What is the best system to replace the Fed?

[GhostWriter16]

And the rest of the Constitution is only important because....?

It is the legal system of the United States?

SCOTUS gave itself the right to interpret the Constitution...

 

[Ajidica]

The 10th amendment is only valid because the document it is contained in says it is valid. That is about as circular as it gets.

The right to judicial review was established during the time of the founding fathers and has been upheld for two-hundred years. How else is the Judiciary supposed to carry out its role in our system of checks and balences if it has no teeth? Judicial review gave the Judiciary the ability to perform its role without violating the constitution (as the Judiciary Act had done in an attempt to make the SC relavent). I suppose I should ask the following question: Why do you hate freedom so much and why do you love tyranny so much? All of your comments about the Supreme Court (and by extention, the Judiciary as a whole) seem to be directing hate toward the system of checks and balences.

 

[JollyRoger]

It is the legal system of the United States?

SCOTUS gave itself the right to interpret the Constitution...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

How can the SCOTUS exercise judicial power without interpreting the relevant law?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Its not the Supreme Court as a general concept I have issue with, I'm fine with the powers they are given in the Constitution. Its how they use their powers to manipulate (Rather than interpret) the Constitution that I take issue with.

 

[Ajidica]

Its not the Supreme Court as a general concept I have issue with, I'm fine with the powers they are given in the Constitution. Its how they use their powers to manipulate (Rather than interpret) the Constitution that I take issue with.

Care to give examples of how they 'manipulated' the constitution? Or are you sad about Casey v. Planned Parenthood where 'activist' judges struck down precedent involving your rights? How about Gideon v. Wainright where they increased the financial burden on the state governments? Darn activist judges manipulating the Constitution to suit their views.

 

[JollyRoger]

Its not the Supreme Court as a general concept I have issue with, I'm fine with the powers they are given in the Constitution. Its how they use their powers to manipulate (Rather than interpret) the Constitution that I take issue with.

I agree. Just look at the abuses in Heller and Citizens United.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

The 10th amendment is only valid because the document it is contained in says it is valid. That is about as circular as it gets.

The right to judicial review was established during the time of the founding fathers and has been upheld for two-hundred years. How else is the Judiciary supposed to carry out its role in our system of checks and balences if it has no teeth? Judicial review gave the Judiciary the ability to perform its role without violating the constitution (as the Judiciary Act had done in an attempt to make the SC relavent). I suppose I should ask the following question: Why do you hate freedom so much and why do you love tyranny so much? All of your comments about the Supreme Court (and by extention, the Judiciary as a whole) seem to be directing hate toward the system of checks and balences.

How is the Supreme Court supposed to do its roll when the constitution its supposed to interpret is without form or definition?

 

[Ajidica]

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I'm saying that if you, or a majority of nine people, are going to say that something is legal because they subjectively view it as being "necessary and proper," that the constitution that contains those words is without form or definition. It's vague. It is ill-defined. It contains no framework. The words that are auxiliary to that specific clause might as well not exist, because anything that is viewed as "necessary or proper" can become law according to our lawmakers and judges. The feds could tell me that I can't plunge my own toilet because it's necessary and proper that I not deflate the demand for plumbers and impinge on their source of income. Or the feds can say I must purchase health insurance even if I don't want it. They can violate our civil rights because it's necessary and proper. They can tell us we cannot defend ourselves from the unlawful entrance of a police officer. There is no boundary to the words "necessary and proper," or "general welfare," or "commerce," or "supremacy clause." You can, quite literally, justify anything within these matrices. So therefore, there is no form or definition to our constitution. Federal law has merely become a summation of what the federal government wants to do at any particular point in history. Judicial decisions are no longer about whether something really is, or really isn't unconstitutional. They are about partisans taking a formless document and justifying their positions so that they adhere to one particular ideology or the other. And all too often a handful of clauses and their associated precedents justify what takes place in Washington. The judges do not determine whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional. They determine whether they want the law to exist or not and will use whatever phrase or precedent they choose to justify their position regardless of the other words within the constitution.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm saying that if you, or a majority of nine people, are going to say that something is legal because they subjectively view it as being "necessary and proper," that the constitution that contains those words is without form or definition. It's vague. It is ill-defined. It contains no framework.

It has a couple of 100 years worth of framework in SCOTUS opinions alone. The starting point of that framework would be the meaning the Framers held for those terms which probaly goes back to another couple of centuries of written framework to provide guidance.

If SCOTUS veers too far off, the Consitution has an Amendment process for We the People to put things back on course. Short of that, We the People elect the President and Senators who have shared responsibilities in selecting Justices so that a course change can happen.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

It has a couple of 100 years worth of framework in SCOTUS opinions alone. The starting point of that framework would be the meaning the Framers held for those terms which probaly goes back to another couple of centuries of written framework to provide guidance.

If SCOTUS veers too far off, the Consitution has an Amendment process for We the People to put things back on course. Short of that, We the People elect the President and Senators who have shared responsibilities in selecting Justices so that a course change can happen.

I don't think that hundreds of years of SCOTUS opinions are a framework. I believe they are mostly excuses that serve to support other excuses.

I believe that the amendment process should be used more frequently to provide some rigidity to the form of government.

The size and scope of government is beyond description. The people today have no way of understanding or even fathoming the breadth of law that lies atop them. It is impossible for them to act as a check and balance on the federal government. And worst of all, once a law is passed, and found to be constitutional because it's "necessary and proper," it is law until Supreme Court Justices die or elect to retire. This, of course, can represent an arduous obstacle to justice and doesn't really act as a check or balance. Tell me JollyRoger, from the time of FDR, how many times did the Supreme Court strike down a piece of legislation as "unconstitutional." Especially in the context of 100 years of jurisprudence and legal precedent that existed before FDR molded the courts by threatening to pack to the courts?

 

[JollyRoger]

Tell me JollyRoger, from the time of FDR, how many times did the Supreme Court strike down a piece of legislation as "unconstitutional." Especially in the context of 100 years of jurisprudence and legal precedent that existed before FDR molded the courts by threatening to pack to the courts?

Court packing came about because the Court was striking down legislation. Currently, the Court strikes down legislation all the time, so I don't think the FDR court packing threat had much of a long term effect.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Court packing came about because the Court was striking down legislation. Currently, the Court strikes down legislation all the time, so I don't think the FDR court packing threat had much of a long term effect.

You didn't answer my question Jolly Roger. Between 1937 and 1995 how may pieces of federal legislation were declared unconstitutional?

 

[JollyRoger]

You didn't answer my question Jolly Roger. Between 1937 and 1995 how may pieces of federal legislation were declared unconstitutional?

First, you didn't ask that specific question. Second, I do not know the answer. My guess is that it reached a low point post-court packing attempt and has been generally increasing since then. The total from 1789 to 2002 is 158, though the first one wasn't until 1803, so the pace has been roughly 3 strike downs every 4 years.

From 1937 to 1995, no federal laws were declared unconstitutional for exceeding the scope of Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause.

 

[History_Buff]

Its not the Supreme Court as a general concept I have issue with, I'm fine with the powers they are given in the Constitution. Its how they use their powers to manipulate (Rather than interpret) the Constitution that I take issue with.

You're really going to have to provide specific examples. Seeing as SCOTUS has never been the source of an amendment, and have never struck down any portion of the Constitution, I can't possibly see how they have manipulated it. All they do is interpret, and apply it to laws passed by Congress.

They might disagree with you of course, but given that the judges tend to be, you know, life long legal scholars, they probably have a much better handle on the contents of the constitution than say, you or I.

 

[Leoreth]

I've lost interest in this discussion after it switched from "what is best?" to legalistic argumentations.

 

[History_Buff]

It is the legal system of the United States?

SCOTUS gave itself the right to interpret the Constitution...

But it's the legal system of the United States because it says so.

Whereas SCOTUS' power as the high court of the land is right in the original constitution.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

First, you didn't ask that specific question. Second, I do not know the answer. My guess is that it reached a low point post-court packing attempt and has been generally increasing since then. The total from 1789 to 2002 is 158, though the first one wasn't until 1803, so the pace has been roughly 3 strike downs every 4 years.

From 1937 to 1995, no federal laws were declared unconstitutional for exceeding the scope of Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause.

Okay, 3-4 strikedowns every four years.

Now let's look at it from another perspective. Between the two periods, how many laws were written by the federal government?

You don't actually have to answer that, but you know where I'm going with my point right?

 

[Ajidica]

There are more laws because the role of Congress has changed. Unless you can demonstrate that those laws are actively unconstitution (and don't simply brush them away with a 'commerce clause' or '10th Amendment' statement and leave it at that) you argument has nothing to stand on. A large volume of laws passed does not mean they are unconstitutional.

 

[JollyRoger]

Okay, 3-4 strikedowns every four years.

Now let's look at it from another perspective. Between the two periods, how many laws were written by the federal government?

You don't actually have to answer that, but you know where I'm going with my point right?

That the Supreme Court tends not to be as juducially activist as the right claims? It just strikes down the obvious violations?