AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 29, 2011 12:23:01 GMT -5
And of course we all know that the Supreme Court is not a co-equal branch of government that can be reigned in by the Legislative or the Executive branches. They are the final arbiters of the Constitution. In fact, we could just do away with the Legislative and Executive branches and have every matter decided by nine black robed mullahs.
I respect and abide by Supreme Court rulings like everyone else, but I think it's high time we had a national discussion on the role of the judiciary, and the two co-equal branches ought to at least hold hearings, and put forth proposals to reign in the judiciary-- including impeachment of justices and the removal or addition of judges to the court (9 isn't a fixed number- we haven't always had 9, and we needn't keep nine. We could have three-- or 13).
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 29, 2011 12:23:56 GMT -5
In short- the Supreme Court is wrong. They should be challenged, but it'd be easier if we just elected representatives who respected the Constitution to start with.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 29, 2011 12:29:51 GMT -5
"Child labor laws can be enacted by states. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to do it. There are a limited number of enumerated powers granted the Federal government in the Constitution.
The commerce clause in particular is simply meant to ensure free trade between the states." And yet the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the authority of Congress to enact child labor laws, stating that the commerce clause gives them that authority. Time and again the Supreme Court has upheld the authority of Congress to enact laws based on the commerce clause. Not time and again, only after a certain time, if the commerce clause was you needed to regulate say liquor why did we have to pass an amendment. Here are some quotes on states vs federal government: "As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." "Thus, it was clear to the framers of our Constitution that the greatest possible liberty of self-government must be given to each State, and that any national administration attempting to make all laws for the whole Nation, such as was wholly practical in Great Britain, would inevitably result at some future time in a dissolution of the Union itself." "There are many glaring examples where exclusive Federal control is manifestly against the scheme and intent of our Constitution."
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 29, 2011 12:47:53 GMT -5
And actually talking about the SCOTUS
“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.” TJ
"that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
"where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits:" From the kentucky resolution of 1798 authored by TJ
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 29, 2011 17:10:39 GMT -5
fairlycrazy23 (is the 23 Michael Jordan's number? I used to be WCP23 on another board, and that's why-- just wondering)
Anyway- you're spot on. Great posts. Saves me some typing later on, lol!
|
|