Replies

Haven't you ever read the Federalist by Madison, Hamilton and Jay? If you had, you would have recognized one of the most famous quotes from that source, which I used. That book has several chapters on the difference between "limited" and "general" governments. It's hard, if not impossible, for anyone to understand the principle of federalism, without first understanding that distinction.

I have no idea where you get the idea that the states can or should "ignore the Bill of Rights." I've never suggested any such thing. To the contrary, the main focus of my work in the Supreme Court and my writing about that Court is to get the Justices to obey the Constitution, including all of its amendments.

You should have the same opinion, if you understand and support the Constitution as written. Do you?

John / Billybob

Congressman Billybob:
Two threads on FreeRepublic have already mentioned this subject. Though there's more detail in my article because I do, after all, practice in the US Supreme Court.
Lemme know what you think.
1 -bb-

As I told you on your first thread, you are hyping the issue beyond reason.
The liberal judges on the USSC will be controled by our system of checks & balances between Fed & State power, ~if~ it is allowed to operate.

Politically, this is not happening.

Demanding that states have the power to ignore our bill of rights in the writing of unreasonable regulations on such issues as capital punishment of the mentally ill & sexual 'sin' laws, is a violation of the lawyers oath to protect and defend, imo.. - Thus, it is part of the political problem.

Sure, the liberal justices are 'far out', but so are rabble-rousing 'states rightists'. They are just on opposite ends of the constitutional spectrum.
30 -tpaine-

I have no idea where you get the idea that the states can or should "ignore the Bill of Rights." I've never suggested any such thing.
-Billybob-

"She did not see fit to mention the inconvenient detail that most death penalty cases in the US arise under the criminal laws of the various sovereign states, and that the US Constitution gives the subject of criminal law to the state governments themselves, acting on behalf of their own citizens.

The same point applied to the other example which she cited with favor, the Texas sodomy statute which the Court struck down, -- "
--from your article--

Since the texas sodomy law decision, you have been posting & writing threads advocating that states have the power to ignore our bill of rights in the writing of regulations on such issues as capital punishment of the mentally ill & sexual 'sin' laws, and that the USSC is running amok by striking down such laws.

When confronted, you attempt to bafflegab the issue with ploys about 'general & limited' government.

Why do you ~want~ states to have the power to write unreasonable 'law' about such issues as capital punishment of the mentally ill & sexual 'sin' laws?