Posted on 09/08/2002 9:43:03 AM PDT by tpaine
he whimpered.
Since you devoted an entire thread to me I was just trying to be nice for once.
From Lysander Spooner's "Letter to Grover Cleveland" (1886):
John Marshall has the reputation of having been the greatest jurist the country has ever had. And he unquestionably would have been a great jurist, if the two fundamental propositions, on which all his legal, political, and constitutional ideas were based, had been true.
These propositions were, first, that government has all power; and, secondly, that the people have no rights.
These two propositions were, with him, cardinal principles, from which, I think, he never departed.
For these reasons he was the oracle of all the rapacious classes, in whose interest the government was administered. And from them he got all his fame.
I think his record does not furnish a single instance, in which he ever vindicated men's natural rights, in opposition to the arbitrary legislation of congress.
He was chief justice thirty-four years: from 1801 to 1835. In all that time, so far as I have known, he never declared a single act of congress unconstitutional; and probably never would have done so, if he had lived to this time.
And, so far as I know, he never declared a single State law unconstitutional, on account of its injustice, or its violation of men's natural rights; but only on account of its conflict with the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
He was considered very profound on questions of "sovereignty." In fact, he never said much in regard to anything else. He held that, in this country, "sovereignty" was divided: that the national government was "sovereign" over certain things; and that the State governments were "sovereign" over all other things. He had apparently never heard of any natural, individual, human rights, that had never been delegated to either the general or State governments.
As a practical matter, he seemed to hold that the general government had "sovereignty" enough to destroy as many of the natural rights of the people as it should please to destroy; and that the State governments had "sovereignty" enough to destroy what should be left, if there should be any such. He evidently considered that, to the national government, had been delegated the part of the lion, with the right to devour as much of his prey as his appetite should crave; and that the State governments were jackals, with power to devour what the lion should leave.
In his efforts to establish the absolutism of our governments, he made himself an adept in the use of all those false definitions, and false assumptions, to which courts are driven, who hold that constitutions and statute books are supreme over all natural principles of justice, and over all the natural rights of mankind.
Ignorance of the law and Libertarian doctrine go hand in hand.
Jim, is pinging people, whom you expect to disagree with you, a proper use for pings ?
"We"? You mean you claim to know what you want it to say. Was it its "clear intent" to contain prohibitions on state actions? Is it beginning to sink in to you that unless the Constitution specifically prohibits a state from taking a particular action, any prohibition it contains applies only against the federal government?
Umm, hel-lo? That was his job, to determine whether or not state laws conflicted with the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. He had no power to judge them on the basis of any other criteria.
Of all the points you raised, this is the one I'd have to take the greatest issue with. If we're going to establish, as a rule of interpretation, that we should go with the original understanding behind a particular amendment, then we also need to give equal if not greater consideration to the understandings of those who ratified it. And if the drafters deliberately set out to conceal what they considered the true meaning of what they were drafting, then it was an act of fraud, and such "original intent" on their part should be considered null and void.
When you come up with convincing counter-arguments from the text. I've pointed out to you that unless the Constitution specifically prohibits a state from doing something, the prohibition is only meant for the feds - and I've backed it up with documentation from the actual text. And if that doesn't make it clear enough for you, you may also consider that when the Bill of Rights was proposed, every single audible voice on both sides of the controversy implicitly understood that it would only limit federal powers, thus satisfying your "clear intent" criterion.
Now, if you're not going to make logical arguments in response, and instead launch into emotionalistic protestations, you shouldn't be surprised if neither I nor anyone else you come in contact with is impressed by your views.
When you come up with convincing counter-arguments from the text. I've pointed out to you that unless the Constitution specifically prohibits a state from doing something, the prohibition is only meant for the feds - and I've backed it up with documentation from the actual text.
14th, Section. 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And if that doesn't make it clear enough for you, you may also consider that when the Bill of Rights was proposed, every single audible voice on both sides of the controversy implicitly understood that it would only limit federal powers, thus satisfying your "clear intent" criterion.
That is simply not true. Many let the 'states rights' zealots of the time mistakeny THINK that, -- but in reality, - it was well known as a political ploy to enable ratification.
In fact it took till 1833 for the Marshall Court to erroneously rule that states were not bound by the BOR's.
Now, if you're not going to make logical arguments in response, and instead launch into emotionalistic protestations, you shouldn't be surprised if neither I nor anyone else you come in contact with is impressed by your views.
You play this 'emotional' card every time we do this. -- I'm not 'emotionalistic', you're just using that charge as a 'tar baby' in order to so reject my views. Silly technique.
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.