Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #135 : July 12, 2013, 04:01:41 PM »

I can't speak to his motives for taking the stance , but I agree that SCOTUS is overstepping its bounds.

well, that doesn't surprise me at all given your views on the Constitution.  It's inconsistent and results-oriented for CBW because he is certainly not a strict-constructionist.  That said though, since Marbury has been discussed already in this thread, what would be your alternative to Judicial Review?


btw, judicial review and the interactions between the legislative and judicial branches of our government is actually one of the few very redeeming qualities of our modern government
« : July 12, 2013, 04:10:56 PM VinBucFan »

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31379
Offline
« #136 : July 12, 2013, 05:05:01 PM »

"Take Care"

And here we are, multiple posts later.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #137 : July 12, 2013, 05:20:01 PM »

"Take Care"

And here we are, multiple posts later.

EDIT:  ^^^^^^^ Poor Scarecrow's only post in this thread, not on the subject just about other posters.  Guess the subject matter is just too much.

« : July 12, 2013, 05:23:59 PM VinBucFan »

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #138 : July 12, 2013, 05:42:32 PM »

I can't speak to his motives for taking the stance , but I agree that SCOTUS is overstepping its bounds.

well, that doesn't surprise me at all given your views on the Constitution.  It's inconsistent and results-oriented for CBW because he is certainly not a strict-constructionist.

I'm certainly not a strict constructionist. I am fairly certain, for example, that my interpretation of the "General Welfare Clause", differs vastly from the majority of posters on this board. The thing is, that while we may disagree on it's original intent, we can at least agree that it's IN the Constitution.

The point that you continue to ignore is that this isn't a matter of interpretation. I'm not interpreting that the SCOTUS doesn't have the power of judicial review. They don't. It's not in the Constitution, at all. It isn't implied, hinted at, or somewhat stated. Not a sentence, a word, or even a syllable, can be interpreted to grant them this power.

Thomas Jefferson brought this up, and wrote extensively about why it wasn't included in the Constitution, and why it was bad for our country that they claimed it. Rather than take in what he was saying, you chose to characterize him as a bitter, sore loser that was just making up his dissent because he was mad that he lost the case (even though he actually won it). James Madison, who wrote the damn Constitution, agreed with Jefferson, and many in Congress that passed the act that the SCOTUS struck down in 1803 were individuals that contributed to what was in the Constitution, yet that has been dismissed by you as well. Here again, you are choosing to just attack my motivations rather than acknowledging any points made.

Everyone sees what you're doing, and no one respects you for it. But by all means, keep attempting to change the subject.

btw, judicial review and the interactions between the legislative and judicial branches of our government is actually one of the few very redeeming qualities of our modern government

I think you're only saying this because you agree with their decisions. Post a quote of you saying this in any thread prior to this one.
« : July 12, 2013, 05:46:05 PM CBWx2 »


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #139 : July 12, 2013, 06:03:36 PM »

I can't speak to his motives for taking the stance , but I agree that SCOTUS is overstepping its bounds.

By "overstepping its bounds" I think you mean that if its not in the Constitution they cant do it. Is that right?

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15481
Offline
« #140 : July 12, 2013, 07:47:54 PM »

I can't speak to his motives for taking the stance , but I agree that SCOTUS is overstepping its bounds.

By "overstepping its bounds" I think you mean that if its not in the Constitution they cant do it. Is that right?

Basically .


From Thomas Jefferson :

"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."



I agree with Jefferson. In short , I don't trust these Justices to tell me what is constitutional. They are just as politically motivated and biased as the rest of us. I refuse to accept the premise that theirs is the final and unquestionable say . The constitution is only 4 pages long , it doesn't take a genius with a Harvard law degree to interpret it if you interpret the correct way . The correct way being : If it's in there , it's constitutional , if it's not , it's not.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
« #141 : July 12, 2013, 09:11:34 PM »

All three branches of our governement have long ago overstepped their constitutional limits.  Decades, not years ago.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #142 : July 13, 2013, 01:20:37 AM »

All three branches of our governement have long ago overstepped their constitutional limits.  Decades, not years ago.

no branch can adhere to just what is written

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #143 : July 13, 2013, 01:23:00 AM »

I can't speak to his motives for taking the stance , but I agree that SCOTUS is overstepping its bounds.

By "overstepping its bounds" I think you mean that if its not in the Constitution they cant do it. Is that right?

Basically .


From Thomas Jefferson :

"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."



I agree with Jefferson. In short , I don't trust these Justices to tell me what is constitutional. They are just as politically motivated and biased as the rest of us. I refuse to accept the premise that theirs is the final and unquestionable say . The constitution is only 4 pages long , it doesn't take a genius with a Harvard law degree to interpret it if you interpret the correct way . The correct way being : If it's in there , it's constitutional , if it's not , it's not.

applying the "correct way" we meed to shut down the Air Force

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15481
Offline
« #144 : July 13, 2013, 09:35:39 AM »

All three branches of our governement have long ago overstepped their constitutional limits.  Decades, not years ago.

That is true also .

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15481
Offline
« #145 : July 13, 2013, 09:37:23 AM »

I can't speak to his motives for taking the stance , but I agree that SCOTUS is overstepping its bounds.

By "overstepping its bounds" I think you mean that if its not in the Constitution they cant do it. Is that right?

Basically .


From Thomas Jefferson :

"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."



I agree with Jefferson. In short , I don't trust these Justices to tell me what is constitutional. They are just as politically motivated and biased as the rest of us. I refuse to accept the premise that theirs is the final and unquestionable say . The constitution is only 4 pages long , it doesn't take a genius with a Harvard law degree to interpret it if you interpret the correct way . The correct way being : If it's in there , it's constitutional , if it's not , it's not.

applying the "correct way" we meed to shut down the Air Force

Even if this is true , do you know how easily we could pass an amendment allowing us to keep the Air Force ? That bill would pass with 100% of the vote.  That is what amendments are for.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #146 : July 13, 2013, 10:44:42 AM »

All three branches of our governement have long ago overstepped their constitutional limits.  Decades, not years ago.

That is true also .

My point with the Air Force comment is that it doesnt really make sense to say that the world only exists if it is in the Constitution. The Air Force is not the only example, there are many things that are part of everyday life that are not in the Constitution. Off the top of my head, there is nor freedom of "expression" and there is not "right to remain silent" and no "executive privilege" many many other things that are IMPLIED but not specifically stated. 

 Going all the way back to the Magna Carta and England and up to the Colonies before, it was the judiciary that ensured that the government did not overstep power or infringe rights in the controlling legal document, so while one can say that the words "judicial review" are not in the Constitution, the system of government we have, based on a Constitution, simply would not make sense without Judicial Review. The Constituion means nothing if there is not some oversight and that is why with very few exceptions the legislative branch has always accepted judicial review. 

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #147 : July 13, 2013, 10:49:57 AM »

Dolo --- just to show you that judical review is simply IMPLIED from the structure of our government, here's a very quick search of Google with a Constitutional scholar talking about the founders views on judicial review:

During the ratification debates, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists assumed that the courts would have power to void unconstitutional laws. Probably the most famous example is Federalist No. 78, in which Alexander Hamilton wrote:

By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.


During the Virginia ratifying convention, Federalist George Nicholas responded to fears that the federal government might exceed its powers by saying,

But, says he [Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry], who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the extent of legislative powers. If they exceed these powers, the judiciary will declare it void, or else the people will have a right to declare it void.

Anti-Federalist George Mason, discussing ex post facto laws, argued at the same convention, “Will it not be the duty of the federal court to say that such laws are prohibited?” And at the same gathering Federalist John Marshall argued that Congress could not exceed its enumerated powers:

If they were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard. They would not consider such a law as coming under [congressional] jurisdiction. They would declare it void.

In the years before the first case in which the Supreme Court struck down a federal law (Marbury v. Madison, 1803), there were over thirty episodes in which American courts voided state or federal laws for unconstitutionality. See William Michael Treanor, Judicial Review Before Marbury, 58 Stanford L. Rev. 455 (2005).


without judicial review the very structure of our government makes no sense

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 45994
Offline
« #148 : July 13, 2013, 12:14:31 PM »

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3708&context=californialawreview&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Djames%2520madison%2520on%2520judicial%2520review%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CDIQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.berkeley.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D3708%2526context%253Dcalifornialawreview%26ei%3DSXvhUeuvOcXH4AOU8YGoDA%26usg%3DAFQjCNF0B6L8JhERENpL2CGnOO3ZTLSHhA%26bvm%3Dbv.48705608%2Cd.dmg#search=%22james%20madison%20judicial%20review%22

A stupidly long link - carries one to scholarly evaluation and more importantly comment by the author of the Constitution and Bill or Rights addressing the intent for Judicial Review.

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15481
Offline
« #149 : July 13, 2013, 04:37:49 PM »

All three branches of our governement have long ago overstepped their constitutional limits.  Decades, not years ago.

That is true also .

My point with the Air Force comment is that it doesnt really make sense to say that the world only exists if it is in the Constitution. The Air Force is not the only example, there are many things that are part of everyday life that are not in the Constitution. Off the top of my head, there is nor freedom of "expression" and there is not "right to remain silent" and no "executive privilege" many many other things that are IMPLIED but not specifically stated. 



We don't need the constitution to grant us our freedoms or our rights , we already have them .  Unless of course you can show me the article that expressly denies them.



What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           
  Page: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools