 |
 |
Posted on 11/14/2015 2:48:45 PM PST by ScottWalkerForPresident2016
And in a nation that elected Barack Obama twice, Scalia, Alito and Thomas could fail to be retained.
No thank you. I’ll go with the Framers’ original intent.
For state supreme courts a total of 38 states have some type of judicial elections. The breakdown of selection systems for state high courts is as follows:
Seven (7) states have partisan elections (AL, IL, LA, NC, PA, TX, WV; All judges in both Illinois and Pennsylvania run in uncontested retention elections for additional terms after winning a first term through a contested partisan election)
Fourteen (14) states have nonpartisan elections (AR, GA, ID, KY, MI, MN, MS, MT, NV, ND, OH, OR, WA, WI; Ohio and Michigan have nonpartisan general elections, but political parties are involved with the nomination of candidates, who frequently run with party endorsements)
Seventeen (17) states have uncontested retention elections after initial appointment (AK, AZ, CA, CO, FL, IN, IA, KS, MD, MO, NE, NM, OK, SD, TN, UT, WY; All judges in New Mexico are initially appointed, face a contested partisan election for a full term, and then run in uncontested retention elections for additional terms)
The remaining 12 states grant life tenure or use reappointment of some type for their highest courts (CT, DE, HI, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT, VA, SC)
In Alabama (for example), which has partisan elections for Supreme Court Justices and retention elections, all the Justices are Republicans and they voted 7-2 that the Alabama Secretary of State did not have the authority to investigate Barack Obama’s eligibility.
Except regarding citizenship. Then you insist we kept the rules of the Kingdom we broke away from.
I don't think you've given the concept nearly enough of the consideration which it deserves.
I'm not sure you are stating that accurately, I think they stated that the Secretary of State could not be COMPELLED to do so. It appears that they can do so if they want to, but the public can't make them do their jobs.
We know that the California Election people kicked Roger Caldero off the ballot for being born in Nicaruagua, so it's obvious that they can if they want to. We just can't MAKE them do so when they don't want to.
Apparently they have the same sort of discretionary powers as do the Obama puppet "justice" department in refusing to prosecute Lois Lerner.
What used to be regarded as "noble privilege."
No, I do not believe that I am debating Thomas Jefferson. I am quite certain that he believed that legislatures have the power to define marriage and I am quite certain that he would never have wanted to bind eternity to a static definition of any of our relationships. He would have opposed the Court's recent gay marriage decision because he did not believe, as many people believe, that courts should have the power to redefine marriage. Like him, I believe that legislatures should define these important relationships and that legislatures should determine when to change these definitions.
I also tend to agree with Jefferson about the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution. As I said before, I do not believe that the Constitution provides the judiciary with greater power than other branches to interpret the Constitution. In the link that I gave you in my last post, Jefferson put it this way:
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." - Thomas Jefferson
So all in all, even with the courts doing judicial review (and you didn't really answer who better should do it or why) they are still a poor third in terms of the power they wield.
Who should do judicial review? I think that everyone agrees that, by definition, courts should exercise judicial powers. That is why we call it the judicial branch. The disagreement concerns the proper scope of judicial powers.
There are many people who have bought into Marshall's argument that naturally the judicial branch should have the final say about "what the law is." As you can see from the quotes on that link that I gave you, Jefferson did not buy into that argument. And, I do not buy into that argument.
Unfortunately, most people have bought into Marshall's argument and that is why schoolchildren and adults are taught that the Supreme Court has the powers that it regularly exercises. Jefferson did not believe and I do not believe that the Supreme Court possesses the Constitutional power to decide that women have a constitutional right to abortion or that two men have a constitutional right to marry. Unfortunately, most people now accept the holding in Marbury and accept that it is part of the Court's job to find (create) such constitutional rights.
As I said in my last post, I believe that all three branches of the federal government have an obligation to determine the constitutionality of their conduct. I acknowledge, however, that the Supreme Court (beginning with the Marbury decision) has succeeded in convincing most people that the Court should have the final word because, well, just because. See, it is a court. They wear robes and who can deny that they are much better than everyone else at deciding things.
Jefferson did not let his anger about the Supreme Court's usurpation of power in Marbury wreck his life and I have not let my anger about it wreck my life. We just disagree with Marshall's opinion. Some people are very happy that unelected judges can create rights for people who cannot get legislatures to agree with them.
It is like everything else. I am unhappy with what the Court has been doing and other people are happy about it. But, life goes on. I take the bad with the good and I have to admit that I have been very lucky.
You've gone off the rails here my friend. If concepts are meaningless, laws are meaningless.
The word Matrimony means "Mother Ceremony". Mater means mother, just as Pater (as in Patriot) means Father.
How do two faggots make a "mother ceremony"?
If you are okay with bastardizing the meaning of words and bastardizing the meaning of concepts, then I am hard pressed to figure out how you are interested in "conserving" anything.
I do not think Thomas Jefferson would have been okay with "marriage" being redefined as same sex. He proposed a law to castrate homosexuals, you know.
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." - Thomas Jefferson
I think you and Jefferson are both wrong about this. Obviously Lincoln decided constitutional issues the way he wanted and he told the court to go F*** themselves. So did Andrew Jackson. Congress could do it too if they really wanted too. The court gets away with it at the pleasure of the other two branches.
As I said in my last post, I believe that all three branches of the federal government have an obligation to determine the constitutionality of their conduct.
And they do so when they wish. Most of the time they just don't want to do so.
Eisenhower thought the court was wrong about integration, but he didn't over ride them, even though he could. Instead, out of respect for the process, he backed them up with the national guard.
As I said in my last post, I believe that all three branches of the federal government have an obligation to determine the constitutionality of their conduct.
The beneficiaries, no doubt. The very people who would be happy marching all dissenters into camps. The people who have no concept of inherent rights and who support slavery when it suits their own ends.
Beats me. I have no clue and I am not even willing to spend to any time thinking about that.
See, we got on this topic because, at post 463, you provided me with a link to some quotes by Thomas Jefferson because you wanted me to become acquainted with Jefferson's opinion of Natural Law. So, I followed the link and read the quotations. One of the things he said concerned the importance that law be made changeable over time:
"But can they [laws] be made unchangeable? Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not." - Thomas Jefferson
At post 468, I agreed with Jefferson about that issue. Like him, I do not believe that we have any right to try to bind the world for all time to our views about anything. I still agree with Jefferson about that. We agree with the power of legislatures to change the rules over time. We do not believe that courts have that power. If he and I have "gone off the rails" because we do not believe that we should bind all eternity to our opinions, then we will just have to accept that fate.
I think you and Jefferson are both wrong about this.
Yes, that is correct. You do disagree with us about the proper role of courts. I am ok with that.
Changing law does not mean changing the meaning of words. That is Stalinistic.
We do not change the meaning of words. We do not change the meaning of understood concepts. If we don't like them, we use different words that mean what we like, and different concepts that suit us.
We follow a clearly laid out methodology for changing our laws. If we make changes without following this process we are committing Tyranny. We are usurping powers against the will of the people.
At post 468, I agreed with Jefferson about that issue. Like him, I do not believe that we have any right to try to bind the world for all time to our views about anything. I still agree with Jefferson about that.
Now you are repeating your incorrect reiteration of my and others position. No one is suggesting that people cannot change laws. They can change them to suit their heart's content.
The objection is to this underhanded backdoor deceit of changing the meaning of words, and then asserting the laws mean what those changed words say.
In other words, a propaganda technique to deliberately obfuscate a correct interpretation of something.
THAT is the thing to which we are objecting.
You want to change the law? Go through the process. If the Public doesn't support your attempt to change the law, too bad! Simply redefining the words or concept to mean something else is an effort to impose your will on others, and it ought not be tolerated.
Yes, that is correct. You do disagree with us about the proper role of courts. I am ok with that.
I disagree with an objection to a system without putting forth an explanation as to how it should be done another way.
If you have a better idea than Judicial review, let's hear it. If you don't, then you will have to learn to grasp what Winston Churchill meant about Democracy.
Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
If you don't think the courts should determine whether or not a law falls within the permissible allowance of the U.S. Constitution, then who do you think should do it?
And "nobody" isn't an answer. It is a task which needs to be done from time to time.
No one should disagree with you about that. Jefferson meant only that no generation should attempt to prevent future generations from changing the laws as they see fit. To most people that is obvious. To begin with, we will not be there to stop them. They will and should do as they wish.
I disagree with an objection to a system without putting forth an explanation as to how it should be done another way.
Jefferson believed and I believe that this country can function without granting to the judiciary more power than other branches or states to interpret the Constitution.
For example, in 1973, in a case called Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court claimed that it had the power to declare unconstitutional a Texas statute that made abortion illegal. I believe that this country could function without the Supreme Court having the power to do that. However, by 1973, most people had grown to accept that the Supreme Court has that power, even though, as Jefferson pointed out, that power is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
A few months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals have a constitutional right to get married. I believe that this country could function without the Supreme Court having the power to do that. Again, however, most people have grown to accept that the Supreme Court has that power, even though, as Jefferson pointed out, that power is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
All of this goes back to 1803, when the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison and declared that, why, of course, the Supreme Court should have the power to have the last and final say about what is or is not constitutional. Jefferson believed that that case constituted a usurpation of power that is not provided for in our Constitution. I agree with him. At post 479, I described how this country could function without a Supreme Court that has the last and final word about everything constitutional. How did we function before 1803?
If you don't think the courts should determine whether or not a law falls within the permissible allowance of the U.S. Constitution, then who do you think should do it?
I believe that a court should determine questions of constitutionality when that determination is necessary to perform a judicial function - to decide the case before it. If, for example, a prosecutor shows up and says, "Judge, we want to put this guy in a cage for 20 years, but we need this court to give us a piece of paper called Judgement of Conviction along with a sentence. We know that he is guilty because after we tortured him he confessed." In that case, the court should tell the prosecutor that he better have some other evidence because the court does not feel it can constitutionally rely upon a confession procured by torture and is unwilling to do so. That is an example of a court properly determining a question of constitutionality. The prosecutor goes home unhappy and the defendant goes home, too.
I will give you another example. The government attempts to prosecute a fellow for "willfully criticizing the mayor of our fine city." "And, judge, this statute says that it is illegal to say such things about our mayor. This guy is a no-good troublemaker." The judge could properly refuse to proceed with the case because he believes that he cannot constitutionally convict a defendant for exercising his First Amendment rights. That is another example of a court properly determining the constitutionality of a statute. And, if the next day, the prosecutor shows up with another defendant who cursed the mayor, the judge can send the prosecutor home again. A prosecutor of ordinary intelligence will soon catch on and all will be well in our fine city.
We could live under a system where courts restrain themselves. It is not necessary for them to be searching around for new rights and new definitions. I think Jefferson was right about Marbury.
I disagree that the Judiciary has more power. I just point out that they get away with crap because the other two branches won't shove it up their @$$ and break it off for them.
Congress or the President can reign them in anytime they decide to do so, but they never do. Federal Judges only have power to order law enforcement to force compliance, because the President does not countermand their orders.
Were the President to tell the Federal Marshalls to refuse to follow the orders of Federal Judges, what could the Federal Judges do about it except whine and scream?
However, by 1973, most people had grown to accept that the Supreme Court has that power, even though, as Jefferson pointed out, that power is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
It is axiomatic. It is inherent in the powers granted to the court, while not being specifically named. Just as the word "arms" covers bullets without the need to specifically mention bullets. The court weighs the correct application of laws. That is what it does. The Constitution is merely the highest of these laws to be weighed for application to cases.
A few months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals have a constitutional right to get married. I believe that this country could function without the Supreme Court having the power to do that.
That is not a power. That is a deliberate abuse of a power. That is lying, but they get away with it because the other two branches won't tell them to go F*** themselves.
Seriously, If I were President, I would order the Marshalls to refuse to enforce that order. I would inform the States that the court has lost it's F***ing mind, and it should henceforth be ignored, and no Federal action will be taken against any state which chooses to ignore that illegitimate decision.
I would then appeal to congress for the removal of all judges who voted to undermine our law.
That is an example of a court properly determining a question of constitutionality.
That is how it is supposed to work, and it still requires the court to sit in judgement over whether the restrictions of the US Constitution have been complied with.
In other words, you are supporting Judicial review, though you say you are against Judicial review.
You are a hard bird to follow.
We could live under a system where courts restrain themselves. It is not necessary for them to be searching around for new rights and new definitions. I think Jefferson was right about Marbury.
You can't have it both ways at the same time. You have to have Judicial review, and you have to depend on the other branches checking them when they get out of whack. We have a fault in the system, but the fault does not lie in the Judicial review area, it lies in the election process.
We allow Representatives and Senators to get elected that do not have the national interest at heart. We allow them to bribe the stupid and indolent portion of the population with government money, because we "touchy feely" enacted the 24th amendment, the 26th amendment, and while we are at it, the 19th amendment, all of which are disasters that have horribly disfigured what used to be a functional government.
And of course there is the 14th, which is another level of magnitude of a disaster.
Well, I might vote for you. You sound very thoughtful.
Of course, I will need to see your birth certificate first. ;-)
Since 1796 the executive and the legislative branches have ceded the power of judicial review to the judiciary.
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), is an early United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a yearly tax on carriages did not violate the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Clause 9 requirements for the apportioning of direct taxes. The Court concluded that the carriage tax was a form of indirect tax known as an excise (not requiring apportionment), instead of a direct tax requiring apportionment among the states by population. The Court noted that a tax on land was an example of a direct tax contemplated by the Constitution.
The case is also significant for being the first one heard by the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of an act of Congress. In choosing to uphold the tax, the Court exercised judicial review, although it refrained from overturning the statute. While many say that Marbury v. Madison was the first case in which the Supreme Court exercised judicial review, this is not true. Marbury v. Madison was simply the first case in which the Supreme Court ruled an act of Congress unconstitutional.—Wikipeda
(note: apostrophes and quotation marks were removed to eliminate HTML errors)
**************
You can delete the copied apostrophes/quotation marks and replace from your keyboard and
all should be okay. When you hit preview and the marks are slanted then they will post with
the garbage attached. If they are vertical, ‘ “, they will post normal.
Thank you. I had never before seen that case.
Of course, I will need to see your birth certificate first. ;-)
Which one? I have two of them. Do you want the one the state says is official, or do you want the real one?
:)
This is exactly what I was saying.
To be perfectly honest, neither had I! Your posts spurred me to research judicial review and I stumbled on to it.
“Great minds...!”
So, all President Jefferson could do was sit and watch. And seethe. He really disliked Chief Justice Marshall.
|
|
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.