Posted on 07/04/2013 8:23:48 PM PDT by dagogo redux
I listen to whatever I can in the way of talk radio when I drive around, and Mark Levin is the least unpalatable choice on the drive home from work each day. He was on one of his bulging-neck-vein rants the other day, this one about the history of the Supreme Court’s overstepping their limited Constitutional role over the past several centuries, leading us to the “judicial tyranny” we see now, which was never the intent of the Founders.
He implied that the ultimate remedy was the restoration of the original intent of the Founders, rather than merely electing conservative Presidents who could appoint more conservative justices. He also implied that this would be a multi-generational task, but did not give any specifics.
I know what the Constitution says, and what the Founders’ concerns were, having read James Madison’s notes from the Convention and several of the best commentaries about that summer. But I know little of how We the People might peaceably get out from under the judicial tyranny that has evolved.
Do any Constitutional scholars here or legal experts see any feasible pathway to eventually restore the proper and original powers to the Congress, and to We the People who elect them, and to the States, and get these nine lawyers (and a literal army of Executive branch tyrants) back to their proper limited roles in our lives?
Pass a constitutional amendment EXACTLY defining SCOTUS’s roles and responsibilities, limitations, etc.
Then again, SCOTUS would prolly rule the amendment unconstituional ...
The only way is to pass a Constitutional amendment that would specifically limit the powers of the court, with some type of automatic impeachment clause for any justice that attempts to rule outside of those powers, or judicially invalidate said amendment. Even then, we’d need a Congress willing to enforce that amendment against the Court.
In other words, ain’t going to happen.
I have an idea for that: an amendment with 5 or so sections: removing the power of monetary-value regulation from congress, defining the Dollar in terms of weight of pure gold, reiterating the previous weight in SI units "to prevent the congress from abusing its ability to set weights and measures", mandating the treasury to give an accounting of gold physically in its possession (which shall be public), denying the congress the power to assume any debt which would cause the total debts of the US to exceed 110% the amount reported by the treasury, and forcing trial (for theft) of any government agent/officer/judge/employee confiscating gold and if guilty convicted mandating (a) immediate firing/loss-of-office, (2) forfeiture of all retirement benefits [including pension], (3) restitution of twice the stolen amount to the bereaved, (4) liability of ALL legal costs.
I'd like to be able to "shock" Roberts into telling us what was in that briefcase he was holding in front of a bank in Malta.
Marbury vs Madison is the most lied about court opinion in history. John Marshall didn’t in any way lay claim to the kind of judicial power that made the court the final or sole definer and determiner of what is constitutional. In fact, he said just the opposite. He plainly said that the courts have to follow the Constitution, because it is the supreme law of the land. And so does everybody else in the other branches. Anything else would be a mockery of the oath, and of our form of government.
Frankly, if Marshall had said what the law schools today teach that he said, the founders would have probably hung him. Most of them were still alive, after all.
The only way to fix it is to throw all the bums out of the legislative and executive branches, and to replace them only with people who understand the fundamental moral obligations of their oaths.
Follow that up with impeachments for every single judge who in any way transgresses their own legitimate constitutional powers.
Nothing to it - - it would merely require a President with the guts to say, "I wish to thank the Supreme Court for weighing in on this important issue. It was a 5 - 4 ruling and I happen to agree with the 4 dissenters, and since my job description includes (fill in Constitutional provision here) I will handle the issue in the way I believe is Constitutional and best for the nation. Thank you."
Now, naturally, such a proclamation would bring the mice scurrying out of the Democrat "mainstream" newsrooms howling, "Constitutional crisis!", but again, it would require a president with the guts to laugh off the Democrat "mainstream" newsrooms.
For example, it would require the OPPOSITE of cowardly (former Florida Governor) Jeb Bush who got stared down by a freaking county probate judge and stood by helplessly wringing his hands as a woman was deliberately murdered by starvation on international television over the course of three excruciating weeks.
Then, what did Marshall mean in Marbury v. Madison, when he stated:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
“By What Mechanism Can We Return the Supreme Court to Its Original Limited Role? (Vanity) “
Ask the Egyptians...
Its called "pulling an Andrew Jackson", who supposedly responded to the SCOTUS ruling in Worcester v. Georgia by saying:
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
All true.
When conservatives cannot win simple majority elections, is there any particular reason to believe they could dominate a convention and then have 3/4 of state legislatures or convention ratify the proposed amendments?
Bookmark.
You don't have to go for the whole Magilla - just strike the fear of God into Congress, the Executive Department, and the Judiciary.
The way to do this is to hold a limited Constitutional Convention, voting on a single issue that 38 states can agree on ...
What would it be? I don't know - maybe Congress having to read ENTIRE finalized versions of bills BEFORE voting on them.
Once passed, the PEOPLE of the United States would have put these clowns on notice that they CAN and WILL pass constitutional amendments in order to get these Morons to do their jobs ...
Marbury v. Madison
Of course hey did, they just used Marbury to assert power they never had and it went unchallenged, by another spineless Congress.
That’s my understanding. Thanks.
Congress has authority over jurisdiction of the supreme court, or lesser courts.
Laws can restrict that jurisdiction, and to the extent that the court improperly decides a case because they are applying an incorrect standard, a law can be passed to define terms so that the incorrect standard (that would otherwise be precedent) is replaced by a different definition.
Or, an amendment can be passed.
For either approach, there is no substitute for winning elections.
Of course the supreme court had the authority to act as judges. Judges state what the law is in specific cases, for courts, for appellate courts.
This is what I wonder. If we can’t reliably, consistently put constitutional conservatives into office, this talk is all for naught. If we continue this “our side gets eight years of so-so/mostly-conservative nominees, then their side nominates extremely dedicated leftists for 8 years, and so on..” pattern, we will not change our trajectory in any meaningful way.
So, in a large way, this is a cultural/political challenge, and time is not on our side.
I’m at the point where prepping for systemic collapse is looking more and more reasonable.
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.
