The Supreme Court Rules

First Things ^ | October 2003 | Michael M. Uhlmann

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

QUEEN SCOUTS RULES

..:: WE WILL ROCK YOU ::..

 

Aah

Buddy you're a baby make a big noise

Playin' in the womb gonna be a big man some day

You got ULTRASOUND on yo' face

You big disgrace

Abort'n your can all over the place

Singin'

 

We will we will ABORT you

We will we will ABORT you

 

Buddy you're a young man hard man

Shouting in the street gonna take on the world some day

You got blood on yo' face

You big disgrace

Freep'n your FLAG all over the place

 

We will we will RULE you

Sing it

We will we will RULE you

 

Buddy you're an old man poor man

Pleadin' with your eyes gonna make

You some peace some day

You got mud on your face

Big disgrace

Somebody betta EUTHANIZE you into your place

 

We will we will EUTHANIZE you

Sing it

We will we will EUTHANIZE you

Everybody

We will we will EUTHANIZE you

We will we will EUTHANIZE you

Alright

 

We are the RULERS - my friends

And we'll keep on LEGISLATING

Till the end

We are the RULERS

We are the RULERS

No time for losers

'Cause we are the RULERS of the World

 

Q. Sir, on May 6th, on the floor of the house you asked the question: "Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic." How would you answer that question, Sir?

A. A growing number of Americans want it, but a minority, and that is why we are losing this fight in Washington at the moment. That isn't as discouraging as it sounds, because if you had asked me that in 1976 when I first came to Washington, I would have said there were a lot fewer who wanted it then. We have drifted along and, although we have still enjoyed a lot of prosperity in the last twenty-five years, we have further undermined the principles of the Constitution and private property market economy. Therefore, I think we have to continue to do what we are doing to get a larger number. But if we took a vote in this country and told them what it meant to live in a Constitutional Republic and what it would mean if you had a Congress dedicated to the Constitution they would probably reject it. It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin. If you didn't put the name on it and just looked at the programs, they would say, Oh yeah, we believe in national health care and we believe in free education for everybody and we believe we should have gun control. Therefore, the majority of the people would probably reject Thomas Jefferson. So that describes the difficulty, but then again, we have to look at some of the positive things which means that we just need more people dedicated to the rule of law. Otherwise, there will be nothing left here within a short time. Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic An Interview With Ron Paul, SierraTimes.com, 05. 23. 03

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - JUDICIARY

[Marauder]

Our founding fathers were some of the most intelligent men ever assembled in such a number, and the foresight they had in crafting this government was phenomenal to say the least.

But I believe the one mistake they made was that when the Constitution was drafted, their experience taught them that judges were among the most honorable men available and could be counted on to discharge their duty with integrity and wisdom. That was probably true then.

But not now. Today's judges, e.g., those idiots in the Ninth Circus in CA, and some of the flaming liberals on the SCOTUS - Ginsberg, Souter, and Kennedy come to mind - have shown us the dire need for some sort of control, to rein in those that are becoming derelict in their duty in creating new law out of whole cloth.

[pgyanke]

It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin.

This could never happen. It's just impossible. Who would vote for someone who was against the principles on which this country was founded? As long as our leaders are fiscally savvy, they can have any views they want on social issues, right? We don't have to worry about our cultural heritage as long as the budget is balanced, right?

Oh yeah, don't forget to vote for (R)nold...

[Texas_Jarhead]

"The second flaw in living constitutionalism is that, if the Constitution is an endlessly changing document, it is unclear why its provisions authorizing judicial power should be considered sacred and permanent. In its aggressive assertions on behalf of a living Constitution, the Court runs the risk of undermining the principled basis of its own authority. It may find, as Professor Bickel warned long ago, that it has no ground on which to stand."

[Carry_Okie]

Poing

[freedomcrusader]

I was about to diagree with you, and say that the Founders would have expected that "dishonorable" judges would have been impeached, but then I remembered the supermajority requirement in the Senate to have a judge removed.

Which means that it goes back to the 17th Amendment. As the "State Legislatures' body", I doubt justices would have held office for long if they kept overturning state laws willy nilly. It seems that the legislatures would demand that their Senator, in effect their representative in the Fed Gov, yank such justices in a hurry.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

CO thanks for the ping.
Vindi, thanks for the post. More on compelling state interest, and then some. Will review later (almost finished the stuff from last night -- will I be eligible for a law degree when I'm finished?)

[Carry_Okie]

I was about to diagree with you, and say that the Founders would have expected that "dishonorable" judges would have been impeached, but then I remembered the supermajority requirement in the Senate to have a judge removed.

Thanks for pointing that out, because within Article I, Section 3, Clause six lies a very nasty provision that is the same as has been used to ratify any number of unconstitutional treaties:

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. It should be something like, "two thirds of the full Senate by recorded vote." (The same should be done with Article VI, Clause 2.) First, with modern transportation there is no reason for the original provision. Second, there have been a number of treaties ratified with no record of a recorded vote or indicating even a quorum, not much of a standard and an open invitation to fraud by modifying the supreme law of the land.

[zeugma]

Bump for later read.

[You Dirty Rats]

The depressing thing is that Warren was appointed by Ike, Blackmun and Powell by Nixon, O'Connor & Kennedy by Reagan, and Souter by Bush.

The big disaster was not confirming Bork. We can blame (Ted) Kennedy, Leahy, Biden and Metzenbaum all we want, but the nomination was lost when Arlen Specter turned against Bork. Once Bork was voted down (back in the days when the Senate actually voted on candidates who respect the Constitution), the failed Ginsberg nomination was followed up by Kennedy. Kennedy was viewed with suspicion at the time, and so was Souter later.

I HATE ACTIVIST JUSTICES!!!

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

But I believe the one mistake they made was that when the Constitution was drafted, their experience taught them that judges were among the most honorable men available and could be counted on to discharge their duty with integrity and wisdom. That was probably true then. posted on 09/26/2003 2:20 PM CDT by Marauder

I was about to diagree with you, and say that the Founders would have expected that "dishonorable" judges would have been impeached, but then I remembered the supermajority requirement in the Senate to have a judge removed. posted on 09/26/2003 2:51 PM CDT by freedomcrusader

According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR

...the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.... The judiciary...has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

***

...It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. ... from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78

...But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven.

***

...There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself. Before I proceed to illustrate the truth of these reflections, I beg liberty to make one remark. Though in my opinion the judges ought to hold their offices during good behavior, yet I think it is clear, that the reasons in favor of this establishment of the judges in England, do by no means apply to this country. Antifederalist No. 78-79

Article III

Section 1.

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.

"Congress has withdrawn jurisdiction in the past from the lower federal courts when it became dissatisfied with their performance or concluded that state courts were the better forum for certain types of cases. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld Congress's power to do so." -Edwin Meese III. "Putting the Federal Judiciary Back on the Constitutional Track" , Congress Must Curb the Imperial Judiciary

[inquest]

The purpose of the "of the members present" rule had nothing to do with the state of transportation. It was instituted so as to prevent Senators from obstructing the proceedings by refusing to show up. It's a way of telling them that if they don't show, they get left out in the cold.

[freedomcrusader]

Looks like the Anti-federalists were right, and Hamilton (who wrote #78), got it completely wrong.

[Quix]

BUMP FOR REF

[Carry_Okie]

I'm mot sure I buy that. I can tell you that there was virtually no discussion of that language on Article VI during the Federal Convention.

Got a reference out of Farrand?

[Bonaparte]

Justice Oliver Holmes, Father of Judicial Excess, and his prize protege, Alger Hiss

[inquest]

Actually, the reference I have pertains to the treaty-making power (which has a similar provision), not the impeachment power. So I can't say for sure that the same reasoning applies in both cases, but I can only assume that it does. Anyway, this is from Hamilton's Federalist #75:

To require a fixed proportion of the whole body would not, in all probability, contribute to the advantages of a numerous agency, better then merely to require a proportion of the attending members. The former, by making a determinate number at all times requisite to a resolution, diminishes the motives to punctual attendance. The latter, by making the capacity of the body to depend on a proportion which may be varied by the absence or presence of a single member, has the contrary effect. And as, by promoting punctuality, it tends to keep the body complete, there is great likelihood that its resolutions would generally be dictated by as great a number in this case as in the other; while there would be much fewer occasions of delay.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

For three decades, Holmes brought his distinctively Darwinian bias to the Court. He spoke candidly: "I see no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand." Do Laws and Standards Evolve?

HISS - The communist baboon.

[Bonaparte]

LOL! Hiss holds so many distinctive titles. Up till now, my favorite has been "The Prophet of Lewisburg."