Posted on 07/30/2004 8:17:31 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
How do you know that? How can you make that statement? You have some direct line to God or to the Founding Fathers?
You give me some condescending line like "there is a true meaning to each of the parts of the Constitution" or "they knew what they were writing" and expect me to sit here and nod my head, going "Yeah, good point"?
You should know me better than that by now. How can you say that a USSC interpretation is "wrong"? Facts, inquest, facts. Not some esoteric 60's-type mumble jumble about "true meaning".
When it comes to Article IV, Section 4, that I quoted, the most logical answer from the context is that the executive branch bears primary responsibility for that. Look at the entire section: securing the states against invasion, assisting them in suppressing insurrections, etc. The clear context is that to "guarantee to each state a republican form of government" means to intervene in the event of a coup or a declaration of martial law, or something of that nature. Again, it does not mean micromanaging their laws and policies.
If a government can violate unalienable rights, hasn't it become the tyrannical government that the Founders said the people had the right to overthrow?
The Founders didn't say the people had a right to overthrow any government which happened to violate their rights at all (since no government could be held to such a standard of perfection at all times), but "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute tyranny". Either way, however, if it gets to the point where the people of a state have a right to overthrow their government, that still doesn't mean that the federal judiciary needs to get involved.
What's stopping the formation of the Islamic Republic of New Jersey, for example, if the BOR are not applicable to the States?
Notwithstanding the fact that a demented application of the Bill of Rights to New Jersey is currently facilitating (at least indirectly) exactly what you describe, what can stop it is the New Jersey constitution, the voters, and (as you suggested in another post) civil disobedience, and ultimately stronger measures if they become necessary.
How do you know that? How can you make that statement? You have some direct line to God or to the Founding Fathers?
Did I claim that it's incorrect? All I did was challenge your assumptions that their interpretations are correct, just because. Do you have anything to back that assumption up?
You give me some condescending [?] line like "there is a true meaning to each of the parts of the Constitution" or "they knew what they were writing" and expect me to sit here and nod my head, going "Yeah, good point"?
Well, either that or come up with an actual argument as to why that's wrong. Something beyond, "That's how the courts have ruled", because our whole discussion is centering around whether or not the courts are ruling correctly.
How can you say that a USSC interpretation is "wrong"?
SCOTUS itself has held that its prior opinions are wrong. What I've been trying to get out of you is an answer to why you (apparently) insist that a court opinion is automatically right. In fact, I asked that question of you in regards to a specific case back at #564, which you never responded to. Do you have an answer for it yet?
Nice straw man.
Interpreting the law is not a question of the "right" interpretation or the "wrong" interpretation. Ever since Marbury v. Madison (1803), the USSC "became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant."
Now, you got a better solution, let's hear it.
Of course not. It was the result of the holding, and established the doctrine of judicial review.
"Since when is that a valid form of logic?"
Well, it sure beats the prior "logic" of Congress deciding what's constitutional. Or do you prefer that?
"prior logic" lie bumpkin
Says who? The court?
Well, it sure beats the prior "logic" of Congress deciding what's constitutional.
That wasn't the logic prior to Marbury, either. Both types of "logic" are fundamentally the same in that they're completely circular. "So-and-so [fill in the blank] says they're the final arbiter of the Constitution, therefore they are". Why do you cling to that type of reasoning?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because it's worked for 200+ years?
Plus, an overzealous USSC can be reined in by either the Executive branch or the Legislative branch, if necessary.
So what's your problem, other than you like to whine a lot? You got a better idea, let's hear it.
They are very loud. Everyone who wants one should have one. The Veterans like to give the casings to one another as gifts and awards.
Non sequitur. Your position has been that there's no "right" or "wrong" interpretation of the law. You weren't saying that there should not be a "right" or "wrong" interpretation, only that there isn't such a thing. So you were attempting to describe what is, not whether it ought to be. A description of what is is either correct or incorrect.
Again, you've stated that the courts are the final arbiter of the Constitution, and the only proof you've offered is that they've declared themselves to be the final arbiter of the Constitution. That is circular reasoning. Do you have any way at all of breaking the circle, by starting with a premise that's different from your conclusion?
Plus, an overzealous USSC can be reined in by either the Executive branch or the Legislative branch, if necessary.
And how are they going to do that if they have no way of determining whether SCOTUS is being overzealous? If SCOTUS is the final authority on the meaning of the law, who is anyone else to say that they're wrong?
I seem to recall that FDR had a plan to deal with the USSC.
"That is circular reasoning."
It was an explanation, not a reason. Marbury occurred in 1803, 14 short years after the Constitution was ratified. The signatories were still around, yet not a peep on the ruling (other than Jefferson). It's worked for 200+ years.
"So you were attempting to describe what is, not whether it ought to be."
Yep. Now, for the third time, please tell me how it "ought to be".
I seem to recall that FDR had a plan to deal with the USSC.
So who was the final arbiter of the law in that instance, FDR or SCOTUS?
Marbury occurred in 1803, 14 short years after the Constitution was ratified. The signatories were still around, yet not a peep on the ruling (other than Jefferson).
And as I explained to you, Marbury did not hold that SCOTUS is the final authority on the Constitution. More recent commentators may have used Marbury in order to make that claim, but there's no justification of it from the ruling itself.
Yep. Now, for the third time, please tell me how it "ought to be".
That hasn't even been the subject of the conversation. I'd hope we can both agree in the abstract that the Constitution "ought to be" followed. It's the meaning of that statement that's the subject of dispute. Hence, the dispute centers around what is, not what ought to be.
That was not the ruling, no. But that was the effect.
"In essence, he declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury, but then held that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution, and was therefore null and void."
The USSC ruled that a Congressional Act was unconstitutional. It positioned itself as final arbitor.
"So who was the final arbiter of the law in that instance, FDR or SCOTUS?"
As you know, SCOTUS caved.
First of all, those words were written by a very liberal writer in 1994, just a bit more than 14 years after the ratification of the Constitution, and at a time when I'm pretty sure none of the original drafters were around to comment on it. Secondly, nothing in that statement says anything to the effect that SCOTUS is the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution.
As you know, SCOTUS caved.
So what are you saying? That anyone who can force his will on the law is the final arbiter of the law?
Well, what is it, inquest? First you say the SCOTUS appointed themselves final arbiters -- now you say they didn't.
Figure that out and then get back to me with your question.
I was just following your lead on that. I wasn't making that claim myself.
If they didn't appoint themselves to that role, then who did?
Whatever. Are you saying that his conclusion is incorrect? That his interpretation of the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall is wrong?
Then by all means, please correct this "very liberal writer".
"The authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution; and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised."
-- Marbury v Madison
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.