Replies

"But can they be made unchangeable? Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will. The dead are not even things. The particles of matter which composed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other animals, vegetables, or minerals, of a thousand forms. To what then are attached the rights and powers they held while in the form of men? A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

You are committing a fallacy here. I believe it's called the "substitution fallacy", but I don't remember for sure.

You are equating the position that laws mean something into an assertion that we want laws to be unchangeable. There is no quibble with future generation's abilities to change laws, the quibble is about doing it up front and with the consent of all relevant parties, or doing it with word twisting and deceit to thwart the original intent.

"Gay Marriage" is an example of deceit. They deliberately misinterpret thousands of years of Social and legal norms into something that it was never meant to be, and do so in a manner to deliberately thwart the will of the people.

They do this sort of thing all the time, and it mostly started with the Roosevelt Administration and his Kook judge parade.

Jefferson did not like John Marshall and Jefferson did not agree with the Supreme Court's power-grabbing decision in Marbury v. Madison.

I argue this point with a friend all the time. My position is that someone has to decide constitutionality, and who better for that task then the body tasked with weighing legal matters?

Would you give this power to the executive? Would you allow the executive branch to decide if something was constitutional or not?

How than could you stop illegal searches? All the executive has to do is declare them "not illegal."

Would you give this power to congress? They routinely make anti-constitutional laws, and don't ever seem to have the wit to realize that's what they are doing. Either that, or they just don't care.

No, the court's may abuse this power, but I don't see where else it can rest but the courts. I perceive it as being far more likely to be abused by the other branches of government than it would by the courts.

I hate the idiocy that is our modern court system, but as a foundational concept, I see the structure of our government as needing this check and from that body. I think we just need to make the courts more responsive to the people.

The founders deliberately insulated the courts from the passions of the people, but I think they did not consider the degree to which this would create these petty tyrannies and partisan results in the courts.

Ted Cruz has the right idea. Make Federal judges stand for election every six years. It may not be perfect, but I see it as better than what we have now.

"The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in...the federal judiciary;" -T.J.-

I believe that Jefferson would state that every generation can define marriage as they wish. In fact, I believe he would go further and state that it is none of our business how people 100 years from now want to define marriage.

Would you give this power to the executive? Would you allow the executive branch to decide if something was constitutional or not?

I would insist that the executive decide whether something is constitutional or not before acting.

How than could you stop illegal searches? All the executive has to do is declare them "not illegal."

I would insist that judges (like all other constitutional actors) consider the constitutionality of what they do before they do it. If a court believes that a prosecutor is attempting to admit into evidence items that were recovered by an unconstitutional search, the court should refuse to allow the prosecutor to do so. The court should not permit its operations to be tainted by unconstitutional conduct. In other words, the court (as a co-equal branch of government) has the inherent power to refuse to participate in unconstitutional activities.

If the Executive is conducting illegal searches and not attempting to use the materials in court, the Congress would retain the power to cut off funding for the activity and/or the courts can award damages to parties who are injured by such illegal conduct. I think if you consider various potential problems, you will find that most government activity will require the tacit support of at least two of the branches to sustain it over a period of time. The key is that every branch has an obligation to consider its constitutional responsibilities.

Would you give this power to congress? They routinely make anti-constitutional laws, and don't ever seem to have the wit to realize that's what they are doing. Either that, or they just don't care.

I would insist that the Congress decide whether something is constitutional or not before acting. The fact that the Congress passes an unconstitutional law does not mean that other branches have to participate in its enforcement. Each branch should be considering the constitutionality of what it is doing.

You will look long and hard before you find any provision in the constitution that states that the judiciary has greater power than other branches to interpret the constitution. This why Jefferson regarded Marbury v. Madison as a judicial usurpation.