Somebody, PLEASE call Shakespeare.
Posted on 03/03/2005 5:34:47 AM PST by totherightofu
Marshall never said laws can be ignored because YOU think they are unconstitutional. You CAN challenge them in court. What part of this are you going to ape and post as response?
There is no avoidance of the fact that MEN must determine what that Constitution means. Nor is there of the fact that there can only be ONE current interpretation of that meaning. Fifty differing interpretations would spell the destruction of the Union and any pretense of a "Law of the Land." We can survive mistakes in interpretation and have but could not survive such a Balkanization as Jefferson's thoughts imply.
Now the People ultimately have the final say on the Constitution because they can amend to reconcile its meaning to a changed reality or their changed understandings. So ultimately they do have the final say and the Court cannot intervene in that decision in any way.
But, like all Law, the Constitution must be defined by the Courts with the final appeal at the USSC.
No document can protect the law against self-serving men and the best we can hope far is to reduce the number of such to a manageable number so the corruption is not fatal.
Certainly we have as much to fear from them in the Legislative and Executive branches as from the Court if not more. Certainly the Founders considered the Legislative to be the most dangerous.
What is "pretty obvious" is that you attempt to put words into others' mouths.
Judges and other officials are not urged by Marshall to ignore the Law as you try and claim. They can and do challenge laws as unconstitutional with that challenge being judged by the USSC. They do not have the power to say "Oh, I don't think that law prohibiting heroin use is constitutional so I won't enforce it." Their only option there is to resign or when they have the authority to stay the law until a hearing can be held. The Leftists do this all the time with California's referendum regarding illegal aliens' benefits being one of the most egregious examples. THAT judge said "no this is unconstitutional and I won't allow it."
What is amusing is that this is EXACTLY the kind of abuse of the judicial power that you object to. Judges deciding that THEY can say what is law no matter what the legislature or electorate says. And you are apparently gleefully unaware of the identity.
I have read Marbury (repeatedly), and “you are wrong,” not I. As Thomas Jefferson noted, a government that can “judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself” is limited only by its own “discretion, and not the Constitution.”
;>)
…he never claimed 'the high court has final and exclusive power of constitutional review', or anything of the sort. Thus -- your pitiful straw man claim collapses…We discussed your out of context straw man use of "say what the law is" quite some time ago. You were proved wrong, and shown where he explicitly recognized limitations on the courts power to interpret law.
Actually, as one constitutional scholar has noted with regard to Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion:
…[T]he dictum explaining the duty of the court to rule a statute unconstitutional if it was in conflict with the constitution was sound, as far as it went. The problem was that it left the impression that this was the exercise of a power of the court that only the court had. The misleading statement was, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." It is misleading because it connotes that as the "province" it is exclusive of the other departments… When one of the laws in conflict is the constitution, then the duty is of ‘constitutional review,’ which is only ‘judicial review’ when it is judges that happen to do it. It is not an exclusive power of the courts…
Having claimed an "exclusive" power for the federal judiciary, the power must also be "final" if exercised by the high court. Furthermore, because Mr. Justice Marshall recognized no limits but (supposedly) the “Constitution” (even your “original right to establish” quote refers to the Constitution – NOT “the people” as you implied ;>) and simultaneously claimed a right to ‘say what the Constitution is,’ the lack of limits is necessarily implicit. In short, you have "proved" nothing.
And BTW, as I stated earlier, highlighting Marshall’s logical inconsistencies hardly qualifies as a ‘straw man’ argument. Perhaps you should purchase a dictionary…
;>)
Principles the people established cannot be "reviewed' away, -- obviously.
LOL! Quite obviously, my friend, you have no grasp of reality! What the heck do you think “loose constructionists” like Marshall have been doing for the last two centuries and more? The high court is in the business of ‘reviewing away’ our constitutional rights!
’Unfortunately, you seem unable to grasp that point’...
;>)
Fine, -- you can't understand Marshalls fundamental logic, -- and no one here can understand yours, poor thing.
(You do live in your own, private ‘dream land,’ don’t you? ;>)
Nothing in Jeffersons words you quoted conficts with anything Marshall wrote in Marbury:
"...The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers..."
Actually, the conflict is obvious. Unfortunately, ‘you can't understand Jefferson’s and Madison’s fundamental logic’ – or the written history of the early Republic, for that matter.
“Poor thing.”
There is no avoidance of the fact that MEN must determine what that Constitution means…
No document can protect the law against self-serving men and the best we can hope far is to reduce the number of such to a manageable number so the corruption is not fatal.
Certainly we have as much to fear from them in the Legislative and Executive branches as from the Court if not more. Certainly the Founders considered the Legislative to be the most dangerous.
(I combined these comments because they seemed to relate to the same subject… ;>) You are right: “MEN must determine what that Constitution means” and “no document can protect the law against self-serving men.” What most of the Founders feared, however, was not the accumulation of power in a single State government (or even the loss of a State or two – see Article VII), but the accumulation of undelegated power by the central government. Despite what we were taught in school, the most important of the original “checks and balances” on the federal government was not internal (the division of power between three branches) – it was external (the States). Hence, James Madison’s references to the proposed union as a “compound republic,” and his discussions of the potential use of military force by the States to oppose unconstitutional action by the federal government…
Nor is there of the fact that there can only be ONE current interpretation of that meaning. Fifty differing interpretations would spell the destruction of the Union and any pretense of a "Law of the Land."
It is easy for us to forget that the Founders established a federal union, not a national government. The latter may require “ONE current interpretation” – the former certainly does not. In fact, the power of the States to interpret the Constitution for themselves promoted ‘consensus’ government for the first seventy years following ratification. As you well know, ‘consensus’ seems to have been left by the wayside: a one vote D*mocrat majority in Congress and a leftist in the White House is now sufficient to pass such blatantly unconstitutional ‘gems’ as the Clinton ‘assault weapons ban’…
;>)
Now the People ultimately have the final say on the Constitution because they can amend to reconcile its meaning to a changed reality or their changed understandings. So ultimately they do have the final say and the Court cannot intervene in that decision in any way.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree – the Court most certainly CAN intervene in any “decision” (Constitutional amendment) made by the people of the States. It happened just a week ago, when five members of the court simply interpreted the 8th Amendment to suit themselves. Quite obviously, cherry-picked ‘international opinions’ meant more to them than the will of the people of these United States. That is precisely why John Taylor observed that the power to interpret can not be separated from the power to amend – or the power to amend is nullified.
But, like all Law, the Constitution must be defined by the Courts with the final appeal at the USSC.
That is certainly the current state of affairs, but the union was not established with that understanding. The Constitution would likely never have been ratified if it had explicitly declared that a federal court had the exclusive and final right to interpret the Constitution. Such ideas were debated at the constitutional convention – and soundly rejected.
;>)
YOU claim that we must obey repugnant laws, [laws like the NFA of '34], laws that the USSC refuses to let us challenge in court.
-- Thus, the Montana legislature will challenge it with a State law, -- one that will force the issue. And, of course, YOU oppose that approach as well.
It is getting pretty obvious that you support the NFA of 1934, and approve of the governments position on gun control.
283 P_A_I
What is "pretty obvious" is that you attempt to put words into others' mouths. Judges and other officials are not urged by Marshall to ignore the Law as you try and claim.
I've quoted the passage in Marbury that buttresses my claim. You did not dispute his actual words, you just keep denying his overall point.
They can and do challenge laws as unconstitutional with that challenge being judged by the USSC. They do not have the power to say "Oh, I don't think that law prohibiting heroin use is constitutional so I won't enforce it."
One of Marshall's points was that they can & should do exactly that. It is their duty. And it is ours as citizens. Repugnant laws should be actively disobeyed.
< Their only option there is to resign or when they have the authority to stay the law until a hearing can be held. The Leftists do this all the time with California's referendum regarding illegal aliens' benefits being one of the most egregious examples. THAT judge said "no this is unconstitutional and I won't allow it."
What is amusing is that this is EXACTLY the kind of abuse of the judicial power that you object to.
Hey, you are finally getting the point. Leftist or rightist, both factions have to obey the Constitution as they see it, -- and then suffer the political consequences for poor judgment.
Judges deciding that THEY can say what is law no matter what the legislature or electorate says. And you are apparently gleefully unaware of the identity.
In our republic, a fully informed jury decides guilt, not the judge. You would have us blindly follow what the judge claims is law.
Your Montana stance shows us that.
You are wrong. He acknowledged limits. Read Marbury.
I have read Marbury (repeatedly), and "you are wrong," not I.
As Thomas Jefferson noted, a government that can "judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself" is limited only by its own "discretion, and not the Constitution.
Now you misquote Jefferson:
"...The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers..."
Kentucky Resolutions, 1798
Lord but you are dense. -- Or desperate.
I certainly can not quote something (limits on the high court's authority) that he failed to even mention.
Exactly, he never claimed 'the high court has final and exclusive power of constitutional review', or anything of the sort. Thus -- your pitiful straw man claim collapses.
Actually, since Mr. Justice Marshall claimed the right to "say what the law is," and did not explicitly recognize any limitation on that right except the same law he claimed the power to interpret, my criticism stands.
We discussed your out of context straw man use of "say what the law is" quite some time ago. You were proved wrong, and shown where he explicitly recognized limitations on the courts power to interpret law.
Actually, as one constitutional scholar has noted with regard to Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion:
…[T]he dictum explaining the duty of the court to rule a statute unconstitutional if it was in conflict with the constitution was sound, as far as it went. The problem was that it left the impression that this was the exercise of a power of the court that only the court had. The misleading statement was, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." It is misleading because it connotes that as the "province" it is exclusive of the other departments… When one of the laws in conflict is the constitution, then the duty is of 'constitutional review,' which is only 'judicial review' when it is judges that happen to do it. It is not an exclusive power of the courts… Having claimed an "exclusive" power for the federal judiciary, the power must also be "final" if exercised by the high court. Furthermore, because Mr. Justice Marshall recognized no limits but (supposedly) the "Constitution" (even your "original right to establish" quote refers to the Constitution – NOT "the people" as you implied ;>) and simultaneously claimed a right to 'say what the Constitution is,' the lack of limits is necessarily implicit. In short, you have "proved" nothing.
Nor have you proved anything other than you are in full 'Babble On' mode again.
And BTW, as I stated earlier, highlighting Marshall's logical inconsistencies hardly qualifies as a 'straw man' argument. Perhaps you should purchase a dictionary…
Whatever.
______________________________________
Tell us: where, precisely, in Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion does he recognize "that the States, not the federal courts, have the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution?
He tells us that the People wield that power, here:
" --- The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.
It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish for their future government, such principles, as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected.
The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated.
The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. --- "
You really should try to understand Marshall's words in Marbury, Galt. -- The above are some of his best.
Sorry, sport, but "an original right to establish" is not the same as the 'right to review.' Try again...
Marshall says that "the people have an original right to establish [principles] for their future government, -- ".
Principles the people established cannot be "reviewed' away, -- obviously.
Unfortunately, you seem unable to grasp that point. A Catch 22 type failure, no doubt.
LOL! Quite obviously, my friend, you have no grasp of reality!
You're so unreal you call me friend. No way.
What the heck do you think "loose constructionists" like Marshall have been doing for the last two centuries and more? The high court is in the business of 'reviewing away' our constitutional rights! 'Unfortunately, you seem unable to grasp that point'..
Marshall was not a "loose constructionist". He was the first real Constitutionalist on the bench. -- And he said so in Marbury.
____________________________________________
Fine, -- you can't understand Marshalls fundamental logic, -- and no one here can understand yours, poor thing.
Nothing in Jefferson's words you quoted conflicts with anything Marshall wrote in Marbury:
"...The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers..." Kentucky Resolutions, 1798
Actually, the conflict is obvious.
Your pitiful misquote at the start of this post shows how desperate you are to make believe that its "obvious".
Unfortunately, 'you can't understand Jefferson's and Madison's fundamental logic' – or the written history of the early Republic, for that matter.
I understand that these men were political opponents. This did not make them Constitutional opponents. They all put the principles of our Constitution over ALL levels of government, & said so.
Madison has always been a puzzle to me. During the writing of the Constitution he was more of a federalist than even Hamilton and contrary to his friend (at the time) even speculated upon the justifiable use of federal military power against recalcitrant states. This opinion he later completely rejected. The actual description of what the federal union was to be is not very convincing and seems to be aimed primarily at undermining the arguments of the anti-federalists and not entirely in good faith. Though it is true that NO ONE (not even Hamilton) wanted a overly powerful central government. But their real fear was of a government not "of the people" regardless of its degree of power. In actual fact the British government had very little control over the lives of the American colonists but the fact that it was unelected by them was what stuck in their craws.
Throughout the history of the nation we see a trend to reduce the power of the states. That was the reason the Constitution was written in the first place. Then we see the 14th amendment furthering the process then the initiation of direct election of senators. At some point we may see than pendulum start to swing back in the other direction.
If there is to be such a thing as "federal law" it must be consistent throughout the nation. There is no alternative any more than than Cook County can say "Illinois law does not apply here." Federal law always applied throughout the nation it is just that there is so much more of it now that it seems to have changed things. But from the beginning such things as tariffs, militia regulations, naturalization, fugitive slave acts, Republican form of government, Extradition, prohibition of imposts and export taxes, etc. were uniformly enforced or required of the states.
You don't seriously argue that a state could interprete the Constitution so as to remove itself from the jurisdiction of those things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution do you?
I don't agree with your interpretation of the genesis of the recent ruling on "cruel and unusual punishment" because there was no reliance upon foreign law to achieve it. There is probably a minority of states which execute teenage killers thus no need to use foreign law to justify the ruling. That was just icing on the cake. Besides the Court did not overrule the amendment and FORCE states to impose cruel and unusual punishments. It clarified what it believed to be INCLUDED in that phrase. Nor do I believe that is inconsistent with the opinion of the majority of the American people. An accurate poll would most likely find that they do NOT want teenage killers executed. :^(
State law was shown to be void when it was in direct conflict with federal law in McCullough v Maryland but, absent a direct conflict, was generally allowed to stand even when it was contrary to the BoR. This was explicitly stated under Barron v Baltimore. BUT this all changed with the 14th amendment. This was a result of the failure of the founders' near universal belief that slavery would wither and die and the conflict engendered by its refusal to die. Had their hope been fulfilled my belief is that there would have been no necessity for the 14th and much of the increased federal power would not have occurred. Of course, I cannot prove this.
I don't believe that the power to interpret is exclusively lodged in the USSC but when there are conflicts it must come into play. Many, if not most, contentions are settled before the federal judiciary becomes involved. But we cannot have the 9th district and the 1st district claiming the law says different things.
But my point was that the process of amendment has no role for the Court being left primarily in the hands of the State legislatures and less so Congress.
LOL! I did not “misquote Jefferson.” Furthermore, the meaning of my statement was entirely consistent with that of Mr. Jefferson’s. I invite everyone (who can read) to compare the statements for themselves - please see Posts #273 & #288.
“Lord but you are dense. -- Or desperate.” Or maybe just in need of those ‘remedial reading’ classes that were mentioned earlier…
;>)
Nor have you proved anything other than you are in full 'Babble On' mode again.
Actually, I’ve proved that published references suggest that Mr. Justice Marshall was claiming an “exclusive” (and also final) right to “say what the law [including the Constitution] is.” But you’re back to ignoring any reference that disagrees with your ignorant prejudices, I see…
;>)
You're so unreal you call me friend. No way.
Ouch! Now you’ve hurt my feelings…
;>)
Marshall was not a "loose constructionist". He was the first real Constitutionalist on the bench. -- And he said so in Marbury.
Allow me to help you further your education, my friend. Here’s the reference I was quoting:
”...[T]he appointment of Chief Justice fell to John Adams, instead of to Thomas Jefferson a month later, and so gave it to [John Marshall,] a Federalist and loose constructionist to start the working of the Constitution...”
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (celebrating the 100th anniversary of Mr. Justice Marshall’s appointment to the high court), quoted by Max Lerner, The Mind and Faith of Justice Holmes, 1943
Marshall was indeed a “loose constructionist.” He was known as such two centuries ago (by the Jeffersonian republicans); recognized as such a century ago (by his peers on the high court); and he is remembered as such today – by anyone with any common sense and even a rudimentary knowledge of history (which apparently excludes you ;>).
Your pitiful misquote at the start of this post shows how desperate you are to make believe that its "obvious".
LOL! Your “pitiful” inability to understand simple English is ‘obviously’ quite entertaining!
;>)
I understand that these men were political opponents. This did not make them Constitutional opponents. They all put the principles of our Constitution over ALL levels of government, & said so.
Actually, this is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about Marshall’s court and the rest of the Federalist-dominated judiciary:
“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.”
;>)
You don't seriously argue that a state could interpret the Constitution so as to remove itself from the jurisdiction of those things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution do you?
I don’t believe “those things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution” were the cause of serious State-federal conflict during the early years of the Republic (although Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 – the fugitive slave clause - is quite specific, and some States eventually elected to ignore it ;>). Generally speaking, the conflicts arose over supposedly ‘implied’ powers, such as the construction of roads and canals, protectionist tariffs, the national bank, etc.
But my point was that the process of amendment has no role for the Court being left primarily in the hands of the State legislatures and less so Congress.
That’s quite true. Unfortunately, insofar as the high court can interpret the Constitution any way it sees fit, just about any amendment could be ‘interpreted’ out of existence. For example, Mr. Justice Scalia has commented that there are currently four justices on the court who are ready to declare the death penalty unconstitutional – despite language in the Constitution that necessarily implies the constitutionality of the death penalty. Given recent events, one might see it happen as a slightly modified ‘replay’ of Roper v. Simmons…
;>)
Somebody, PLEASE call Shakespeare.
Now you misquote Jefferson, who wrote: "...The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers..." Kentucky Resolutions, 1798
Lord but you are dense. -- Or desperate.
LOL! I did not "misquote Jefferson."
You boldly cherrypicked out the parts, [as indicated] and made them seem to buttress your flawed idea that a States powers, " -- delegated to itself is limited only by its own discretion. -- "
Furthermore, the meaning of my statement was entirely consistent with that of Mr. Jefferson's. I invite everyone (who can read) to compare the statements for themselves - please see Posts #273 & #288.
I can only hope they do.
Marshall was not a "loose constructionist". He was the first real Constitutionalist on the bench. -- And he said so in Marbury.
Allow me to help you further your education, my friend. Here's the reference I was quoting: "...[T]he appointment of Chief Justice fell to John Adams, instead of to Thomas Jefferson a month later, and so gave it to [John Marshall,] a Federalist and loose constructionist to start the working of the Constitution..."
As I said, Jefferson & Marshall were political opponents. Politicians say the darndest things..
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (celebrating the 100th anniversary of Mr. Justice Marshall's appointment to the high court), quoted by Max Lerner, The Mind and Faith of Justice Holmes, 1943 Marshall was indeed a "loose constructionist." He was known as such two centuries ago (by the Jeffersonian republicans); recognized as such a century ago (by his peers on the high court); and he is remembered as such today – by anyone with any common sense and even a rudimentary knowledge of history (which apparently excludes you ;>).
So you and his opponents claim.. But Marshalls clear words in Marbary belie you all.
Your pitiful misquote at the start of this post shows how desperate you are to make believe that its "obvious".
I understand that these men were political opponents. This did not make them Constitutional opponents. They all put the principles of our Constitution over ALL levels of government, & said so.
Actually, this is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about Marshall's court and the rest of the Federalist-dominated judiciary: "The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric." ;>)
Big deal. I think Jefferson was one of our greatest Presidents. But he was a mean spirited politician at times.
-- So: -- anything else new in your statist view of the world?
Much of the problem over "implied" powers comes from mistaking the means over carrying out a stated power with a new power. Hamilton's description of the reason the National Bank was constitutional was that it allowed for efficent operation of those express powers and duties within the Constitution.
It made for much more efficent collection of taxes, funding of government operations in general and national defense in particular.
Actually even Jefferson did not deny that there were implied powers within the Constitution but, like as regards almost everything, judgment is required in order to properly call forth those implied powers.
I agree with Hamilton, as you know, as regards almost everything about the Constitution and his view of what is or is not constitutional. That was stated in the Essay on the Constitutionality of the National Bank in general anything which assisted the carrying out of a specified power and which was not prohibited by or inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution was constitutional.
And with regards to the Bank there was no reason to presume that the constitution prohibited the fedgov from establishing corporations to carry out its duties as states could do. Most of those concerned about implied powers agreed that anything which met those stipulations and which would benefit the Republic was alright. Thus, H believed canals or roads benefitting a specific region or state only was not acceptable whereas a National Road was.
I am a advocate of the death penalty and agree it is not proscribed by the Constitution but fear I am becoming more of a minority in that regard. Unfortunately, it has been almost repealed by the pettifogging lawyers dragging almost every case out for decades so that those deserving of it are more likely to die of old age in the joint than get the well deserved needle.
As per 293 you are now a "statist"? Lol.
P_A_I: You boldly cherrypicked out the parts, [as indicated] and made them seem to buttress your flawed idea that a States powers, " -- delegated to itself is limited only by its own discretion. -- "
Actually, you are misquoting me, my hypocritical friend! See my Post #285: ‘As Thomas Jefferson noted, a government that can "judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself" is limited only by its own "discretion, and not the Constitution.’ That statement is entirely consistent with the first of Mr. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions, which I quoted at greater length in Post #273.
“Reasoned discourse is not your strong suit, is it?”
;>)
As I said, Jefferson & Marshall were political opponents. Politicians say the darndest things.
Jefferson did not make the statement – as I noted, it originated with Mr. Justice Holmes, in 1901.
;>)
So you and his opponents claim [that Marshall was a “loose constructionist”].. But Marshalls clear words in Marbary belie you all.
Sorry – but you’re wrong yet again. Mr. Justice Holmes was not an ‘opponent’ of Marshall. As I stated, Mr. Justice Holmes was actually “celebrating” the anniversary of Mr. Marshall’s appointment to the high court. Even his friends (at least those who can read ;>) recognize Mr. Justice Marshall as a “loose constructionist”…
;>)
-- So: -- anything else new in your statist view of the world?
“Statist?” LOL! How about this?
”…[E]ach [State as a] party [to the constitutional compact] has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions [of the Constitution] as of the mode and measure of redress.”
Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798
I’m sure that’s “new” to you…
;>)
I might agree with more of Mr. Hamilton's ideas, if I were not 'cursed' (as are we all ;>) with hindsight - which influences my opinions in ways far different (I imagine) than the actual circumstances two centuries ago might have influenced Mr. Hamilton and his contemporaries.
In any case, two hundred years after the fact, I think some of the Jeffersonian republican ideas are finally coming into their own. For example, John Taylor of Caroline discussed 'supply-side economics' (not by that name, of course):
"If half our duties were taken off, it is well established that the other half would produce more revenue than the whole now does. Why? Because industry, consumptions and enjoyments have all increased. Let the rival system face its competitor, and common sense decide which will add most to the happiness of mankind. It is simply this. Increase duties, and you diminish revenue, industry, consumptions and enjoyments."
John Taylor, Construction Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated, 1820
Ronald Reagan was certainly wise enough to recognize a good idea (or wise enough to re-invent one that had been forgotten ;>). There are other Jeffersonian priciples that have been adopted by many Republicans: the emphasis on the right to keep and bear arms, a certain resistance to government spending, a preference for a smaller & less-intrusive federal government, the endorsement of 'strict constructionist' jurists, and even (in some circles) an acknowledgement of States' rights (as a possible alternative to the 'one-size-fits-all' philosophies of the D*mocrats/socialists). In some ways, Mr. Jefferson's ideas may be more applicable today than they were 200 years ago.
I am a advocate of the death penalty and agree it is not proscribed by the Constitution but fear I am becoming more of a minority in that regard. Unfortunately, it has been almost repealed by the pettifogging lawyers dragging almost every case out for decades so that those deserving of it are more likely to die of old age in the joint than get the well deserved needle.
I agree.
As per 293 you are now a "statist"? Lol.
(Our friend doesn't know me as well as you do, does he? ;>)
I have read Marbury (repeatedly), and "you are wrong," not I.
As Thomas Jefferson noted, a government that can "judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself" is limited only by its own "discretion, and not the Constitution.
[post #285]
Your post #285 misquotes Jefferson, who wrote:
"...The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers..."
Kentucky Resolutions, 1798
LOL! I did not "misquote Jefferson."
You boldly cherrypicked out the parts, [as indicated] and made them seem to buttress your flawed idea that a States powers, " -- delegated to itself is limited only by its own discretion. -- "
Actually, you are misquoting me! See my Post #285:
'As Thomas Jefferson noted, a government that can "judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself" is limited only by its own "discretion, and not the Constitution.'
I quoted that same misquote just above. -- Do try to keep up.
Marshall was not a "loose constructionist". He was the first real Constitutionalist on the bench. -- And he said so in Marbury.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (celebrating the 100th anniversary of Mr. Justice Marshall's appointment to the high court), quoted by Max Lerner, The Mind and Faith of Justice Holmes, 1943 Marshall was indeed a "loose constructionist."
So what? Marshalls Marbury opinion belies that position.
He was known as such two centuries ago (by the Jeffersonian republicans); recognized as such a century ago (by his peers on the high court); and he is remembered as such today – by anyone with any common sense and even a rudimentary knowledge of history (which apparently excludes you ;>).
So you and his opponents claim.. But Marshalls clear words in Marbary belie you all.
Your pitiful misquote at the start of this post shows how desperate you are to make believe that it's "obvious".
I understand that these men were political opponents. This did not make them Constitutional opponents. They all put the principles of our Constitution over ALL levels of government, & said so.
Actually, this is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about Marshall's court and the rest of the Federalist-dominated judiciary:
"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric." ;>)
Big deal. I think Jefferson was one of our greatest Presidents. But he was a mean spirited politician at times.
-- So: -- anything else new in your statist view of the world?
How about this?
"… [E]ach [State as a] party [to the constitutional compact] has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions [of the Constitution] as of the mode and measure of redress."
Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798
I'm sure that's "new" to you… ;>)
Nope, not new at all. I was trying to tell you previously that Montana has an equal right to judge for itself infractions of the Constitution. -- You disagreed then. -- Now you agree that they can fight that 1934 'Act'?
Good, you do seem to be learning a bit.
As I stated, it is not a “misquote” (except, perhaps, to your fevered imagination ;>). Unlike you, I have no trouble ‘keeping up’ – the trouble seems to be with your ability to read & comprehend simple English.
;>)
So what? Marshalls Marbury opinion belies that position.
Mr. Justice Marshall’s opinion does not ‘belie that position’ – “[r]easoned discourse is not your strong suit, is it?”
;>)
So you and his opponents claim.. But Marshalls clear words in Marbary belie you all.
I was quoting one of Mr. Justice Marshall’s ‘friends,’ not an “opponent.” And “Marshalls clear words in Marbary (sic)” support my position, not yours. “[Y]ou can't understand Marshalls fundamental logic, -- and no one here can understand yours, poor thing.”
Your pitiful misquote at the start of this post shows how desperate you are to make believe that it's "obvious".
It was a “misquote” only to you - and other tin-foil-wearing ‘nut cases’ like you...
;>)
[Thomas Jefferson] was a mean spirited politician at times.
“You seem to have an almost personal animosity to the man... What's your real beef here?”
;>)
I was trying to tell you previously that Montana has an equal right to judge for itself infractions of the Constitution. -- You disagreed then. -- Now you agree that they can fight that 1934 'Act'?
Good, you do seem to be learning a bit.
LOL! Your ability to read has obviously not improved! I NEVER disagreed “that Montana has an equal right to judge for itself infractions of the Constitution” – and I invite you to prove me wrong, with specific quotes and links. I simply stated that Montana was unlikely to succeed before the high court, if it chose to pursue a ‘commerce clause’ case. You would learn a bit more, if you actually learned to read...
;>)
All hail the juristocracy! Tremble before their unchallenged power!
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.