Here's a painless way to help push FR over the top.
FREEPATHON
by the numbers
moving the last piece
Posted on 09/09/2015 5:48:19 AM PDT by Whenifhow
Princeton University professor Robert George contended in a new video published online Tuesday that a “common misunderstanding” has led to a “serious erosion” of freedom in America.
George, a professor of jurisprudence, asked at the outset of the video: “How does the Constitution of the United States seek to preserve liberty and prevent tyranny?”
The professor said that most of his students would likely answer that the founders passed the Bill of Rights, leaving the Supreme Court with the power to enforce those rights.
George contended that answer was wrong, saying, “That misunderstanding has led to a serious erosion of our freedom.”
Instead, the professor argued that the Bill of Rights were “hotly debated” because many feared it “would actually undermine the main protections against tyranny.” According to George, the Constitution’s call for a “limited nature of the national government” was itself the chief protection against tyranny.
“The Constitution did not envision a national government of general jurisdiction … but rather a government of enumerated and delegated powers. A government that had authority over only specific areas of American life,” he said, adding that “all other powers” were reserved to the states or “American people themselves.”
George said that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have failed to curtail the growth of the federal government and that the Supreme Court has failed to keep the other two legislative and executive branches in check, resulting in a loss of freedom for the American people.
Princeton Prof: ‘Common Misunderstanding’ of Constitution Has Led to ‘Serious Erosion’ of Freedom
5:33 Minutes
Why we are losing our liberty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIfgD6_hofI
This professor sounds like he gets it.
It was the later amendments that gave the federal government near limitless power, especially the ones forced upon the nation by force after the civil war.
Add to the mix the concept of judicial review, which was invented out of whole cloth by the Marshall Court.
The Supreme Court itself has crippled freedom, writing laws by 5-4 votes of unelected Supreme Court justices who have lifetime tenure. That was a huge mistake by the Founders, who probably thought generations of Americans would never allow such a thing to happen (though Jefferson warned against a dictatorial Court). They underestimated what a nation of placid cows we have become, standing behind fences while the federal government milks us dry.
If it has its defects, it is said, they can be best amended when they are experienced. But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.
How far the clause in the 8th section of the 1st article may operate to do away all idea of confederated states, and to effect an entire consolidation of the whole into one general government, it is impossible to say. The powers given by this article are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing almost any law. A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, is a power very comprehensive and definite [indefinite?], and may, for ought I know, be exercised in a such manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures. Suppose the legislature of a state should pass a law to raise money to support their government and pay the state debt, may the Congress repeal this law, because it may prevent the collection of a tax which they may think proper and necessary to lay, to provide for the general welfare of the United States? For all laws made, in pursuance of this constitution, are the supreme lay of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of the different states to the contrary notwithstanding. — By such a law, the government of a particular state might be overturned at one stroke, and thereby be deprived of every means of its support.
It is not meant, by stating this case, to insinuate that the constitution would warrant a law of this kind; or unnecessarily to alarm the fears of the people, by suggesting, that the federal legislature would be more likely to pass the limits assigned them by the constitution, than that of an individual state, further than they are less responsible to the people. But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontroulable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers. And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all. It must be very evident then, that what this constitution wants of being a complete consolidation of the several parts of the union into one complete government, possessed of perfect legislative, judicial, and executive powers, to all intents and purposes, it will necessarily acquire in its exercise and operation.
Let us now proceed to enquire, as I at first proposed, whether it be best the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, or not? It is here taken for granted, that all agree in this, that whatever government we adopt, it ought to be a free one; that it should be so framed as to secure the liberty of the citizens of America, and such an one as to admit of a full, fair, and equal representation of the people. The question then will be, whether a government thus constituted, and founded on such principles, is practicable, and can be exercised over the whole United States, reduced into one state?
Anti-federalist: Brutus #1
I sure hope this guy has tenure, because the ultra flaming lib "professors" there, which is everyone else, will demand his head!
Good message.
Any way to preempt Entertainment TV, BET, Univision, and ESPN with this video looped about 72 hours so the Low Information crowd might learn something?
72 hours wouldn’t be long enough.
How did these radical fundamentals ever slip into other than the mathematics department at Princeton?
SCOTUS meddling in social hot button issues is its own doing, and as you suggest, the 14th amendment has been abused. That's where the right to abortion and the right to homosexual marriage were found.
I think the federal progressive income tax is also troublesome, and if undoing the 16th amendment would result in making progressive income tax unconstitutional, I'm all for repeal of the 16th amendment.
Sadly, all of that as well as the OP is wishful thinking. All three branches of the federal government are in cahoots to increase the size, power, and influence of the federal government. Taken in light of the constitution, the federal government is as legitimate as the Mafia is. It rules by brute force and intellectual dishonesty.
If I were advising president Cruz on Supreme Court nominations, respect for the Enumerated Powers and all ten articles in the Bill of Rights would be absolute requirements.
To be more precise: Federal judicial review of the constitution was introduced by Marshall. There has always been judicial review in the Anglo-Saxon world. That is what we call "Common Law". Marshall's ruling was about who gets to review what.
Jefferson questioned whether there should even be such a thing as a federal common law. He was wrong in this as there has to be leeway for federal judges to interpret federal law and to compare current cases to previous cases if they are to apply law sensibly and consistently. Marshall's transgression was in extending this power of interpretation to the constitution itself. It must be remembered that the constitution is an agreement among the states. The federal government is not a party to it.
So where do federal judges get the power to interpret their own boundaries? Some like to point to the supremacy clause in the constitution as giving federal courts this power. But again remember that the constitution was adopted by the states as an agreement among themselves. The supremacy clause is a pledge among the states that their state supreme courts will treat the federal constitution as superior to their own. It is not a charter for the federal courts to rule the state courts. Note the supremacy clause doesn't say a damn thing about the federal courts.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
You can thank the 14th amendment for that expanded judicial reach into all aspects of American life.
Another person who gets it. Ping to you other guys who don't want to believe it.
If I were advising president Cruz on Supreme Court nominations...”
You know, I’m thinking that PResident Cruz might be one chief exec who can handle this part of the job on his own!
(Can you imagine being a Court of Appeals judge getting interviewed by Cruz for SCOTUS? He would know their written opinions better than they do!)
Another person who gets it. Another ping to you guys who are still figuring out the problem.
Bookmark
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.