Posted on 12/18/2011 4:23:33 PM PST by presidio9
Let’s not forget our U.S. history, when President Andrew Jackson famously said, “Justice John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.”
That is not controversial in the least.
I’m about ready to support Paul at this point geez.
Yes, it does.
Please cite article and section that confers on the Supreme Court the power to interpret laws, to declare laws unConstitutional, or to impose on the Congress or the Executive its own opinion on the above subjects.
|
What you call "the box" is killing us.
It is not extreme in the least to say that all three branches have a co-equal power, within their proper sphere, to interpret the Constitution.
We need to go farther than that. Congress is also morally bankrupt.
The Supreme Court is supposed to negate laws just as a president may veto laws. The Supreme Court is not supposed to create laws.
In the absence of law there is liberty.
Thanks presidio9.
He made a good point at the debate and then didn’t remember to shut his mouth after that....then comes out with a silly 2 out of 3 idea.....If the courts are out of bounds, remove them. Period....Impeach is a word that goes for the judges also...
Lifetime appointments are a big part the problem.
The six year term for Senators is also too long.
It is refreshing to have somebody provoke the idea.
Alexander Hamilton expected the legislative branch would define the reach of the judicial branch. He argued in Federalist 80 that when the judiciary had to be modified, “the national legislature will have ample authority to make such exceptions, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences.”On page 7 Newt continues with more from the Federalist Papers:
Hamilton was also confident the judicial branch could never seriously encroach upon the powers of the legislative branch. Hamilton said it was because the judicial branch had a “total incapacity to support its usurpations by force.” In Federalist 78, he called the judiciary “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” and the one that could “never attack with success either of the other two”.
Hamilton further noted in Federalist 81, “There can never be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body entrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption by degrading them from their stations.” (Page 6)
Madison famously lays out the theory of separation of powers in Federalist 51:This is a very well thought out paper which needs to be read by all. I am still in the process of reading it. It is quite long.To what expedient then shall we finally resort for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government, as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.Madison argues in Federalist 48 that there must be some type of “practical security for each [branch], against the invasion of the others”:...that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others."
Finally someone with the details on just how destructive the court/lawyer system has proven to the Republic.
Article III Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Notice that nowhere is a Judge appointed for 'life', but for 'good Behavior'. I'm sure most of us can point to cases and opinions that do not equate to judicial "good Behavior"!
Newt's looking better all the time.
Off the top of my head, people who disagree with you:
John Jay, John Marshall, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln...
Wasn't it Newt who said stupid people are destroying our country. It truly is amazing how little people understand, yet they don't hesitate to comment as if they are experts. Really sad, especially when you consider the horrible mess our country is in. Long past the time whereby people should be putting forth the effort necessary to be informed voters.
And just how are they supposed to do the left's bidding that way?
He is absolutely right, and a close understanding of our founding period bears it out. Congress is our first branch of government and was intended by our founders to take the lead in governing. The presidency/executive was never intended to be the all encompassing mess it is now, and certainly was never intended to make laws. The executive does make laws through regulations, because Congress first allowed the executive and judicial branches to grow beyond all bounds, and second ceded much of its constitutional responsibilities to the executive, and some to the judicial.
As for the judicial branch, the concept of judicial review is not found in the constitution but, like all governmental bodies, the judicial began grabbing power very early in our history, during the Jefferson administration.
I think of it as paper- scissors -rock.
Congress is the rock, SCOTUS is the paper & the President is the scissors.
Two branches lining up on the same side should always win.
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.