Posted on 03/22/2005 2:39:13 PM PST by P_A_I
In Marbury vs Madison Jefferson Saw the Beginning of Judicial Tyranny
Early in his career Jefferson was concerned for the independence of the judiciary in order that it be strong and to prevent injustice.
However, when the federalists focused their efforts on the transfer to Washington of the power reserved in the Constitution to the States, using the power that they had obtained in the judiciary, he began to view with alarm the subversion of the judiciary and its independence of the nation. To the prevention of their objective Jefferson devoted the rest of his life. The following quotations may be found in Jefferson: Magnificent Populist, by Martin Larson, pp 136-142
Judicial tyranny was the subject of many of his letters ...
"--- BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." — Letter to Mrs. John Adams, Nov. 1804
"--- This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … .
But the Chief Justice says, "there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere."
True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …." — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823
A Constitutional Amendment to Thwart Judicial Tyranny?
More than once Jefferson expressed his desire for a Constitutional amendment that would clearly block the power the judiciary had unconstitutionally usurped, which they began to do in 1805, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, and got away with it.
But the Constitution did not give the judiciary power to legislate, nor to decide for the other branches what is, or is not, constitutional. That is a power they left with the people, according to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:
-- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. -- Amendment IX
-- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Amendment X
Is there anyone on the political scene today who understands about judicial tyranny and has a plan to do something about it?
See my last line at #18 about what Montana intends .
the point is that the Constitution is being manipulated rather than interpreted, and this is a threat to the Union.
Yep, and if enough people in enough States threaten to do what Montana proposes, we can stop the manipulation..
But anyway, the Federalists were the conservatives. The Jeffersonians supported the French Revolution.
Ninth Amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people."
Suppose you, a member of the people, enjoy having a hamburger, french fries, and coke daily. A right, easily classified as a right "retained by the people." (Or even the decision to wear a seat belt or not)
The majority of the people decide one day, to petition their federal government to deny you this culinary delight, for "health" reasons, for example.
Does that mean you no longer have a constitutionally protected, unenumerated right that supposedly cannot be denied or disparged because now the majority does not want you to have that right?
Doesn't seem logical to me or for that matter being free and living with the blessing of liberty that the Constitution, whether federal or state, was supposed to protect.
Obviously there is a conflict between a law and a covenant of a Constitution.
There has to be an arbiter.
If the majority does not like the decisions of the judges, the people shoud initiate their constitutional right and AMEND the constitution to enact the law that was held unconstitutional by a judge(s) or impeach the judge(s).
That is the proper procedure and remedy to protect the rights of all of the citizens.
I thought only socialist/communist democrats used polling data showing the majoirty of Americans want their government to take action in an unconstitutional manner.
I've seen no one that is seriously arguing that '--- the Constitution gave the judiciary power to legislate, or to dictate for the other branches what is, or is not, constitutional.'
True enough, -- the ultimate arbiter is the people. "-- That is a power they left with the people, according to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments -- "
Given the assumption of a federal government limited to a specific set of enumerated powers, what choice do they have?
If Congress attempts to act outside the scope of those powers, then finding that action unconstitutional is implicitly turning the decision over to the people.
And the Court [either faction] has no intention of allowing THAT to happen.--
--- That's my point about States like Montana forcing a Constitutional showdown.
They alone hold the authority to expand the powers of Congress, and there are specific and explicit means provided for doing just that.
The USSC may dream that it holds that 'expansive' power, -- but I doubt it can be used without a constitutional crisis.
They did quite a piece of work with the Commerce Clause, and the politicians seem to have managed to get most of the populace pounded into submission or bribed into complicity.
Surprisingly, Marshall addressed just that issue in Marbury.. He said that:
. " -- 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. -- "
Doesn't seem logical to me or for that matter being free and living with the blessing of liberty that the Constitution, whether federal or state, was supposed to protect. Obviously there is a conflict between a law and a covenant of a Constitution.
There has to be an arbiter.
If the majority does not like the decisions of the judges, the people should initiate their constitutional right and AMEND the constitution to enact the law that was held unconstitutional by a judge(s) or impeach the judge(s).
And, -- [catch 22], we cannot 'amend away' rights that are repugnant to Constitutional principles, -- as Marshall sees it..
That is the proper procedure and remedy to protect the rights of all of the citizens.
I thought only socialist/communist democrats used polling data showing the majority of Americans want their government to take action in an unconstitutional manner.
Most of them are so stupid on constitutional issues that they know not what they do..
The USSC may dream that it holds that 'expansive' power, -- but I doubt it can be used without a constitutional crisis.
They did quite a piece of work with the Commerce Clause,
Yep and now that clause is being challenged by Montana.. -- If the Court is forced to hold that the '33 'Act' is Constitutional, the crap will hit the fan.
and the politicians seem to have managed to get most of the populace pounded into submission or bribed into complicity.
But you can't fool all of the people all of the time..
Well, if Jefferson were alive today, the power assumed by courts would surely drop him dead where he stands.
Well, if Jefferson were alive today, the power assumed by courts would surely drop him dead where he stands.
Yep, -- that's no doubt true..
I wonder though, how he would have felt about the State of Virgina having the 'power' to peek into he & Sally's bedroom?
You'd have to show me the law before I comment.
True enough. But even here you can find Koolaid on tap if you look for it.
You'd have to show me the law before I comment.
Just for drill, - lets assume it was the same as the one ruled unconstitutional in Laurence v Texas..
I doubt old Jeff would have wanted such a 'law' applied to him..
bump
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.