Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Progressing the Constitution - The Ninth Amendment Part III
ArticleVBlog ^ | December 17th 2018 | Rodney Dodsworth

Posted on 12/16/2018 4:17:22 PM PST by Jacquerie

Subtitle: Robert Yates & Alexander Hamilton Debate the Scotus. What happened to the Scotus? In this squib, we’ll find the Framers blameless for today’s runaway federal courts.

Background. Under the British system, colonial court judges were appointed by, and served at the pleasure of, the Crown. The ninth indictment of George III in our Declaration charged him with making “judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their Offices, and the amount and Payment of their Salaries.” In a system in which the House of Lords was the supreme tribunal, colonial defendants logically feared political influence against them at their trials.

[snip]

In their writings, two New Yorkers, Judge Robert Yates (1738-1801) and Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) largely ignored this background. Why bother? The Revolution was still fresh in everyone’s minds. This related history is important today in understanding the problems the Framing generation confronted and corrected in their institutions for an American federal republic.

In the Anti-Federalist #15, March 20 1788, Yates wasn’t impressed with the Constitution’s Judiciary.1 He applauded the English system (as practiced in England, not the colonies), where “The judges . . . are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed by them. But the judges under this Constitution will controul the legislature, for the Supreme Court are authorised in the last report to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.” By implication, Yates was willing to risk the political influence of Congress in American courts.

Fortunately, the Framers’s took the opposite position; they weren’t willing to risk a politicized judiciary.

(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: 17thamendment; alexanderhamilton; robertyates; scotus

1 posted on 12/16/2018 4:17:22 PM PST by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

OUTSTANDING post/history/analysis. Thanks, Jacquerie. BUMP!


2 posted on 12/16/2018 4:56:50 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Fortunately, the Framers’s took the opposite position; they weren’t willing to risk a politicized judiciary.

No worries, the Judiciary politicized themselves.

3 posted on 12/17/2018 12:38:54 AM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

Thank you PG!


4 posted on 12/17/2018 1:39:28 AM PST by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

BUMP!


5 posted on 12/17/2018 4:30:07 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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