Posted on 03/25/2005 12:57:04 PM PST by Fruit of the Spirit
Alexander Hamilton addressed the issue of judicial activism and how it would be prevented under the new American Constitution in "Federalist Paper 81."
Hamilton wrote,
"Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty from [the judiciary's] total incapacity to support its usurpations by force."
Our government has a series of institutional checks and balances that keep any one of the three branches from superceding the others. The checks and balances between the Legislative and Executive Branches are well known. But what Hamilton is writing about is the lesser known check of the President over the Supreme Court as outlined in Articles II and III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is dependent upon the Executive Branch, as is the Congress, to "execute" their wishes. Nothing gets done unless the President agrees.
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
I fear it's too late. I read where a doctor said Terri has more than likeky already suffered more brain damage. It breaks my heart, but I think it is over.
obviously the president agrees.
maybe he likes the judicary being king.
EXACTLY!
I said that in a previous post.
I've always been a believer in the rule of law. I believe that we do have to accept certain laws we don't like. Otherwise, we will approach anarchy.
I still believe that.
But now, we are on the verge of a runaway unaccountable judiciary that will impose its will on us in all matters, large and small.
I hate to advocate a constitutional crisis...but I believe that sooner or later, we will need to have one.
Better now than later.
Remember Abraham Lincoln's response to Chief Justice Taney's Writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of a Confederate Sympathizer:
"The Chief Justice has issued his order. Now let him enforce it."
Or perhaps Terri is a sacrifice to drive the point about Judicial tyrany home, indelibly and forcefully. She'll be a hero if she does and will never know the great service she did us all. Sad none the less.
I think that's Andrew Jackson's statement about (the great) CJ John Marshall.
OK. Now I'm going to look it up.
Are you sure this is the right link? It got me to the GOP.com where it says the article is missing.
Forgive me. My research shows I have mixed my historic quotes.
Jackson did so state about CJ Marshall's opinion regarding the government policy toward the Cherokee Indians.
In regards to Lincoln, I found the following:
"Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling."
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm
I apologize for the error.
I believe it was St. Augustine who said - rightly - that a law that is unjust is no law at all, it is an act of violence.
rule of law presumes just law. a law without moral authority is no law at all.
As president, Jackson supported Georgia in its effort to deprive the Cherokee nation of its land. Jackson claimed that he had "no power to oppose the exercise of sovereignty of any state over all who may be within its limits." The Cherokee appealed to the Supreme Court, and in Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled against Georgia. Marshall stated that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over Native American lands. To this Jackson is said to have replied, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." Of course the court had no enforcement power of its own, so the decision was ignored.
Now that's the way a real president takes care of business.
We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
Rep. Larry McDonald
1935—1983
Now that's the way a real president takes care of business.
By forced removal of American citizens?
It seems like a quid pro quo, the judiciary gives the legislature expanded rights over the states, and the legislature gives the judiciary veto power over their legislation.
I think its long time they broke their alliance and had a show down. Hopefully both will become weaker in the process.
Actually they weren't citizens; I think they refused to be (often ignored is the fact that Indians and others were free to "join").
But I think the point of his statement was that Jackson wasn't afraid of courts and recognized that all they do is say something is wrong or right - just as we all are doing here on the forum.
Well....that too.
They don't just go away, they last a lifetime.
I say we tar and feather them and run them out of town, say to cuba.
same here
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.