Replies

How interesting that you conclude that every Supreme Court Justice from John Jay, who was a delegate and elected President of Continental Congress before being the first Supreme Court Chief Justice to Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia either haven’t the intellect of a grade school student or are attempting usurp power. Such a broad generalization certainly causes one to wonder about the source of that generalization.

That wasn't my conclusion at all. I certainly don't think that the usurpations of powers was the result of a lack of intellect but a desire for power.

From your post 100: The functions are clearly spelled out...so clearly in fact that a grade school student could read the constitution and derive it's meaning.

I also never concluded that every Supreme Court case is by default a usurpation of power.

I don’t recall that anyone posited that you had so concluded.

Only where the Supreme Court decision conflict with the text of the constitution. There are, unfortunately, enough of those without going to the extreme of "all". The broad generalization is yours sir, but I will not subtle gibes about the source.

“All” of those justices (from John Jay’s time to this) have been involved in decisions that have “interpreted” the Constitution involving situations where the “text” of the document or its meaning was in dispute. By definition, if there was a dispute there was a conflict involving the “text of the Constitution.” So, are we to conclude that “all” of those justices (not “all” of the cases) have such a desire for power that they resort to intellectual dishonesty?

Again, do you not find it amazing that all of those learned men, some of whom were contributors to the Constitution, could be involved in twisting the meaning of plain text as an excuse for some power grab.

Again the broad generalization is yours.

The generalization is based as follows: The Supreme Court has been deciding interpretations of the Constitution since John Jay’s first court. Both the executive and legislative branches have questioned the Constitutional validity of many of these interpretations from the very first one to now. Every Supreme Court justice has been involved in deciding some Constitutional issue during his or her tenure. Every decision has involved an interpretation. Consequently, the generalization is accurate, based upon your postulates.

Of course I should find it amazing that some learned people lust for power but I realized that it is unfortunately the nature of some people despite their education or knowledge. These people tend to be attracted to government.

Because you used the qualifier, some, I cannot quarrel with your statement directly. However, for your statement to carry weight, the term, some, would actually have to be changed to a majority since that is what it takes to have a binding court decision. Now, it would seem that you are alleging that the majority of these learned individuals so lust for power that they are willing to be intellectually dishonest. Is this what you intended?

…It would seem to me that if any of the Constitution is law, it, all, is law unless specifically so specified within the document, itself. I found nothing in the Constitution that specifies that the Preamble is excepted from the status of the rest of the document.

The preamble gives a basic out line of the intentions of the constitution but doesn't confer powers. If it did confer power from inference there wouldn't be a need for the rest of the document actually enumerating powers. Further if one were to actually believe that the preamble inferred powers then one would also have to believe that our government power is unlimited. It's a truly sophomoric argument.

We the people of the United States, … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You don’t find that these words confer power? Without them the rest of the document would be philosophically meaningless.

Contrary to your assertion it is not the government’s power that the Preample implies is unlimited, it is We the people of the United States. Far from “sophomoric,” as you assert, the Preamble is what gives the remainder of the document its authority (ordains and establishes). It not only has the “force of law,” it is the law.

It would seem that there is a difference of interpretation of the “specifically enumerated powers” listed in the Constitution. Whether you agree, or not, there are numerous court cases over disputes about, exactly, what is the “clear meaning,” and, exactly, what are the “specifically enumerated powers.” …

As I stated earlier, the cases where the outcome is expanded power beyond the specifically enumerated powers is the result of ambition for more power not "sincere disagreements". Is does not fall within the authority of the Judicial branch to change the constitution or to make law.

Absent an issue of original jurisdiction, modern cases do not make it to the Supreme Court unless lower courts have first ruled on the dispute and usually there have been disagreements among the various appellate courts or different circuits. No appellate judge specifically decides cases so that he or she may be overturned on appeal (with the possible exception of the Ninth Circuit). Consequently, it can safely be stated that the differences are, in deed, “sincere disagreements.”

While you make think that the justices are changing the Constitution, for them to intentionally do so, would be a violation of their oath. If such were true, it is, not only, intellectual dishonesty, but perjury and false swearing. If such were the case, Congress has the power under the Constitution to impeach and remove the offending judges. As a matter of fact there are federal judges (usually lower court judges) that are so removed on a routine basis. Consequently, it must be concluded that the elected members of Congress do not disagree enough with the decision to see the issue as a violation of the justice’s oath.

First, let us be clear, it is not my theory of the Constitution. I had no part in inventing or developing it, only studying it. …

You have adopted this theory and you advocate it thus it is now "yours" for the benefit of discussion.

Very well, if you insist, I accept your terminology for the duration of the discussion.

Nonetheless, the situation is as we find it. As I have noted, there are mechanisms within the Constitution short of the amendment process to change the situation, if those who disagree can muster the requisite political will and power to make it so. Beyond that, you have also noted the amendment process… There are, now, 27 such amendments on record, so it safe to conclude that the process works.

Other then the amendment process there is no constitutional way to change the Constitution. Just because the government has made a business of usurping powers through unconstitutional means doesn't make those means constitutional.

If you had read the Constitutional references I cited (Article I, section 7 and Article III, section 2), you would have seen that I was not referring to changing the Constitution. Rather, those references were how Congress can change the courts so as to prevent what you think is the usurpation of power. If you and others are so ardently convinced that the courts are usurping Constitutional power, then all that is necessary is for you, and they, to muster the requisite political will and power to make it so.

Let's not start playing words games that detract from the discussion. My point, which I though was quite clear, is that any decisions which expanded government's power, from the first supreme court (although I doubt you can find a decision from the first supreme court which expanded the power of government) until the current court, beyond those powers specifically enumerated, is blatantly unconstitutional. I wasn't calling any specific supreme court justices stupid and/or power mad nor was I calling all supreme court justices stupid and/or power mad. For that matter I wasn't calling the individuals who brought any cases to the supreme court stupid or power mad. After all justices don't make up cases to decide. That isn't to say that the general majority of "disputes" over the "meaning" of the constitution are intellectually dishonest conflicts with a very different motive then seeking clarity. Further, such decisions do not usually lead to a broad grant of power that doesn't exist in the text of the constitution.

However, for your statement to carry weight, the term, some, would actually have to be changed to a majority since that is what it takes to have a binding court decision. Now, it would seem that you are alleging that the majority of these learned individuals so lust for power that they are willing to be intellectually dishonest. Is this what you intended?
The term "some" doesn't logically lead to a majority of justices in total but a majority of justices that are sitting on the bench at the time they formulated an unconstitutional decision.

We the people of the United States, … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You don’t find that these words confer power? Without them the rest of the document would be philosophically meaningless.
What power does it confer to government? I never stated the the preamble didn't have meaning just that it didn't confer any powers to government.

No appellate judge specifically decides cases so that he or she may be overturned on appeal (with the possible exception of the Ninth Circuit).
Quoted for humor

I would continue but it appears to me that you are shifting the discussion once again.
Your arguments are not so strong nor is your intellect so obviously superior that it justifies the consistent patronizing tone of your posts.