|
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 10, 2012, 07:41 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by TUT317
The problem with having a constitution that grew out of the Enlightenment is that anything established by reason must necessarily have the potential to be changed by reason. What was regarded as 'reasoned' in one generation may well be rejected as unreasonable by future generations. I think this is the trend we are seeing the moment. Once you establish something through a reasoned approach you automatically plant the seeds of change.
Tut
We have that, the amendment process. By design it's a very difficult process because words mean something. This is what they wrote and this is what they intended to be the law of the land, not this mythical living, breathing thing for progressives want to bend to their will.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 10, 2012, 07:51 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by excon
So do you believe in the lib definition of the supremacy clause or not ?
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Dec 10, 2012, 07:59 AM
|
|
Hello again, tom:
Remind me what it is and what the libs believe. Does that mean I think federal law trumping state law is GOOD?
I wouldn't argue on 10th Amendment issues (if that's what this is). I'd argue on Commerce Clause issues... The right wing stood fast complaining that the president didn't have the right to MANDATE that citizens PURCHASE stuff. To me, I argued that if it was OK for the feds to MANDATE that you CAN'T buy stuff, then it's only a short leap away from them mandating that you MUST buy stuff.
And, that's what they did. However, Constitutionally, I think they CAN'T.
excon
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 10, 2012, 12:00 PM
|
|
Look at this . 64 % of Americans believe that the Feds shouldn't have supremacy over state marijuana laws.
Poll: Americans side with states in pot laws - Political Eye - CBS News
Supremacy clause is Article VI, Section 2...
This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
It only really comes into conflict with the states when the Federal government exceeds it's constitutional authority .
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Dec 11, 2012, 05:13 AM
|
|
Deleted by user
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Dec 11, 2012, 02:43 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
We have that, the amendment process. By design it's a very difficult process because words mean something. This is what they wrote and this is what they intended to be the law of the land, not this mythical living, breathing thing for progressives want to bend to their will.
If you are saying that words mean something in their historical context then I would agree with that. Anything more than that is a different kettle of fish.
Tut
|
|
|
Expert
|
|
Dec 11, 2012, 02:53 PM
|
|
We have a process in place to determine if the states, or feds exceed their constitutional powers. Scotus.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 11, 2012, 03:04 PM
|
|
Tal that process only works if someone complains, they don't just seek out every instance
|
|
|
Expert
|
|
Dec 11, 2012, 03:09 PM
|
|
It starts in the lower courts, and works its way up. That's just a process to address the complaints.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 11, 2012, 05:50 PM
|
|
SCOTUS is/was not the final arbiter in our system . It is just one co-equal branch of the government. That is why Marbury v Madison was such a destructive decision.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 11, 2012, 06:41 PM
|
|
Yes all they can really do is say try again
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Dec 12, 2012, 05:16 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
SCOTUS is/was not the final arbiter in our system . It is just one co-equal branch of the govenment. That is why Marbury v Madison was such a destructive decision.
Tom, you keep mentioning the Marbury v Madison decision, but that was over two hundred years ago. Don't you think it is time to move on? Obviously there was an underestimation of the power of the judiciary.
Tut
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 12, 2012, 06:14 AM
|
|
No I shouldn't move on.. that was an unresolved power grab. This one should be and is a non-partisan issue. The root of the imperial judiciary can be found in that decision. It was probably the 1st time in Western history that a court invalidated a law by declaring it “unconstitutional” without a demonstration that a particular statue conflicted with the language of the constitutions or federal law.It gave the only unelected branch of government absolute power . Everyone should be appalled at that amt of power concentrated into a few hands .
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction]. … The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
(Jefferson)
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Dec 13, 2012, 02:31 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
No I shouldn't move on ..that was an unresolved power grab. This one should be and is a non-partisan issue. The root of the imperial judiciary can be found in that decision. It was probably the 1st time in Western history that a court invalidated a law by declaring it “unconstitutional” without a demonstration that a particular statue conflicted with the language of the constitutions or federal law.It gave the only unelected branch of government absolute power . Everyone should be appalled at that amt of power concentrated into a few hands .
(Jefferson)
Hi tom,
The language of any constitution can be problematic at times, but I think there are different issues when it comes to Marbury V Madison.
Be that as it may the Jefferson quote reminds me somewhat of Cicero's letters to Caesar. I can see a similar Cicerone appeal to shared governance and the fight against the self -serving individual (s) and the dilemma of how to curve such excesses.
Jefferson was obviously a learned man and no doubt familiar Cicero's understanding of constitutional government.Therefore, I am somewhat surprised upon reading this particular quote that he appeals for restraint.
Did he really expect that SCOTUS would ever be content to be a 'do little' arm of government? Would he not have been aware of the likelihood that unlimited power (once realized) is likely to corrupt those who posses it?
To say the very least it seems to be a fairly significant oversight.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 13, 2012, 07:12 AM
|
|
Where I find fault is that neither the executive or legislature ever put SCOTUS back in it's place. Andrew Jackson came close after 'Worchester v Georgia '... But by then it was too late . You know "Precedence" and all that nonsense. Jackson famously stated "... the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," . But in the end ;Jackson and the State of Georgia gave in to the will of the Judiciary.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 13, 2012, 04:43 PM
|
|
More eighteenth century rhetoric, those fellows were sure full of it, weren't they?
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 14, 2012, 07:11 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
more eigtheenth century rhetoric, those fellows were sure full of it, weren't they?
Eighteenth century wisdom is not irrelevant. You believe the bible has plenty of wisdom, no?
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 14, 2012, 02:34 PM
|
|
Yes but I think the author has more credence
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Dec 15, 2012, 02:34 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
yes but I think the author has more credence
I was thinking exactly the same thing.
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Legal status (student visa) becoming legal resident?
[ 2 Answers ]
Hi, I am a legal resident green card holder and have been so for 28 years. I met someone and fell in love and got married. The problem is she is here on a student visa. I would like to know if it is possible for her to obtain legal obtain status. There are a few circumstances that I feel that may...
Is there legal visitation rights for nonbiological or legal parents
[ 5 Answers ]
I am from South Dakota and I had met a man that had full legal custody of his infant son. The biological mother very rare saw the child and was not involved in his life. I started dating this man when the child was 8 months old and we were engaged by the time he was 11 months old. The child's...
Giving up legal right to pursue legal actions
[ 8 Answers ]
I want to up all legal right to pursue legal action against my male partner before I give birth to my unborn child. How do I go about doing that? I mean I want it in written form that I give up the right to sue him for any type of child support or any type of care to my child. Also I don't want to...
View more questions
Search
|