[excon]

Hello again,

The feds ain't gonna let it happen. I didn't figure they would.

excon

[speechlesstx]

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.

[tomder55]

Hello again,

The feds ain't gonna let it happen. I didn't figure they would.

excon

So do you believe in the lib definition of the supremacy clause or not ?

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[TUT317]

Deleted by user

[TUT317]

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

[talaniman]

We have a process in place to determine if the states, or feds exceed their constitutional powers. Scotus.

[paraclete]

Tal that process only works if someone complains, they don't just seek out every instance

[talaniman]

It starts in the lower courts, and works its way up. That's just a process to address the complaints.

[tomder55]

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.

[paraclete]

Yes all they can really do is say try again

[TUT317]

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

[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 .

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)

[TUT317]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[paraclete]

More eighteenth century rhetoric, those fellows were sure full of it, weren't they?

[speechlesstx]

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?

[paraclete]

Yes but I think the author has more credence

[TUT317]

yes but I think the author has more credence

I was thinking exactly the same thing.