Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
[Me] Ratification and secession acts cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court; they are ultra vires that court, and are in fact instruction sets to that court. It is for the Supreme Court to listen and obey, not the People.

[You] Absolute, utter bullshit.

Why is it bullshit for the People to own the Courts, and not the other way around? Why do the People have to look up to the Court's tribunal from their knees, when they own the entire Republic?

When the People amend the Constitution, does the Court have the authority to interpose? Have you ever heard (yet -- don't worry, it will come) of an attempt by the U.S. Supreme Court to nullify an amendment to the Constitution, analogous to the court nullification of Colorado's Proposition 2 several years ago? No. Through the amendment process, their untrammeled power to ratify amendments, the People hold absolute sway over the Courts, as I said, and could abolish the entire court system with the stroke of a pen if they wished. That is the true relationship.

On the other hand, you haven't yet shown me authority conferred in the Constitution or anywhere else, that would make the U.S. Government the Sovereign over the People of the United States.

You may not know the footman and the chambermaid, and you may not know the cook, but you damn sure have to know the relationship.

831 posted on 01/12/2005 2:50:37 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies ]


To: lentulusgracchus
Why is it bullshit for the People to own the Courts, and not the other way around? Why do the People have to look up to the Court's tribunal from their knees, when they own the entire Republic?

Becuase the Constitution, which they agreed to abide by, gives jurisdiction on matters of law and equity arrising under the Constitution to the Supreme Court. And that extended to matters between the citizens of several states or matters where the United States is a party. To the Supreme Court. Not the state courts, not to you, not to the mob, but to the Supreme Court.

When the People amend the Constitution, does the Court have the authority to interpose?

No, because the grounds for amending the Constitution are clearly contained in the document itself.

Through the amendment process, their untrammeled power to ratify amendments, the People hold absolute sway over the Courts, as I said, and could abolish the entire court system with the stroke of a pen if they wished. That is the true relationship.

It would take more than 'a stroke of a pen'. It would take a two thirds vote in both houses of congress and the approval of three forths of the states. In short, it would take the approval of an overwhelming majority of the people. The southern states acted without the concerns of the people.

On the other hand, you haven't yet shown me authority conferred in the Constitution or anywhere else, that would make the U.S. Government the Sovereign over the People of the United States.

The people of the United States? What do you care about the people of the United States? Did you care about them when the people of Louisiana were seceding, taking forts and facilities with them, and cutting off access to the sea for people in the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys? Did you care about the people of the United States when the seven states were walking away from the obligations that they had incurred when they were part of the people of the United States? Hell, no. In your world the states are supreme, then the people. Or at least some of the people. Your sudden interest in the people of the United States is laughable.

836 posted on 01/12/2005 4:09:53 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Jefferson Davis - the first 'selected, not elected' president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson