Face it ,for every supposition you can come up with ,you and I can speak of REAL trampling on the rights of citizens by SCOTUS . The difference is that with their usurpation ,their decision stands against appeal and accountability .

I don't know why you have the Congress and the Senate, after all, you only need one star chamber to run the country

The Senate is a result of the Federalism concept . You wouldn't know it now ,but originally the Senate was to be totally the "states house " with every state getting the same number of Senators ,and the Senators being in most cases assigned their position by the state legislators. That changed with the 17th amendment in 1913
The reason for the bicameral legislature is that there was no way that smaller states were going to agree to a single legislature where the states had representation based on the population. The founders had a bit of an impasse that threatened to derail the whole process . They eventually compromised in what became known as the 'Connecticut Compromise'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Senate is a result of the Federalism concept . You wouldn't know it now ,but originally the Senate was to be totally the "states house " with every state getting the same number of Senators ,and the Senators being in most cases assigned their position by the state legislators. That changed with the 17th amendment in 1913
The reason for the bicameral legislature is that there was no way that smaller states were going to agree to a single legislature where the states had representation based on the population. The founders had a bit of an impasse that threatened to derail the whole process . They eventually compromised in what became known as the 'Connecticut Compromise'.

---

Yeah, yeah, we get it, you bequeathed this B/S to us and now we have a senate that is supposed to represent states rights, unfortunately it is full of minor parties representing anything but states rights, still I suppose we should be happy the koalas and emus have a voice even if the abo's don't. Camel, isn't that a horse designed by a compromise. I didn't want to know how you came to have a senate, I wanted to know why you still have a parliament considering your Supreme Court is indeed supreme in deciding what the law is. Why don't you make it quicker and have the judges write the law

Legislation from the bench... hmmm .Why not ? That's what is effectively done now. (and before I get the typical "both sides do it " response... yes I know)

I see you agree with me short cut the B/S

In a post-constitutional America what difference does it make ?

Hello again, tom:

I'm going to stick to how it is... I've asked you how it would work under the "constitutional" plan, and you gave me some gobbledy gook about the court, and/or the executive branch.

Since you can't tell me HOW the residents of South Carolina would be protected from an electorate who thinks they should be enslaved, I'm guessing there ain't one.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... That's a place where I wouldn't want to live.

excon

You can speculate all you want to . I'll give you real cases. What did SCOTUS judicial review do to keep Japanese Americans from being interned in concentration camps ?

Hello again, tom:

I don't want to know how the present system FAILED.. I want to know how the "constitutional" model you support, WON'T.

Again, you didn't tell me. Therefore, it appears that there AREN'T any protections from unconstitutional laws.

That AIN'T a place where I want to live.

excon

And the place you want to live is a place where SCOTUS redefines the definition of 'public use ' is anything that the government says it means... giving the government the unbridled power to seize your property on any pretext ?

Hello again, tom:

Neither of them sound too good. But, don't tell me that under your scenario my private property would be any better protected. The people could VOTE it away.

excon

Really ? Did the people of New London "Vote " to seize the land ? No the government did it... and all the constitutional protections you think you have meant nothing . I'll tell you instead that the only protection the people of New London have is the ballot box .

That's not SCOTUS, it's the local and states rights to imminent domain that seize property and yes I have been through it, and dealt with the "fair market" pricing of compensation.

No different than the building of the Keystone pipeline that goes through private property, so of course you are against that being built.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

That's not SCOTUS, it's the local and states rights to imminent domain that seize property and yes I have been thru it, and dealt with the "fair market" pricing of compensation.

No different than the building of the Keystone pipeline that goes thru private property, so of course you are against that being built.

---

SCOTUS found it constitutional ;and it had NOTHING to do with infrastructure or compelling public interest.

Yes I'm in favor of the Keystone pipeline in the same way I'm in favor of bridges ,highways and railroads being built . That is a huge difference from a private condomium complex.

The pipeline is a private business enterprise too.

So are rail roads but they have an infrastructure public purpose

I think I covered this in an "it's come to this" post but since SCOTUS was involved...

For 64 years the federal government has been saving us from cheap raisins and by confiscating excess raisins. One farmer has been breaking the law for 11 years and took it to court.

Quote:

---

Raisin grower stickin' it to the man gets partial victory.

KERMAN, Calif. — In the world of dried fruit, America has no greater outlaw than Marvin Horne, 68.

Horne, a raisin farmer, has been breaking the law for 11 solid years. He now owes the U.S. government at least $650,000 in unpaid fines. And 1.2 million pounds of unpaid raisins, roughly equal to his entire harvest for four years.
...

When Horne’s case reached the Supreme Court this spring, Justice Elena Kagan wondered whether it might be “just the world’s most outdated law.”

“Your raisins or your life, right?” joked Justice Antonin Scalia.

Last month, the high court issued its ruling and gave Horne a partial victory. A lower court had rejected Horne’s challenge of the law. Now, the justices told that court to reconsider it.

Horne does not have the persona of a live-wire revolutionary. He used to be a tax auditor for the state. Now, in his second career, he watches fruit dry.

“If I knew we were going to go through all this, I would have just pulled the grapes out and put in almond” trees, he said.

But get Horne talking about the national raisin reserve, and the spirit stirs. Suddenly he can’t find a metaphor hairy enough to express his contempt. It’s robbery. It’s socialism. It’s communism. It’s feudalism. It’s . . .

“You have heard of the rape of the Sabine women? This is even worse,” Horne said, referencing a legendary mass abduction from Roman mythology. “The rape of the raisin growers.”

---

Stand your ground farmer Horne, kill the raisin reserve.

That would be big if the courts reversed the Wickard decision. Much of the unconstitutional power grab by the Federal Government has been based on the precedent established in the Wickard case... in fact ,a reversal of Wickard would topple a mountain of legal precedent. Marijuana advocates should be cheering at the prospect (although Raich v. White addressed that issue ,a reversal of Wickard would remove the rationale for Raich ) .

All I hear from you is divisioon, is dirresion, in fact Tom it is just Plain I don't agree. Well THAT'S FINE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO NOT AGREE but please let the rest of us remain in ignorance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

that would be big if the courts reversed the Wickard decision. Much of the unconstitutional power grab by the Federal Government has been based on the precedent established in the Wickard case ...in fact ,a reversal of Wickard would topple a mountain of legal precedent. Marijuana advocates should be cheering at the prospect (although Raich v. White addressed that issue ,a reversal of Wickard would remove the rationale for Raich ) .

---

An overturning of the Wickard decision? Sounds like a practical application of the law. You don't need to justify this on constitutional grounds. Isn't Scalia indicating as much?

Tom, there aren't federalists under every bed.

Quote:

---

Tom, there aren't federalists under every bed.

---

Sad but true . Even in the early days there were loyalists to a constitutional monarchy;and to an American version of the Jacobins .

Quote:

---

An overturning of the Wickard decision? Sounds like a practical application of the law. You don't need to justify this on constitutional grounds. Isn't Scalia indicating as much?

---

Although I don't think that SCOTUS has the constitutional authority to make that call; I am forced to comment on the system that we have rather than the system that was supposed to be. The Wickard decision represents one of the worse calls in SCOTUS history giving the national government broad powers over the economy that they have no constitutional authority to have.