Posted on 01/07/2005 3:51:55 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Thats what jury nullification is supposed to be about. No matter what laws get passed, if the people refuse to convict, then they are indeed at the top of the pyramid.
Thats how it's supposed to work, anyway.
Whether Judicial Supremacy is "logical" or not, this doctrine is not dictated by the Constitution. Congress' impeachment power is the check on the President's power.
I don't disagree with that, but it's no longer reality and never will be again.
Says you.
Fine. Overthrow the government. I'll watch.
To their credit, the Supreme Court has never challenged Congress's power to limit their jurisdiction.
All congress has to do is reassert their Constitutional authority over the courts. The Judiciary has usurped powers that don't belong to them. It's time to take that power away.
What we need to do is tell everyone who knows nothing of the constitution that the constitution puts limmits on the government...and does not allow the government putting limmits on the people.
We must tell everypne that when the government says they are going to allow us to do this..or tell us to do that.....well......they damend well can't because the constitution does not allow it.
Bump for later
Excellent post. Certainly everyone should reread this from time to time.
The time honored pledge to defend the Constitution is honored only in the few seconds it takes to say it. Politicians abandon it with in minutes thereafter.
I agree with you that you can't understand how the Constitution applies in real life just by reading it. Not even the framers could agree on what it meant, not even at the time it was written. It's full of compromises and gaps that had to be filled in over time, not always very satisfactorily.
A lot of the arguments about "strict construction" vs. "living breathing etc." are just a way of saying "I am right and you are wrong." Scalia is as bad as any of the rest of them in pretending that he's a "strict constructionist" when he really means "my interpretation is the correct one." They all do it. They always have.
For example - the author of the posted article says that "the Constitution relied on the Bible." Well, that's not anywhere in the Constitution, and there are plenty of sources that beg to differ. Argue about it all you want, it's still just an opinion.
Conveniently packaged as if it were factual in the hope that you are easily bamboozled, especially when you read something you want to believe because you like what it says.
Much more than that, if you count all jurisdictions.
On the other hand, back in the old days, when lawyers only had Story/Storey on the Constitution and Black's Common Law and a book on equity and a book on pleading, they winged it a lot. Not just the lawyers, but the judges. They made up stuff as they went along.
Lots of weird opinions, but you probably don't study old case law much, is my guess.
Good lordy, is that true. I think most Americans think that our Founders were one big wise committee that came up with this thing in some spirit of compromise and God-given wisdom. Cripes, Aaron Burr shot dead the guy on our $10 bill in 1804.
We did extremely well in coming up with our Constitution, and while I won't argue that it's being followed precisely today, it's reasonably close. We're probably doing much better than expected. If we assembled the same guys in 2005 to draft a constitution, I'm afraid of what it might look like.
Given the same circumstances, they would make the same document. We have amended the Constitution when necessary. If people cannot understand simple words and they come to diametrical positions using the same words, there is no hope for humanity.
I'd like to hope that they'd (or we'd) come up with a remarkably similar document, but those guys never envisioned the Industrial Revolution. Nor could they.
Things have changed. If someone wants to be a strict constitutionalist and mean it, find where it allows the government to build the US Air Force. It doesn't, of course, having been written more than 100 years before air flight began.
It really doesn't envision a standing army, although you can twist the words to allow it.
I don't know what a new constitutional convention would come up with. I'm about 85% content with the one we have, even though we've messed with it quite a bit.
Well, you would quibble over a name? What do you expect the armed forces of the United States to be wielding? Muskets? The U.S. Air Force is an outgrowth of the Army Air Corps. We'll just roll back its name and make you happy.
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
You have a stronger case against the Department of Education.
Bump and thanks!
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.