Posted on 06/21/2019 1:50:41 PM PDT by reaganaut1
In Marbury, SCOTUS faced a question of its own jurisdiction. There wwere two authorities jocking for superiority on that question. One authority was the constitution, which did not confer jurisdiction to SCOTUS for this case, the other was a statute that could be read to give jurisdiction. SCOTUS decided the constitution was superior to the stature, and found that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the case.
“DC has become the land of non-law.”
Yep, all too many of our lawyers and judges are glorified outlaws.
Delegation of the writing of law is a big problem
Are you sure we’re not cousins? We think a lot alike.
You’re not saying that the standards we have now are good are you?
While you’re at it, a minimum age of 40 for every elected office. On principle, no one should enter politics as a profession. Only enter politics as public service, after you have created a life for yourself.
I will make the argument
What is to stop a Committee from setting up a group of experts to come up with the standards, the committee voting the standards out of committee and submitting for a floor vote like the do so many other things?
The reason they don’t is because the do not want todo the work nor take the responsibility.
Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRENEAUbanking.html
6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt,...
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”- Declaration
Unelected bureaucrats writing law is one the primary traits of a dictatorship. The first step free men must make is not recognizing that unlawful authority. You can read all about it in our Declaration of Independence.
Once the fat cows and sows in the bureaucracy realize that citizens no longer recognize them and their illegal activities, they’ll jump into their rabbit holes and disappear.
I think you are correct.
Yes: Most of the bureaucracies violate States’ Rights.
There should never have been a Federal police farce (sic), the Federal Investigation Bureau [FIB].
The New Deal and the Great Society are unconstitutional.
“Most of the government is unconstitutional” has been around as an argument for decades. It also goes nowhere, because it never goes deeper. So here is how to do so.
1) First chart those parts of government that are clearly “originalist” constitutional.
2) Then chart those parts of government that are clearly unconstitutional contrivances.
3) Even by the time of the US Civil War, it was recognized that the constitution was full of bad concepts that needed reform. So when the Confederate States of America wrote their own constitution, they included a bunch of these reforms, many of which had nothing to do with slavery.
4) Just because much of the government is unconstitutional does not mean that it is not important, popular or justifiable. So the most important of these should be included in a “constitutional amendment omnibus” that would make those listed constitutional.
Could you provide a link for us non legal eagle types? Thanks
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
Thomas Jefferson, 1791
*
"...[W]hether the phrases in question be construed to authorize every measure relating to the common defence and general welfare, as contended by some; or every measure only in which there might be an application of money, as suggested by the caution of others; the effect must substantially be the same, in destroying the import and force of the particular enumeration of powers which follow these general phrases in the Constitution. For it is evident that there is not a single power whatever, which may not have some reference to the common defence, or the general welfare; nor a power of any magnitude, which, in its exercise, does not involve or admit an application of money."
James Madison, 1799
*
"That man must be a deplorable idiot who does not see that there is no earthly difference between an unlimited grant of power, and a grant limited in its [ends], but accompanied with unlimited means of carrying it into execution."
Spencer Roane, 1819
*
"As ends may be made to beget means, so means may be made to beget ends, until the cohabitation shall rear a progeny of unconstitutional bastards, which were not begotten by the people..."
John Taylor, 1820
“And for good reason. To run a functional, modern government, Congress has no choice but to delegate authority and discretion to federal agencies.”
This is crux if it. So wrong. States were supposed to do it, and they could do it a lot better than federal bureaucrats and the federal police state thugs.
Police power is shared between states and the federal government. But States are much in a much better to police citizens. That’s because we can vote for AGs, DAs, sheriffs, and judges at the local, circuit and state level. No popular control exists at the federal level so we end up with a federal police and judicial dictatorship.
There is no real political solution to the problem of the police state and federal judicial dictatorship. The executive can’t really do anything. As JFK said to paraphrase, when peaceful political change is impossible, violent political change is inevitable.
Yes - but the NYTs is upset that SCOTUS might stop the real unconstitutional takeover by the practices of the Congress by not allowing agencies the power to determine things that aren’t spelled out in the way they run - or don’t run - roughshod over the People...
Can you name one that is not?
That’s a good point, Pontiac. I have suggested an idea in the past that is similar to yours and would meet constitutional scrutiny: Congress can defer to experts in executive branch agencies in specialized matters, but ultimately Congress must pass the applicable expert recommendations into law themselves.
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.