Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
So, for every NHS health horror you hear, just remember that if they wanted *better* care, they could get it. It’s all a matter of priorities.

That's true, of course, but it's like schooling in the United States. Once you've paid thousands of dollars in school taxes, it's not always easy to come up with private school tuition.

It's a crime to have to pay twice for good schooling or for good medical care.

14 posted on 12/18/2010 2:39:03 PM PST by BfloGuy (It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: BfloGuy

I’ve a good solution for that.

Ever since the 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators, the States have had no effective way of refusing federal interference, from congress, the president and the bureaucracy, and the courts.

So a constitutional amendment is needed to create a Second Court of the United States. Not a federal court, but composed of 100 legislature appointed State judges. They do not determine if a case is constitutional, because that is the purpose of federal appellate courts. Instead, they decide whether the case itself should be in federal court in the first place, or whether it should be returned to the State of origin.

This would mean that of the thousands of cases that pass through the federal dockets, federal judges could typically consider their constitutionality, first, but then it would be up to the Second Court to decide if the issue was important enough to be there in the first place.

Right now, the federal district courts send up about 8,000 appeals to the Supreme Court every year, of which they can only hear a dozen or two. If they can’t the decision of the district court is final—but also there is the assumption that it should have been a federal case in the first place.

The other purpose of the Second Court of the United States would be to have original jurisdiction over any lawsuits between the federal government and the States. This would mean that first crack at the lawsuit would be by the States, not the federal government, which is inclined right now to take the federal government’s point of view.

More than anything else, a 2nd Court would act like a permanent trimming mechanism against excessive federal growth and overreach. Not just new growth, but existing growth. Thus giving the States the power to reduce the size of the federal government, since it seems incapable of controlling its appetites.


15 posted on 12/18/2010 3:21:39 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson