to interpret the constitutoin. Their authority isn't based on YOUR agreement. Their jurisdictoin isn't based on whether or not you like judges. Its based in their constitutional jurisdiction and the intent of the founders that they interpret the law, assertain its meaning, and place the Constitution above any given piece of legislation.

The Constitution according to who? The Constitution according to their interpretations and their determination of its meaning.

Exactly as the founders intended it.

Is it safe to say that the interpretations you call for.....change over time ?

Not that it negates your point.

Just asking.

 

[Skylar]

Is it safe to say that the interpretations you call for.....change over time ?

Not that it negates your point.

Just asking.

Hell yes. Obviously it changes over time. The authority wielded by the courts is that of the people. And we are the People. Thus, any decision made by the courts utilizing our authority are AT LEAST as authoritative as those made by the courts empowered by past generations. I'd argue, we're even more authoritative. As the law created by the living trumps that created by the dead in almost every meaningful way.

Some of the founders, Madison and Jefferson in particular, believed that the constitution should mean whatever they believed it was supposed to. But the interesting part? How little regard the rest of the founding fathers gave that perspective. Madison was lamenting in a fishing subsidy bill debate about how the general welfare clause wasn't being used in the manner he envisioned it....

......only three years after the constitution was ratified.

The Bank of the United States, opposed by both Madison and Jefferson, was easily passed in the very first session of congress. With the founders demonstrating with their actions that the Constitution meaning wasn't bound to what some at the Constitutional Congress believed it was.

And realistically, that's the only way the document ever could be interpreted. As it must go through people to be enacted. And OF COURSE they are going to interpret the document as aligning with their own beliefs and interpretations. Often those interpretations are based on the times they live in. The USSC explicitly upheld interracial sex bans in the 1870s....using some of the most bigoted, racist reasoning you've ever heard. Bigoted and racist by our standards anyway. But there's no way that the USSC would do something similar today. I doubt even Scalia would join such a move.

Yet the constitution is the same. The changes made from 1870 to today are inconsequential in terms of interpreting bans on interracial sex. But the times have changed. The men and women weilding power have changed. The sentiment of the people they represent has changed. And the interpretations of the constitution change with it.

 

[Listening]

Is it safe to say that the interpretations you call for.....change over time ?

Not that it negates your point.

Just asking.

Hell yes. Obviously it changes over time. The authority wielded by the courts is that of the people. And we are the People. Thus, any decision made by the courts utilizing our authority are AT LEAST as authoritative as those made by the courts empowered by past generations. I'd argue, we're even more authoritative. As the law created by the living trumps that created by the dead in almost every meaningful way.

Some of the founders, Madison and Jefferson in particular, believed that the constitution should mean whatever they believed it was supposed to. But the interesting part? How little regard the rest of the founding fathers gave that perspective. Madison was lamenting in a fishing subsidy bill debate about how the general welfare clause wasn't being used in the manner he envisioned it....

......only three years after the constitution was ratified.

The Bank of the United States, opposed by both Madison and Jefferson, was easily passed in the very first session of congress. With the founders demonstrating with their actions that the Constitution meaning wasn't bound to what some at the Constitutional Congress believed it was.

And realistically, that's the only way the document ever could be interpreted. As it must go through people to be enacted. And OF COURSE they are going to interpret the document as aligning with their own beliefs and interpretations. Often those interpretations are based on the times they live in. The USSC explicitly upheld interracial sex bans in the 1870s....using some of the most bigoted, racist reasoning you've ever heard. Bigoted and racist by our standards anyway. But there's no way that the USSC would do something similar today. I doubt even Scalia would join such a move.

Yet the constitution is the same. The changes made from 1870 to today are inconsequential in terms of interpreting bans on interracial sex. But the times have changed. The men and women weilding power have changed. The sentiment of the people they represent has changed. And the interpretations of the constitution change with it.

I am not following this line of thinking.

The people of California decided to ban gay marriage. And yet the courts negated that decision on their part.

The will of the people was thwarted by the courts....not enacted.

As to the rest, I understand part of what you are saying....but don't know that I agree with how you see the process working.

Madison sold the people a constitution that was supposed to LIMIT government. And yet, somehow, John Marshall and others decided they could self generate power other didn't think they had.

 

[Skylar]

he people of California decided to ban gay marriage. And yet the courts negated that decision on their part.

Yup.

The will of the people was thwarted by the courts....not enacted.

Marriage laws of the State are subject to constitutional guarantees at the federal level established by the 14th amendment. The people of the State lack the authority to strip federal citizens of their rights. And the federal judiciary found that Prop 8 violated the rights of gays and lesbians. Making it unenforceable.

As to the rest, I understand part of what you are saying....but don't know that I agree with how you see the process working.

I'm describing the process as it is. We can debate on if that's the way its supposed to be, or if it should be that way. But there's very little debate on whether or not that's the way it is. The court abides its own counsel in interpreting the constitution.

Madison sold the people a constitution that was supposed to LIMIT government. And yet, somehow, John Marshall and others decided they could self generate power other didn't think they had.

Yet in the very first congress the same representatives started enacting implied powers....in the creation of the Bank of the United States. That's listed no where in the Constitution. And yet its one of the first things done under the Constitution, passing congress easily, and signed by GW himself.

Demonstrating in a stroke that the founders treated the constitution the exact same we do. As a document to be interpreted.

 

[Rotagilla]

New nations need banks and standard forms of currency. Seems obvious.
At the time more people were interested in forming a new country and fewer were amateur lawyers trying to bandy and parse words to be obstructionists.

Not every practical, legal need for running a new nation, or ANY nation, can be listed item by item in a "constitution". That's not what they're for anyway.

That doesn't automatically make every act not specified "unconstitutional" as you'd like to imply in order to support your (weak) premise.

 

[Contumacious]

OK dickhead, identify the Article III proviso which authorized Thurgood Marshall to deny due process to those accuse of drug dealing or sexual offenses? Or Chief Justice Taney's basis for "concluding that Dred Scott was not a citizen of the US even though, as the dissent pointed out , blacks were considered to be citizens in 5 states.

And more petty insults from one who can't carry his argument with reason, evidence or a well composed argument. Shocker. Not to worry, friend.....I'll treat you with far more dignity and respect that you afford those who doesn't think exactly as you do.

The judiciary's jurisdiction over all cases that arise under the constitution grants them the authority to rule and interpret the constitution. Exactly as the founders intended.

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Federalist Paper 78
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers - THOMAS Library of Congress

It is their job to decide which laws are constitutional, which cases have constitutional significance and how to interpret the constitutoin. Their authority isn't based on YOUR agreement. Their jurisdictoin isn't based on whether or not you like judges. Its based in their constitutional jurisdiction and the intent of the founders that they interpret the law, assertain its meaning, and place the Constitution above any given piece of legislation.

The Constitution according to who? The Constitution according to their interpretations and their determination of its meaning.

Exactly as the founders intended it.

Exactly, the Constitution means what it says . And if the meaning is not clear the intent of the lawmakers

So I again ask you


Iidentify the Article III proviso which authorized Thurgood Marshall to deny due process to those accused of drug dealing or sexual offenses?


Identify the Constitutional basis upon which Chief Justice Taney's relied for "concluding that Dred Scott was not a citizen of the US even though, as the dissent pointed out , blacks were considered to be citizens in 5 states.

.If for some reason you can't the admit that that SCOTUS is populated by corrupt motherfuckers.....................

.

 

[Skylar]

New nations need banks and standard forms of currency. Seems obvious.
At the time more people were interested in forming a new country and fewer were amateur lawyers trying to bandy and parse words to be obstructionists.

Not every practical, legal need for running a new nation, or ANY nation, can be listed item by item in a "constitution". That's not what they're for anyway.

Yeah, it does seem obvious. Yet 'limited government' madison opposed it because the power wasn't explicitly articulated in the constitution. The founders disagreed, finding IMPLIED powers that aren't explicitly stated.

That doesn't automatically make every act not specified "unconstitutional" as you'd like to imply in order to support your (weak) premise.

Jefferson and Madison clearly disagreed. And the founders disagreed with them. As they exercised implied powers anyway. Not just once. But over and over. Subsides for fishermen.....where is that in the constitution? No where. But the founders did it only 3 years after the constitution was finally ratified...using the 'General Welfare' clause. Mandatory taxation for healthcare? No where does the constitution grant that power. But 'An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen' was still passed.