Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/24/2011 7:48:17 AM PST by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: 14themunny; 21stCenturion; 300magnum; A Strict Constructionist; abigail2; AdvisorB; Aggie Mama; ...
Ping! The thread has been posted.

Earlier threads:

FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution
5 Oct 1787, Centinel #1
6 Oct 1787, James Wilson’s Speech at the State House
8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #1
9 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #2
18 Oct 1787, Brutus #1
22 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #1
27 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #2
27 Oct 1787, Federalist #1
31 Oct 1787, Federalist #2
3 Nov 1787, Federalist #3
5 Nov 1787, John DeWitt #3
7 Nov 1787, Federalist #4
10 Nov 1787, Federalist #5
14 Nov 1787, Federalist #6
15 Nov 1787, Federalist #7
20 Nov 1787, Federalist #8
21 Nov 1787, Federalist #9
23 Nov 1787, Federalist #10
24 Nov 1787, Federalist #11
27 Nov 1787, Federalist #12
27 Nov 1787, Cato #5
28 Nov 1787, Federalist #13
29 Nov 1787, Brutus #4
30 Nov 1787, Federalist #14
1 Dec 1787, Federalist #15
4 Dec 1787, Federalist #16
5 Dec 1787, Federalist #17
7 Dec 1787, Federalist #18
8 Dec 1787, Federalist #19
11 Dec 1787, Federalist #20
12 Dec 1787, Federalist #21
14 Dec 1787, Federalist #22
18 Dec 1787, Federalist #23
18 Dec 1787, Address of the Pennsylvania Minority
19 Dec 1787, Federalist #24
21 Dec 1787, Federalist #25
22 Dec 1787, Federalist #26
25 Dec 1787, Federalist #27
26 Dec 1787, Federalist #28
27 Dec 1787, Brutus #6
28 Dec 1787, Federalist #30
1 Jan 1788, Federalist #31
3 Jan 1788, Federalist #32
3 Jan 1788, Federalist #33
3 Jan 1788, Cato #7
4 Jan 1788, Federalist #34
5 Jan 1788, Federalist #35
8 Jan 1788, Federalist #36
10 Jan 1788, Federalist #29
11 Jan 1788, Federalist #37
15 Jan 1788, Federalist #38
16 Jan 1788, Federalist #39
18 Jan 1788, Federalist #40
19 Jan 1788, Federalist #41
22 Jan 1788, Federalist #42
23 Jan 1788, Federalist #43
24 Jan 1788, Brutus #10
25 Jan 1788, Federalist #44
26 Jan 1788, Federalist #45
29 Jan 1788, Federalist #46
31 Jan 1788, Brutus #11
1 Feb 1788, Federalist #47
1 Feb 1788, Federalist #48
5 Feb 1788, Federalist #49
5 Feb 1788, Federalist #50
7 Feb 1788, Brutus #12, Part 1
8 Feb 1788, Federalist #51
8 Feb 1788, Federalist #52
12 Feb 1788, Federalist #53
12 Feb 1788, Federalist #54
14 Feb 1788, Brutus #12, Part 2
15 Feb 1788, Federalist #55
19 Feb 1788, Federalist #56
19 Feb 1788, Federalist #57
20 Feb 1788, Federalist #58
22 Feb 1788, Federalist #59
26 Feb 1788, Federalist #60
26 Feb 1788, Federalist #61
27 Feb 1788, Federalist #62
1 Mar 1788, Federalist #63
7 Mar 1788, Federalist #64
7 Mar 1788, Federalist #65
11 Mar 1788, Federalist #66
11 Mar 1788, Federalist #67
14 Mar 1788, Federalist #68
14 Mar 1788, Federalist #69
15 Mar 1788, Federalist #70
18 Mar 1788, Federalist #71
20 Mar 1788, Brutus #15
21 Mar 1788, Federalist #72
21 Mar 1788, Federalist #73
25 Mar 1788, Federalist #74
26 Mar 1788, Federalist #75
1 Apr 1788, Federalist #76
4 Apr 1788, Federalist #77
10 Apr 1788, Brutus #16
5 Jun 1788, Patrick Henry’s Speech to the New York Ratifying Convention #1
7 Jun 1788, Patrick Henry’s Speech to the New York Ratifying Convention #2

2 posted on 01/24/2011 7:50:27 AM PST by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Publius
At 14 through 18, Hamilton argues that the Judiciary is the weakest branch and constitute the least danger to political rights, lacking the power of sword and purse. Yet judges have ordered court-appointed masters to take over government functions and have even ordered sovereign bodies elected by the people to pass taxes to fund schools. Something went wrong somewhere. How did it happen?

Prevailing attitudes and behavioral norms deteriorated. Being without pocket or purse renders a body harmless only in an environment where telling a branch of government to "Go fsck yourself" is realistically considered as an option. We and our ancestors have lived in a prosperous, peaceful society for centuries. We've become "nice" and "civilized", not to mention that generations have been indoctrinated by the schools that the feral government is the all-knowing, beneficent source of goodness and light. The MSM maintains a constant drumbeat not only on specific issues but casts any anti-government group as kooks and "extremists". Nice people who wear nice clothes and live in nice houses don't have defiance at the top of their list, so now all the judiciary has to do to tyrannize is fire up the word processor.

and how can it be fixed?

Tough question. Start by getting the feds out of schools, as they should be anyway. I've wondered for a long time where the conservative George Sorii are and why they aren't buying up media by the boatload. Branches of government in conservative hands can both help on specific issues and reeducate by using the "fsck yourself" method once in a while.

3 posted on 01/24/2011 8:05:54 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Publius
I can’t stand Hamilton. I can’t even read all of what he writes. Phrases like, "It proves incontestably," "truly distinct" or "all possible care" are used when one needs to hide from disagreement. The first question to him should be, "Who the heck are you to decide what is incontestable, true and possible?" I think he would be too weak to defend it. Washington was right to give him command only once. He was not a leader.

I'm glad I'm not the one who should maintain objectivity while wading through his bull.

Discussion Topics

* At 14 through 18, Hamilton argues that the Judiciary is the weakest branch and constitute the least danger to political rights, lacking the power of sword and purse. Yet judges have ordered court-appointed masters to take over government functions and have even ordered sovereign bodies elected by the people to pass taxes to fund schools. Something went wrong somewhere. How did it happen, and how can it be fixed?

How did it happen? Humans are humans. We are all sinners. Some judges filled with, at best, self-righteousness and others with meanness decided that "as the court of last resort" that they had the final say on what should and should not happen. That is the natural tendency temptation of their day to day environment.

What to do about it? First, good people must be appointed but we can’t tell beforehand how good our judgment might be. In fact, as the effect of the USSC’s opinion has grown, the confirmation process has gotten more brutal thus nominees’ records have gotten thinner. Second, as I said on another Book Club Report, the quickest thing that can be done for congress to pass a resolution reminding the USSC that their role is to negate rather than extend law. If that isn’t enough, congress can impeach them. Yet that is difficult given precedence and the ugliness of the act. In the end, it can be attenuated but not eliminated.

* At 21, Hamilton argues that the courts cannot prove a threat to the people’s liberties. Yet a judge not only banned prayers at a graduation ceremony, but stated publicly that anyone caught praying at that ceremony would be arrested and imprisoned at the judge’s pleasure as part of contempt proceedings. How can this kind of judicial tyranny be fixed?

The first question is, who will arrest them for praying? That separation of enforcement from judgment is important. Failing that, again, impeachment.

BTW – Do Federal judges have their own police or the like? I don’t think so. The example you gave might have been a state court judge over interpreting federal law but with his own enforcement mechanism.

* At 24, Hamilton argues for the complete independence of the courts. But is that a good idea when courts take on legislative and executive functions? Shouldn’t there be a method for redress to other branches when courts write law?

Of course and we have pardons and other limitations like the separation of enforcement from judgment.

* At 36, Hamilton points out that the courts are to be the buffer between people and legislature to keep the legislature in check. But how can the courts be kept in check when they themselves abuse their authority?

There is no substitute for good people to check the judges. It’s up to our House and Senate which we elect.

* At 58, Hamilton argues for lifetime tenure for judges. Was this a design flaw? Should be it fixed, and how?

I’m not sure if it is a design flaw. The problem seems to lie in the USSC as all appeals can work there way to them. Lower judges can be idiots and the USSC will correct them. How to fix it? Well, on one hand God is the final decider of their term. Second, having judges serve a lesser term than what God might let them seems to be a good idea, but how long? Twenty years is the longest, I would think. I could see sixteen making sense too but a single president would end up appointing half of the USSC over eight years.

* Does the Supreme Court go far enough to prevent Congress from, or too far in enabling, the expansion of its enumerated powers? Is the solution to be found within the structure of the federal government, or outside of it?

Personally I think the USSC does not go far enough in negating law, too far in extending it. The solution is to be found within the constitution of course. It should be a standard question to nominees. "Legislating from the bench" is a nice catch phrase but more meat in the questioning would help. The Senate could stop being deferential to the Presidents choice of nominee.

8 posted on 01/24/2011 6:47:32 PM PST by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson