Posted on 06/22/2019 7:07:55 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
One of the most damaging yet least-known Supreme Court cases is J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928). This case is much, much worse than the more well known case of Wickard v. Filburn.
Wickard enables the bureaucracy to distort the commerce clause to do damage to our lives. Hampton enables the bureaucracy to exist. Without Hampton, Wickard is effectively repealed. A Twofer!
Hampton also has another effect that is usually missed. There is a question as to when the Supreme Court decided it was fit to become involved in the process of creating law. This is usually misattributed to Marbury v. Madison, which deals with nothing more than judicial review. A reading of the full text of Marbury quickly disspells this allusion. The new activist Supreme Court owes in part its activism to the 1928 Hampton case. Let me say this loud and say it clear:
The Founding generation did not give us an activist court. The Progressives did. Marbury is. Not. The. Problem. Time to stop tilting at windmills.
The effect of Hampton is that it creates(Or at least fosters the idea) in the courts a sort of an expert panel on the constitution. Who says what the Constitution actually means? It's supposed to be the people. The courts have decided that they are the final arbiters of the constitution. This idea that the courts should be an expert panel is rooted deeply in progressive ideology from some of the heavyweights of their early years such as Wilson and Croly. See: http://progressingamerica.blogspot.com/2012/11/progressivism-judiciary-is-expert-panel.html for some of what they wrote and why it mattered so much to them. This idea of "the experts" is core to progressive ideology, and at the time of both the Founding as well as Marbury, the courts were not experts. They were just judges.
I'm bringing this up because of a recent court case Gundy v. United States. It is both interesting and ironic that the progressives oh-so-dear non-delegation doctrine was nearly blown out of the water by a sexual offender, considering how often they weaponize this concept of sexual offenders against conservatives in order to keep government large. But whatever. I'll take it.
The end result is that the doctrine of nondelegation still stands, however look at the press. They are freaking out. They know how close they came to demolition. If nondelegation were taken out that would probably comprise 80 percent of progressivism. Not a bad first blow. However, the ruinous legacy of Woodrow Wilson as well as the ruinous legacy of Theodore Roosevelt would still be left standing and as long as those are still in place our beloved constitution is not safe from the ravages of progressivism.
How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time.
L
Each pro America justice that is appointed by President Trump at the circuit court level, is a severe blow to the progressive thugs across this land.
Kavanaugh has been somewhat disappointing so far. He isn’t exactly compiling an originalist record. He seems to be Kennedy redux.
Note that Obama took it the last step, which was ignoring Congress and promulgating rules which directly ignored or rejected Congressional law on the matter.
How we got all the LGBTQUIA+?&# nonsense we have now claimed as fundamental rights. It was all rejected by, Congress, but enshrined by Obama into various illegal rules.
He knew Congress would do nothing to stop him. Hew famously said that Congress’ failure to act gave him power to act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.