It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thomas Jefferson was against Supreme Court having exclusive power to interpret the Constitution

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Shifting power to the Supreme Court,or to the President?

Obama wants the Power,its obvious.
Congress cant make a decision either.
Supreme Court has become the FINAL say.

I say,throw ALL the bums out,and bring back decision making to the PEOPLE!


S&F




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3

Would that really be any worse than the following statement?

"I can only imagine when the federal government no restraints placed upon their
attempts to control America and it's individuals with legal ease and contracts."



A very, very key component. You and I can vote out politicians... Corporations
controlling everything is the end of representative democracy, because you have
removed the people from the process of governance and replaced the people
with private forces who can beat you or me in virtually any legal challenge.

You think about it...

Can you engage in a ten year long legal battle with GE or Shell Oil?


So if you want to challenge them or seek redress, what are you gonna do
practically speaking?

What if the conservative court mandates that losers pay all the legal fees like
they want to do with malpractice suits? Are you gonna have any recourse
left in this world, can you pay off 1,500 hours to pay for Shells $1,000 an hour
attorney?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
A very, very key component. You and I can vote out politicians... Corporations
controlling everything is the end of representative democracy, because you have
removed the people from the process of governance and replaced the people
with private forces who can beat you or me in virtually any legal challenge.

You think about it...

You can't vote out dictators. You've firmly got your head in a pipe dream, thinking that a totalitarian government will allow you to vote people out.
Corporations controlling everything isn't any different than the federal government controlling everything. If corporations control the government, then they are the government, conversely, if government controls the corporations, the corporations are the government. It's the same thing! NO DIFFERENCE! Yet, you advocate for the federal government to force you to buy health care, or any other product they deem necessary?


Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Can you engage in a ten year long legal battle with GE or Shell Oil?

No more so than I can engage a ten year long legal battle with the federal government.


Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
So if you want to challenge them or seek redress, what are you gonna do
practically speaking?

The same thing I CAN'T do now with the federal government, wanting to force me to buy a product that I don't want.


Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
What if the conservative court mandates that losers pay all the legal fees like
they want to do with malpractice suits? Are you gonna have any recourse
left in this world, can you pay off 1,500 hours to pay for Shells $1,000 an hour
attorney?

I don't see that as any different than the liberal court attempting to mandate that everyone buy a product that the federal government wants me to buy. Currently I have no recourse left in this world against that, if the Supreme Court doesn't deem it unconstitutional, and I certainly can't afford to pay for government attorneys, IRS agents, or whoever will be the strong arm thugs who will enforce this mandate.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
It seems to me that if the court gave the power to interpret the constitution to themselves a long time ago that any challenge to that power could be argued against on the basis that it is now after all these years a precedent that is long established.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer so I don't know for sure, but it would seem that this could be used as an argument.

Jefferson was well known to oppose big government. There are many quotes he is credited with which demonstrate his opposition to it. He thought that big government always led to tyranny. I, personally agree with him on this. I think that today we see the correctness of his views. Over all the years since the country was founded the government has grown to the point where it interferes with our lives on many levels. Intervening where previously it had no powers.




Most bad government has grown out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
A very, very key component. You and I can vote out politicians... Corporations
controlling everything is the end of representative democracy, because you have
removed the people from the process of governance and replaced the people
with private forces who can beat you or me in virtually any legal challenge.

You think about it...

You can't vote out dictators. You've firmly got your head in a pipe dream, thinking that a totalitarian government will allow you to vote people out.
Corporations controlling everything isn't any different than the federal government controlling everything. If corporations control the government, then they are the government, conversely, if government controls the corporations, the corporations are the government. It's the same thing! NO DIFFERENCE! Yet, you advocate for the federal government to force you to buy health care, or any other product they deem necessary?


Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Can you engage in a ten year long legal battle with GE or Shell Oil?

No more so than I can engage a ten year long legal battle with the federal government.


Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
So if you want to challenge them or seek redress, what are you gonna do
practically speaking?

The same thing I CAN'T do now with the federal government, wanting to force me to buy a product that I don't want.


Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
What if the conservative court mandates that losers pay all the legal fees like
they want to do with malpractice suits? Are you gonna have any recourse
left in this world, can you pay off 1,500 hours to pay for Shells $1,000 an hour
attorney?

I don't see that as any different than the liberal court attempting to mandate that everyone buy a product that the federal government wants me to buy. Currently I have no recourse left in this world against that, if the Supreme Court doesn't deem it unconstitutional, and I certainly can't afford to pay for government attorneys, IRS agents, or whoever will be the strong arm thugs who will enforce this mandate.


If you don't see a difference it's because you are thinking critcally about it.

The two are similar, but there power and the dangers they pose are very different.

Can you vote a CEO out?

Can you vote out a President?

If you cannot see the implications of that then maybe this is too
much for you.

I also know it is popular to repeat the red meat phrases, so maybe
that's your real issue, not intelligence.
edit on 5-4-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I have learned more about Jefferson from the internet and forums like this than I ever did in school. I believe at least there should be term limits for U.S. Supreme Court Justices and a way to get them off the bench for exteme bad behavior. The idea behind separation of powers is checks and balances. A lifetime appointment for justices completely avoids a time "check" for lack of ethics and judicial activism.

For example, bedroom chats between a president and his soon to be appointed supreme court justice might take on the appearance of the executive and judicial branches getting a little too cozy, in my opinion:

www.nytimes.com...

"Mr. Bush spent about 20 minutes alone with Judge Thomas in his bedroom, the only place he felt he could get some peace from grandchildren and aides, the President's aide said. That is where Mr. Bush made the final offer and Judge Thomas accepted.

"I had one or two points that I wanted to make to him to see that he felt comfortable with them," Mr. Bush said. "I wanted to be sure that he knew from me that there was no litmus test involved. I told him, if it's not violating a privacy, that he ought to do like the umpire -- call them as you see them. And I'm satisfied that he will."
Mr. Bush said that he did not talk to any of the other candidates on the short list this weekend.
After their chat in the bedroom, Mr. Bush and his nominee joined his advisers and family for a lunch of crabmeat salad and English muffins and ice water on the veranda."
“THE SUPREME COURT; CONSERVATIVE BLACK JUDGE, CLARENCE THOMAS, IS NAMED TO MARSHALL'S COURT SEAT”, Maureen Dowd, New York Times, July 2, 1991
edit on 5-4-2012 by TZela because: spelling correction



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
If you don't see a difference it's because you are thinking critcally about it.

Yes, I try to think critically, and not in a fluffy cloud of fake Utopian dribble.


Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
The two are similar, but there power and the dangers they pose are very different.

Not really all that different. Slavery is slavery, regardless if your master is a corporation or a dictator. I'm sure the people who lived under Stalin, Mao, etc. would agree.


Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Can you vote a CEO out?

Yes, that's what shareholders and the board of directors have the power to do. But, I understand the point you're trying to make. In your world, the CEO is the devil, and corporations are the devil, but the federal government will give you everything, for nothing, and you'll have this Utopian society with happy bunny rabbits running around, and everyone will be equal. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way. Once again, ask those who lived under Stalin and Mao.


Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Can you vote out a President?

Today, yes. Tomorrow, possibly not. But a dictator, definitely not. You vote them out with blood on both sides...lots of blood.


Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
If you cannot see the implications of that then maybe this is too much for you.

Not deep at all. I'm not running with blinders on, thinking that one side is better than the other. I don't like either. It seems to me that you're the one having the problem grasping that concept. Do you really think there's a difference between the government running the corporations of the corporations running the government? There's an old saying, "Six of one, half-dozen of another". In your world, 20 pounds of feathers weighs less than 20 pounds of bricks. At least that's the case you're trying to make. I'm saying 20 pounds is 20 pounds, whether it's feathers or bricks.


Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
I also know it is popular to repeat the red meat phrases, so maybe that's your real issue, not intelligence

Red meat phrases? Do you mean "red herring"? If so, that's hardly the case.
edit on 5-4-2012 by navy_vet_stg3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I am still rolling all this in my mind to figure out if this is thread is a shill....undermine the SCOTUS for ObamaCare.

The true power of the constitution is drawn from Magna Carta which recognized that the power to govern only comes from people giving up their power to enforce order from pitchforks, torches, and from the end of ropes.

We have forgotten so much that we can not remember were true power actually rests.

Dark times indeed.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   


Article III of Constitution, Section. 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...
...to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States


The First Congress also further enforced this notion with The Judiciary Act of 1789 just 2 years after the Constitution was written and accepted.



the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party


So it should be no surprise (In the Affordable Care Act matter) that a suit brought against the Federal government by several States should wind up being decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The system is still working as the Founders intended. There are three separate branches of the government that each have a check on the other two branches. Congress can make laws but the President can veto them. The Supreme court can invalidate a law but Congress can amend the Constitution. The President can pardon anyone the courts deems to have violated a law. Congress still remains the most powerful piece and collectively can overrule either branch if there were in fact an actual issue that they could agree upon. Congress even decides how many members sit on the Supreme Court. They can change that at any time they wish and kick off several of the Justices right now. Again they would need to agree on this among themselves so that does make it a difficult task.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 





He actually was able to lobby the House to IMPEACH a Supreme Court justice due to massive corruption


The historical records do not support this dubious assertion made by made by a St. Mary's University Law Professor who couldn't help but spice his account with his own opinion. That his opinion is steeped in that article you linked is clear by his compulsion to place quotation marks around the word political, which was precisely why Justice Samuel Chase was impeached, and not because of massive corruption. Chase was partisan to be sure, and not the most likable soul, but this hardly constitutes massive corruption:


Samuel Chase became an ardent party in presiding on grand jury sessions and circuit court trials under the Sedition Act. To say the least, he was intemperate, caustic, opinionated, and certainly was not even-handed. Chase was on the bench for two famous grand jury and circuit court trials, for Fries and Callender, where his conduct in both was used to frame the Articles of Impeachment that were later drawn against him in the House. James Thompson Callender was a well-known and prominent Republican radical, and one of the most scurrilous political broadside and pamphlet writers in the country. The Federalists chose to bring him to trial for openly advocating the overthrow of the Adams presidency. The trials of Fries for Rebellion, and of Callender for Sedition, are well documented.


The partisan politics of several Founders was in full swing even before Thomas Jefferson went after Justice Chase:


Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, and was to take office in March 1801. Now as the President-Elect, and titular head of the Republican party, he indicated he would make every effort to appoint Republican judges to replace Federalist ones as quickly as possible. The Federalist “lame duck” Congress then worked to pass the Judiciary Act of 1801 that provided for six new circuit courts and sixteen new circuit judges - - all of whom were appointed by the lame-duck President, John Adams, on the night before he was to leave office.


The "Midnight Judges" event was what directly led to Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted the power of judicial review. In February of 1802, the Judiciary Act was repealed:


The Republicans were embittered by this end run, and in February 1802 the Judiciary Act was repealed. The “Midnight Judges” were turned out; however, the Republicans were then faced with all of the remaining Supreme Court Justices and circuit judges being of the Federalist persuasion.

In the long run, Jefferson planned to replace retiring and deceased judges with Republicans; however, to find an opening on the Supreme Court, he was convinced that only Impeachment proceedings and conviction against a Justice would permit him to bring some modicum of change to John Marshall’s Court. Jefferson picked his target, Samuel Chase who earned Jefferson’s dislike and anger. He was a Federalist and a constructionist, and Chase had actively campaigned for John Adams. In doing so, Chase’s absence had resulted in delays and continuations of the Court’s business.


Is this what you mean by "massive corruption"? Perhaps this is what you mean by "massive corruption":


Chase provided Jefferson with the excuse he needed. In May 1803 Chase implored a Baltimore Grand Jury not to defend a Maryland law that granted universal male suffrage to its citizens. Chase believed property ownership was a mandatory prerequisite to vote in either state or national elections. Further, Chase still was incensed by the Republican repeal of the Judiciary Act, and he blended these two dislikes into his instructions to the Grand Jury:

“The late alteration of the federal Judiciary . . . and the recent change in our state constitution, by the establishment of universal suffrage . . . will . . . take away all security for personal property and liberty, and our Republican constitution will sink into a mobocracy, the worst of all popular governments.”


Continued...



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Continuing...

Justice Chase was acting upon his political beliefs to be sure, but let's make no mistake about this; so was Thomas Jefferson, as was John Adams before him.


On May 13, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Joseph H. Nicholson, Maryland’s Republican member of the House, obliquely suggesting impeachment of Chase, based on Chase’s Baltimore Grand Jury outburst.

“You must have heard of the extraordinary charge of Chase to the Grand Jury at Baltimore. Ought this seditious and official attack on the principals of our Constitution, and on the proceedings of a State, go unpunished? And to whom so pointedly as yourself will the public look for the necessary measures? I ask these questions for your consideration, for myself it is better that I should not interfere?”

Nicholson demurred, believing Chase’s conduct, although reprehensible, did not qualify for the Constitutional requirement for impeachment and removal from office. As a result, nothing was done for the remainder of 1803.


This set back, however, did not stop Jefferson in his relentless pursuit to reign in the Marshal Court:


In January 1804, Jefferson probably asked a fellow Virginian, John Randolph, a member of the House, to begin Impeachment proceedings against Chase. Randolph moved to establish a Committee of Inquiry to investigate Chase’s conduct. The Committee’s investigation took two months and resulted in a report recommending impeachment. The House agreed, and eight Articles of Impeachment were drawn up based upon Chase’s conduct in the Fries and Callender trials. The Articles were presented to the House for approval; however Congress adjourned without charging Chase, and the process was delayed until Congress met in November.

During this recess, Chase assembled his defense team, and having obtained Randolph’s drafts of the Articles, they were able to map out a substantial defense. Chase had asked Alexander Hamilton to be one of his lead attorneys; however, Hamilton was killed in the duel with Aaron Burr before he could respond. Ironicaally, Burr, as Vice President, would preside over Samuel Chase’s trial in the Senate.





...the only Supreme Court Justice to ever be impeached in US History.


Justice Chase not only holds the distinction of being the only Supreme Court Justice to be impeached, he is also the only Supreme Court Justice to be acquitted of the impechment charges brought against him!


On March 1, Chase was acquitted on all counts. Although a majority of the Senate had voted against him on three of the eight counts, these votes lacked the two thirds required to convict. The remaining five counts were dismissed with significant votes for acquittal. One possible influence on the votes centered on James Callender - - no longer a Republican favorite, and now both condemned and despised by the Republicans as a scoundrel and as a turncoat. Any vote to convict Chase would be construed as continued and open Republican support of Callender, a convicted salacious scandalmonger. Even Jefferson privately admitted that Chase should be acquitted. Jefferson’s change of heart and the extensive details and analyses of Chase’s Impeachment and Senate trial have been documented and assessed in many primary many sources. One recent and relevant assessment was written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.





The Senate ultimately struck it down.


The Senate did not strike anything down, the acquitted Justice Chase. There is a difference between "struck down" and "acquittal".

Up to this point, and with the exception of the Wikipedia links I provided within external quotes, I have relied upon on one single source. To be clear on this and to further refute your claims, I now offer yet another source:


When Republicans under Thomas Jefferson led an impeachment attack against Samuel Chase, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, the agenda was clearly political. The outcome of Chase's trial would largely determine whether the judiciary could remain independent. And the fly in Jefferson's ointment would be his own vice president, Aaron Burr, who was wanted in two states for the death of Alexander Hamilton.


Continued....



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Continuing...


Born in Princess Anne, Maryland, in 1741, Samuel Chase had served his country honorably. He held a seat in both the Maryland assembly and the Continental Congress. He was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Before being appointed to the Supreme Court by George Washington, Chase had been chief judge of the Maryland General Court. A Federalist, Chase believed in a strong central government. But in his decisions, he also reflected a concern for the rights of individuals with due process under the law.


Thomas Jefferson - a man I admire greatly - also reflected a concern for the rights of individuals with due process under the law. Ironically, both Jefferson and Chase were slaveholders, but in regards to their concerns for individual rights they were more aligned than not, it was indeed politics that divided them:


President Thomas Jefferson, leader of the Republicans, disliked the idea of judges being appointed for life. He feared that under such a system, the judiciary might become too powerful. And when Samuel Chase expressed Federalist opinions from the bench, Jefferson encouraged the House of Representatives to impeach him.

Chase's trial would serve as an important test case. Could a judge be impeached for expressing unpopular opinions? Or did a judge need to be guilty of crimes in order to be impeached? Jefferson was eager to have the question answered. If he could impeach Chase easily, other Federalist judges, notably Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, would probably follow.


It is arguable that Justice Chase was really just a pawn caught up in a battle between the two power houses of President Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice John Marshall.


In March, 1805, when Chase's trial began in the United States Senate, the Republicans were in control of the government. But much to their surprise, Chase kept his post, thanks largely to Vice President Aaron Burr, a Republican. Burr was wanted for the shooting of Alexander Hamilton, but he was immune from prosecution in Washington, DC. And presiding over an impeachment was his duty as vice president.

Although many senators looked upon the impeachment trial as something akin to a kangaroo court, Burr conducted the trial in a manner that was remarkable for its order and decorum. He gave Chase's lawyer, Luther Martin, the opportunity to present a complete defense of his client. In short, Burr prevented Chase from being railroaded, and in the end, Chase was acquitted.


Below is a reiterated external quote you posted but there is no link to review the source. It appears as if you accidentally used the bold feature instead of the link feature.


But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government. Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility.


First, it should be noted that the reason that neither Congress nor the Executive branch do not have the power of judicial review is because they are not a part of the judiciary branch of government, so the above quoted text is being disingenuous when it qualifies that the Constitution did not grant the power of judicial review to "any branch of government". More importantly, this argument is made with ignorance of implied powers:


Implied powers, in the United States, are those powers authorized by a legal document (from the Constitution) which, while not stated, seem to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States against the protests of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers. Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper clause" gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.


Continued....



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Continuing...

I will discuss more about the implied powers of government later but before doing so I would like to address the remarks Jefferson made in a letter addressed to Letter to Monsieur A. Coray, in 1823:


"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."


In Jefferson's very first sentence he echoes Alexander Hamilton's sentiments in Federalist Papers #78:


This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.


I have highlighted a portion of Hamilton's text to illustrate the difference between Jefferson and Hamilton on this issue. Jefferson never liked that the judiciary was granted - expressly by Constitution - lifetime appointments, but Hamilton makes a case as to why such permanence is necessary. Further, where Jefferson laments that the Supreme Court wasn't as weak as he would have liked to see them, the fact of the matter is that even after Marbury v. Madison, the SCOTUS still remains the weakest branch of government. The Supreme Court cannot enforce their decision's and are reliant upon an Executive branch to do so, however Congress is not nearly reliant on the Executive branch to enforce some of its legislation; the IRS, for example, is not a part of the Executive branch, but is an administrative agency created by Congress to collect revenue and enforce revenue laws. Conversely, the President, as Commander in Chief, is not entirely bound by Congress and is able - arguably through implied powers - is afforded a certain amount of latitude.

Returning to implied powers of the Supreme Court, you yourself listed one of them when citing Section 2 of Article III:


to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party


This express grant of power comes with a fair amount of implied power, and when combining that with the Bill of Rights this implied power becomes even more apparent. Let us, for example, just look at the First Amendment:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


What happens if Congress "makes" a "law" respecting an establishment of religion and the President signs off on that legislation? Are we to believe the Supreme Court is helpless in protecting this express right of the People?

Continued...



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Continuing...

What happens if Congress "makes" a "law" that prohibits the free exercise of religion, and the President signs off on that legislation? Who protects the religious worshipers in this regard? Is the Supreme Court "helpless" to act in defense of the People - those who hold the inherent political power - and their right?

What happens if Congress "makes" a "law" abridging the freedom of speech, and the President signs of on that legislation? Who protects the People and their unalienable right to speech? Or freedom of the press? Or the right to peaceably assemble, and what if Congress passes legislation that would deny the People the right to a redress of government and blocks them from the use of the courts? What branch of government would protect this right?

To further support this contention that the Bill of Rights comes with express language that indicate the implied power of judicial review, let's take a look at the Ninth Amendment:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Let us deal in a hypothetical for the moment, and taking the recent suggestion that if Congress has the power they are asserting with the Affordable Health Care Act that such a power could conceivably be interpreted to deny the people the right to eat broccoli. Suppose Congress creates a bill that declares that eating broccoli is privilege and not a right. Given the Ninth Amendment, who determines how it was Congress and the President found the lawful authority to suddenly and quite arbitrarily take what was a long held right to eat broccoli and just wily nily declares this a privilege under the purview of the federal government?

If the federal government was not created to serve the People who ordained it, and to protect the rights that preexist that federal government, then what the hell were the People thinking, and why did they even bother to shed blood on American soil in a Revolution of Independence? Did the People just decide it was better to have 3000 tyrants at home, than one single tyrant 3000 miles away? Was this the genius of the Constitution for the United States? That the People would have the ability to elect their own preferred tyrants?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Well it seems Eric Holder has affirmed the courts "power" !

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Aside from how Jefferson felt about the supreme court. he would not be very happy to see the combination of a government takeover of healthcare, unspeakable national debt and unnecessary orwellian wars would upset him indeed. also if he saw that the presidency was occupied by a black man he wouldn't think highly of that either.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I strongly believe that the selection process involving presidential nomination and lifetime appointments need to be eliminated as the first steps toward achieving the high standards of integrity this court must maintain to establish itself as the real conscious of the American people rather than the will of political parties and the influence of mega wealthy individuals and corporations.

Here is another relevant Jefferson quote I ran across:

www.hdv.defendindependence.us...


[T]he 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.
— Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804 [ex/]

edit on 9-4-2012 by TZela because: speilling correct



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join