The History of the Supreme Court

CBN 700 Club ^ | Jily 10, 2003 | David Barton

[KriegerGeist]

I wish we could get back to the good old days.

[Support Free Republic]

There's A Better Way To Beat The Media Clymers (And You Don't Have To Skate)!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[CobaltBlue]

The sculptures on the outside and inside of the SCOTUS building include many historical and allegorical figures, including Solon, Hammurabi, Confucius, and other historical law-givers, not just Moses.

No Establishment problem as long as you don't favor one religion over any other.

[f.Christian]

i>The problem is that the govt has also violated the Establishment Clause by embracing atheism as the national religion - another Constitutional violation.

Religion // science NAZIS --- SS evolutionbots !

The Mother of ALL constitutional violations !

[Grand Old Partisan]

Speaking of Supreme Court history, for a while during the Civil War there were 10 Justices. A southern Justice remained on the bench, so not wanting to lose any 5-4 decsions because of a possible rebel sympathizer, the Republican-majority Congress added a tenth Justice. Later, to keep Democrat President Andrew Johnson from naming any Justices, the Republican-majority Congress reduced the number of Justices on the bench from 9 to 8 and then from 8 to 7.

See http://www.republicanbasics.com for more information.

[f.Christian]

The problem is that the govt has also violated the Establishment Clause by embracing atheism as the national religion - another Constitutional violation.

Religion // science NAZIS --- SS evolutionbots !

The Mother of ALL constitutional violations --- ABOMINATIONS !

[foreverfree]

bump

[Eala]

David says now is a critical time to persevere in prayer for our courts to return to the godly system on which they were founded.

It wouldn't be enough. Too many other things are broken.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

The Third Ammendment to the US Constitution not only allows for, but requires the President of the United States to imprison Supreme Court justices at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for indefinate periods at the President's discresion.

Heh, as long as the "interpretation game" is being played, why not have the President play it, too? Put the fear of God back into these black-robed bastards.

[justshutupandtakeit]

This is a superficial article which implies some things that are not true. Only in a Democracy, not a representative republic, would the will of the majority prevail. If the will of the majority is opposed to the Court's rulings it matters not until 3/4s of the states amend the constitutional basis for those rulings. Only a Super Majority matters and even then, only after the constitution is amended to reflect that opinion.

The founders hardly meant for the Court to be some tagalong third wheel. It is a Separate BUT Equal branch of government designed to play a role on equal terms with the other two.

Nor is complaining about the Court's rulings anything new. John Marshall almost drove Jefferson over the edge with his rulings. J. tried to remove Justice Chase and might have succeded but for Aaron Burr (of all people) actually holding a trial rather than a Kangaroo Court (as J wanted.) He was impeached but not found guilty.

Then the Fugitive Slave rulings and Dred Scott decisions infuriated almost all but the Slavers because of their blatant ignoring of the Constititution.

Getting P.O.ed at the Court is an old American tradition.

[CGVet58]

bump read later

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

"Getting P.O.ed at the Court is an old American tradition."

Getting RID of the Court needs to become a new American tradition. If swallowing the crap squatted out by this 9-member Judicial Junta is your idea of a constitutional republic, then you need to study history a tad more.

[theDentist]

The Third Ammendment to the US Constitution not only allows for, but requires the President of the United States to imprison Supreme Court justices at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for indefinate periods at the President's discresion.

Are you drunk?

AMENDMENT III:
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by laws.

[exmarine]

David Barton is a good egg.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

Are you drunk? AMENDMENT III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by laws.

I know damned well what the Third Ammendment says. I also have the balls to "reinterpret" it to mean "get rid of the black-robed bastards" who dispense their bull#$%% "rulings" and "reinterpret" the rest of the Constitution. Too bad Dubya doesn't, as well.

[exmarine]

No Establishment problem as long as you don't favor one religion over any other.

Fine, then write a letter to SCOTUS demanding that they put a stop to the govt. endorsement of atheism.

I might add that the founders were concerned with A FEDERAL STATE religion, and the thrust of the 1st Amendment was concerned with DENOMINATIONS (Christian), not religions in general.

[justshutupandtakeit]

All I need do is read the Constitution, which apparently you haven't, and that tells me the Court is part of the Republic.

No ruling the present court has made (and it has made some bad ones) comes any where close to the Dred Scott abomination at any rate.

Since Congress still has the power to control the Court under the "Exceptions Clause" it can overturn its rulings but has always been too cowardly to do so. The Court makes a convenient whipping Boy for the politicians.

[exmarine]

If the will of the majority is opposed to the Court's rulings it matters not until 3/4s of the states amend the constitutional basis for those rulings. Only a Super Majority matters and even then, only after the constitution is amended to reflect that opinion.

Well, if you want to get super-legalistic about it, then you can explain by what Constitutional authority the courts are legislating and making laws (e.g. forced busing, sodomy ok, etc.), since only CONGRESS has this authority. And you can also explain where in the Founder's writings we can find the "wall of separation" doctrine - I've studied it and strange as it is, I can't find it anywhere.

[exmarine]

You are right about the Exceptions Clause. I wrote my Rep. a letter demanding action under this authority. If the present Congress does not act, I will no longer vote Republican since they are ignoring their legal and moral duty under the oaths they swore. That goes for Bush too - he actually came out IN FAVOR of that horrid ruling on Michigan race preferences. Bush's lustre is wearing off very fast for me.

[theDentist]

Hillary, up your dosage.