# Where are the people that understand the Constitution?



## capego

The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.

Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?


----------



## Disir

What part of the Constitution would you like to discuss? All of it?


----------



## capego

Disir said:


> What part of the Constitution would you like to discuss? All of it?



Only the important parts.

I've looked online and I find only very shoddy looking sites for the purpose of either discussing or promoting the constitution (excepting this one, but I don't find online forums are an appropriate place for serious discussion).


----------



## longknife

*What's difficult to understand? It's the most brilliant document in human history and basically outlines what limits are set on government over individual rights.*


----------



## DGS49

The extreme political Left (now the Democrat mainstream) realized long ago that there was no chance that they would ever be able to implement their agenda legally, with laws and a Consitutional Amendment or two.  So they have attempted to get what they want through compromised judges and justices, who "interpret" the Constitution and laws to achieve their ends.

So they invented a phony "right of privacy," which sounded good but was not supported anywhere in the Constitution.  It was used to create a right to abortion, a right to marry someone of the same gender, and voided any laws prohibiting gross sexual conduct.

In order to do this, it was necessary to pretend that our Constitution is too complicated for common people to understand.  Their legal opinions run scores of pages, turning words and logic on their figurative heads.

Their biggest fear is that Trump will fill the Federal courts with judges and justices who will interpret the actual Constitution, and not the fantasy document they have been going by for the past 50 years.

Perverse, ain't it?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

capego said:


> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?


The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court; to understand that case law is to understand the Constitution.

Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

capego said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the Constitution would you like to discuss? All of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the important parts.
> 
> I've looked online and I find only very shoddy looking sites for the purpose of either discussing or promoting the constitution (excepting this one, but I don't find online forums are an appropriate place for serious discussion).
Click to expand...

Constitutional case law is comprehensively important.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Must Be On Ignore To Satisfy Intellectual Cowardice Criteria "*

** Ignored The Obvious **


DGS49 said:


> The extreme political Left (now the Democrat mainstream) realized long ago that there was no chance that they would ever be able to implement their agenda legally, with laws and a Consitutional Amendment or two.  So they have attempted to get what they want through compromised judges and justices, who "interpret" the Constitution and laws to achieve their ends.
> 
> *So they invented a phony "right of privacy," which sounded good but was not supported anywhere in the Constitution.*  It was used to create a right to abortion, a right to marry someone of the same gender, and voided any laws prohibiting gross sexual conduct.
> 
> In order to do this, it was necessary to pretend that our Constitution is too complicated for common people to understand.  Their legal opinions run scores of pages, turning words and logic on their figurative heads.
> 
> Their biggest fear is that Trump will fill the Federal courts with judges and justices who will interpret the actual Constitution, and not the fantasy document they have been going by for the past 50 years.
> 
> Perverse, ain't it?


US 14th Amendment Establishes Negative Liberty of Individuals to Acquire Abortion
*
* Did Not Stutter The First Time **


Monk-Eye said:


> *" Repetitive Anti-Choice Statements Of Nonsense "
> 
> * Legally Clue Less **
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of one's position on legalized abortion , the Roe v Wade decision was, well...A legal and Constitutional "abortion."  It was based on a non-existent right, found nowhere in the Constitution.  It was scientifically preposterous, and has been shown ever more so in the years since 1973.
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is based upon wrights of citizens , and to become a citizen , according to the 14th amendment , one must be born , and for equal protection one must be born .
> 
> That is the basis of roe v wade , as specified in the blackmun opinion .
> 
> But hey , the clown shoes pro-birth camp is going to repeat stupidity because they figure , " Why not lie , as long as we get our way ? " .
Click to expand...


----------



## Natural Citizen

capego said:


> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?



All that is required is a common sense approach.


----------



## Natural Citizen

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court; to understand that case law is to understand the Constitution.
> 
> Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution.



The SCOTUS is, itself, limited by the Constitution.

Article VI trumps.  Additionally, any decision in any case is limited to the 'law of the case' and binds only those parties involved in it.

See Federalist 83 here.


----------



## DGS49

Think about this for a moment:  We have a Constitution that is remarkably short.  A fairly literate person could read it from end to end, with time included to look up unfamiliar words (e.g., "emoluments"), in an hour. There is almost nothing in it that is too complex for a legitimate high school grad to understand.

And yet, we have been convinced (see above) that it is not possible to understand this simple document without reading and understanding an entire library of cases, comments, and explanations.

As the late, great, Joseph Sobran wrote very eloquently many years ago, much of "Constitutional" law not only has nothing to do with the Constitution, but it actually contradicts the Constitution in many important areas.

There have been Supreme Court justices who firmly believed (at least they said they believed) that the Death Penalty was "unconstitutional"...even though the Constitution refers TWICE to a person being legitimately deprived of his life (with due process).  We have had justices claim that an amendment that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race required discrimination on the basis of race.  We have USSC decisions that tell us that what a subsistence farmer does on his own property for his own consumption constitutes "interstate commerce," under the Constitution.  An Amendment that starts with the words, "Congress shall make no law..." has been used to impose obligations on, for example, city zoning boards around the country.  In the face of an Amendment - never modified - that says Congress has. no powers other than what is expressly articulated in the Constitution, we have a library of cases where the Supreme Court has sanctioned a cornucopia of Federal government programs and expenditures that are not even remotely related to Congress' enumerated powers.  Department of Education, anyone?

Can't find anyone who understands the Constitution?  Brett Kavanaugh does.  We need to make sure he gets a seat on the USSC.  Quickly.


----------



## Vastator

There is very little present in the totality of our current government, that represents the founders vision for our nation. For most the Constitution is but an interesting footnote in the development of our nation. Many even believe there is more work to do, in order to design a nation that fulfills their own political desires.


----------



## Unkotare

capego said:


> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?





But let me guess...YOU understand it completely, unlike everyone else, right?


----------



## Skylar

capego said:


> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?



And by 'understand the constitution', you mean agree with you?

The constitution has loads of ambiguity. For example, it prohibits 'unreasonable' search and seizure. What's 'unreasonable'? Its standard of warrants is 'probable' cause. What's 'probable'? 

I'm sure you can come up with a definition that works......but has elements of arbitrary opinion. And other people can come up with similar working definitions that have different arbitrary elements.

Meaning there is room for rational debate on the meaning of the constitution. And thus principled people can disagree. Eliminating the likelyhood of there being one interpretation to 'understand'.


----------



## Skylar

Vastator said:


> There is very little present in the totality of our current government, that represents the founders vision for our nation. For most the Constitution is but an interesting footnote in the development of our nation. Many even believe there is more work to do, in order to design a nation that fulfills their own political desires.



There have been substantial changes to our constitution in that time. The constitution had huge mistakes that we've had to correct...sometimes at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

For example....the Bill of Rights never applied to the States as envisioned by the Founders. Which was a colossal fuck up on the part of the founders.


----------



## Vastator

Skylar said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is very little present in the totality of our current government, that represents the founders vision for our nation. For most the Constitution is but an interesting footnote in the development of our nation. Many even believe there is more work to do, in order to design a nation that fulfills their own political desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been substantial changes to our constitution in that time. The constitution had huge mistakes that we've had to correct...sometimes at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
> 
> For example....the Bill of Rights never applied to the States as envisioned by the Founders. Which was a colossal fuck up on the part of the founders.
Click to expand...

What makes you so sure? One persons dislike of the design, doesn’t mean that it was designed in error.


----------



## Skylar

Vastator said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is very little present in the totality of our current government, that represents the founders vision for our nation. For most the Constitution is but an interesting footnote in the development of our nation. Many even believe there is more work to do, in order to design a nation that fulfills their own political desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been substantial changes to our constitution in that time. The constitution had huge mistakes that we've had to correct...sometimes at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
> 
> For example....the Bill of Rights never applied to the States as envisioned by the Founders. Which was a colossal fuck up on the part of the founders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you so sure? One persons dislike of the design, doesn’t mean that it was designed in error.
Click to expand...


Because they made assumptions that were inaccurate. For example, in refusing to apply the bill of rights to the States they assumed that the States would preserve the rights of its people.

The founders were wrong. As Barron v. Baltimore demonstrated elegantly. And Jim Crow. And many, many other examples. The States violate rights constantly. The founders were quite simply wrong.


----------



## Vastator

Skylar said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is very little present in the totality of our current government, that represents the founders vision for our nation. For most the Constitution is but an interesting footnote in the development of our nation. Many even believe there is more work to do, in order to design a nation that fulfills their own political desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been substantial changes to our constitution in that time. The constitution had huge mistakes that we've had to correct...sometimes at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
> 
> For example....the Bill of Rights never applied to the States as envisioned by the Founders. Which was a colossal fuck up on the part of the founders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you so sure? One persons dislike of the design, doesn’t mean that it was designed in error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they made assumptions that were inaccurate. For example, in refusing to apply the bill of rights to the States they assumed that the States would preserve the rights of its people.
> 
> The founders were wrong. As Barron v. Baltimore demonstrated elegantly. And Jim Crow. And many, many other examples. The States violate rights constantly. The founders were quite simply wrong.
Click to expand...

Again, that is opinion. The constitution was designed to limit the authority of the federal government over the states.


----------



## Skylar

Vastator said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is very little present in the totality of our current government, that represents the founders vision for our nation. For most the Constitution is but an interesting footnote in the development of our nation. Many even believe there is more work to do, in order to design a nation that fulfills their own political desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been substantial changes to our constitution in that time. The constitution had huge mistakes that we've had to correct...sometimes at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
> 
> For example....the Bill of Rights never applied to the States as envisioned by the Founders. Which was a colossal fuck up on the part of the founders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you so sure? One persons dislike of the design, doesn’t mean that it was designed in error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they made assumptions that were inaccurate. For example, in refusing to apply the bill of rights to the States they assumed that the States would preserve the rights of its people.
> 
> The founders were wrong. As Barron v. Baltimore demonstrated elegantly. And Jim Crow. And many, many other examples. The States violate rights constantly. The founders were quite simply wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that is opinion. The constitution was designed to limit the authority of the federal government over the states.
Click to expand...


No, that's the explicit findings of the US Supreme Court. They found that while Baltimore had clearly violated the rights of Barron.....they could do nothing about it as the federal courts weren't empowered to apply the Bill of Rights to the State of Maryland.

The assumptions of the founders, that the States would preserve the rights of the people, was found to be factually inaccurate by the Supreme Court. 

And it is these inaccurate assumptions that render the founders judgment flawed and in need of correction. Which, of course, we did.


----------



## danielpalos

capego said:


> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?


definitely Not on the Right Wing.


----------



## Vastator

Skylar said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is very little present in the totality of our current government, that represents the founders vision for our nation. For most the Constitution is but an interesting footnote in the development of our nation. Many even believe there is more work to do, in order to design a nation that fulfills their own political desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been substantial changes to our constitution in that time. The constitution had huge mistakes that we've had to correct...sometimes at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
> 
> For example....the Bill of Rights never applied to the States as envisioned by the Founders. Which was a colossal fuck up on the part of the founders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you so sure? One persons dislike of the design, doesn’t mean that it was designed in error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they made assumptions that were inaccurate. For example, in refusing to apply the bill of rights to the States they assumed that the States would preserve the rights of its people.
> 
> The founders were wrong. As Barron v. Baltimore demonstrated elegantly. And Jim Crow. And many, many other examples. The States violate rights constantly. The founders were quite simply wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that is opinion. The constitution was designed to limit the authority of the federal government over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's the explicit findings of the US Supreme Court. They found that while Baltimore had clearly violated the rights of Barron.....they could do nothing about it as the federal courts weren't empowered to apply the Bill of Rights to the State of Maryland.
> 
> The assumptions of the founders, that the States would preserve the rights of the people, was found to be factually inaccurate by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And it is these inaccurate assumptions that render the founders judgment flawed and in need of correction. Which, of course, we did.
Click to expand...

It was the opinion of the court.


----------



## Skylar

Vastator said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been substantial changes to our constitution in that time. The constitution had huge mistakes that we've had to correct...sometimes at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
> 
> For example....the Bill of Rights never applied to the States as envisioned by the Founders. Which was a colossal fuck up on the part of the founders.
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you so sure? One persons dislike of the design, doesn’t mean that it was designed in error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they made assumptions that were inaccurate. For example, in refusing to apply the bill of rights to the States they assumed that the States would preserve the rights of its people.
> 
> The founders were wrong. As Barron v. Baltimore demonstrated elegantly. And Jim Crow. And many, many other examples. The States violate rights constantly. The founders were quite simply wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that is opinion. The constitution was designed to limit the authority of the federal government over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's the explicit findings of the US Supreme Court. They found that while Baltimore had clearly violated the rights of Barron.....they could do nothing about it as the federal courts weren't empowered to apply the Bill of Rights to the State of Maryland.
> 
> The assumptions of the founders, that the States would preserve the rights of the people, was found to be factually inaccurate by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And it is these inaccurate assumptions that render the founders judgment flawed and in need of correction. Which, of course, we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the opinion of the court.
Click to expand...


The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.

You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment and should no security problems in our free States.

only the Right Wing, complains about that work ethic from the Age of Iron.


----------



## Vastator

Skylar said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you so sure? One persons dislike of the design, doesn’t mean that it was designed in error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they made assumptions that were inaccurate. For example, in refusing to apply the bill of rights to the States they assumed that the States would preserve the rights of its people.
> 
> The founders were wrong. As Barron v. Baltimore demonstrated elegantly. And Jim Crow. And many, many other examples. The States violate rights constantly. The founders were quite simply wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that is opinion. The constitution was designed to limit the authority of the federal government over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's the explicit findings of the US Supreme Court. They found that while Baltimore had clearly violated the rights of Barron.....they could do nothing about it as the federal courts weren't empowered to apply the Bill of Rights to the State of Maryland.
> 
> The assumptions of the founders, that the States would preserve the rights of the people, was found to be factually inaccurate by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And it is these inaccurate assumptions that render the founders judgment flawed and in need of correction. Which, of course, we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the opinion of the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.
> 
> You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.
Click to expand...

I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...


----------



## Skylar

Vastator said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they made assumptions that were inaccurate. For example, in refusing to apply the bill of rights to the States they assumed that the States would preserve the rights of its people.
> 
> The founders were wrong. As Barron v. Baltimore demonstrated elegantly. And Jim Crow. And many, many other examples. The States violate rights constantly. The founders were quite simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that is opinion. The constitution was designed to limit the authority of the federal government over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's the explicit findings of the US Supreme Court. They found that while Baltimore had clearly violated the rights of Barron.....they could do nothing about it as the federal courts weren't empowered to apply the Bill of Rights to the State of Maryland.
> 
> The assumptions of the founders, that the States would preserve the rights of the people, was found to be factually inaccurate by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And it is these inaccurate assumptions that render the founders judgment flawed and in need of correction. Which, of course, we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the opinion of the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.
> 
> You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...
Click to expand...


Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.

You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.

I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

The power to provide for the general welfare, is General; not common, specific, or major.


----------



## Valerie

DGS49 said:


> So they invented* a phony "right of privacy,"* which sounded good but was not supported anywhere in the Constitution.




SO... it is actually your contention, _as a supposed "conservative"_, that you do not believe our constitution gives citizens a right to privacy from unwarranted government intrusion??






_...a broad right of privacy has been found by the court to exist within the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and 14th Amendments, as well as the penumbras of the Bill of Rights._

Privacy

_"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."_


_Fourth Amendment_


----------



## danielpalos

works, for me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

capego said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the Constitution would you like to discuss? All of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the important parts.
> 
> I've looked online and I find only very shoddy looking sites for the purpose of either discussing or promoting the constitution (excepting this one, but I don't find online forums are an appropriate place for serious discussion).
Click to expand...


It's ALL important, given that it's all the founding laws of our country.


----------



## DGS49

Valerie, sweetie, nobody disputes the Constitutional right to be free from police searches, siezures, and oppression.

But the "Constitutional" right of privacy has been used to justify KILLING BABIES IN THE WOMB, outlawing sodomy laws, and marrying a person of the same gender.  What does this have to do with freedom from unreasonable searches?

NOTHING!

This is the imaginary right of privacy.


----------



## Death Angel

capego said:


> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?


The militias. The swamp hates them and have turned most citizens against them.


----------



## Skylar

Death Angel said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?
> 
> 
> 
> The militias. The swamp hates them and have turned most citizens against them.
Click to expand...


The 'swamp' being your imaginary boogeyman. Kinda like the 'deep state'?


----------



## danielpalos

...not on the right wing, that is for sure.


----------



## Oddball

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Constitutional case law is comprehensively important.


Case law is a popcorn fart.


----------



## Oddball

Natural Citizen said:


> The SCOTUS is, itself, limited by the Constitution.
> 
> Article VI trumps.  Additionally, any decision in any case is limited to the 'law of the case' and binds only those parties involved in it.
> 
> See Federalist 83 here.


Not since they seized power under Marbury v. Madison....Ever since, we've had  judicial oligarchy.


----------



## Skylar

Oddball said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional case law is comprehensively important.
> 
> 
> 
> Case law is a popcorn fart.
Click to expand...


Not in our legal system. It establishes precedent and is the embodiment of the entire concept of stare decisis.


----------



## Skylar

Oddball said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS is, itself, limited by the Constitution.
> 
> Article VI trumps.  Additionally, any decision in any case is limited to the 'law of the case' and binds only those parties involved in it.
> 
> See Federalist 83 here.
> 
> 
> 
> Not since they seized power under Marbury v. Madison....Ever since, we've had  judicial oligarchy.
Click to expand...


The judicial power is to interpret the constitution. So says the federalist papers. The judiciary has not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law. 

Thus, if a law is contradicted by the constitution, the judiciary overturns that law and affirms the constitution.

And 'oligarchy'? I don't think that term means what you think it means.


----------



## Oddball

Skylar said:


> The judicial power is to interpret the constitution. So says the federalist papers. The judiciary has not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law.
> 
> Thus, if a law is contradicted by the constitution, the judiciary overturns that law and affirms the constitution.
> 
> And 'oligarchy'? I don't think that term means what you think it means.


Irrelevant to the point made...In in NO Federalist Paper is it delineated that USSC should be the final word on anything.

And if the constant stream of prog moonbats running to the courts every time someone they don't like does something they don't like doesn't show that we're operating under judicial oligarchy, what would?


----------



## Oddball

Skylar said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional case law is comprehensively important.
> 
> 
> 
> Case law is a popcorn fart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in our legal system. It establishes precedent and is the embodiment of the entire concept of stare decisis.
Click to expand...

And it can be capriciously overturned the next time around....A popcorn fart.


----------



## Skylar

Oddball said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judicial power is to interpret the constitution. So says the federalist papers. The judiciary has not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law.
> 
> Thus, if a law is contradicted by the constitution, the judiciary overturns that law and affirms the constitution.
> 
> And 'oligarchy'? I don't think that term means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to the point made...In in NO Federalist Paper is it delineated that USSC should be the final word on anything.
Click to expand...


In the Federalist papers it states that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the constitution and interpret the meaning of any given law. And if there is an irreconcilable variance between a law and the constitution, that the judiciary should put the constitution above the law.

It is the role of the judiciary to act as an intermediary between the people and the legislature *and keep the legislature within the bounds of its authority. *If the legislature oversteps and passes laws in contradiction of the constitution, the judiciary puts the constitution over the law. As its is the judiciary that interprets the *meaning* of the constitution.

Just because you don't know what the Federalist papers say on the matter doesn't mean the Federalist papers change. Or the the judicial power doesn't include the authority to interpret the constitution.


----------



## regent

Skylar said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judicial power is to interpret the constitution. So says the federalist papers. The judiciary has not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law.
> 
> Thus, if a law is contradicted by the constitution, the judiciary overturns that law and affirms the constitution.
> 
> And 'oligarchy'? I don't think that term means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to the point made...In in NO Federalist Paper is it delineated that USSC should be the final word on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Federalist papers it states that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the constitution and interpret the meaning of any given law. And if there is an irreconcilable variance between a law and the constitution, that the judiciary should put the constitution above the law.
> 
> It is the role of the judiciary to act as an intermediary between the people and the legislature *and keep the legislature within the bounds of its authority. *If the legislature oversteps and passes laws in contradiction of the constitution, the judiciary puts the constitution over the law. As its is the judiciary that interprets the *meaning* of the constitution.
> 
> Just because you don't know what the Federalist papers say on the matter doesn't mean the Federalist papers change. Or the the judicial power doesn't include the authority to interpret the constitution.
Click to expand...

The Federalist Papers are simply letters to the editor and have no legal power. The Constitution is not clear on the role of the Supreme Court but America has accepted Marbury as the law of the land.


----------



## longknife

*I am amazed by the so-called controversies surrounding the U.S. Constitution.*

*No such document was ever written more clearly. It says what it says and that should be the basis for every political and legal decision made in this country.*

*If someone doesn't like what it says, go through the amendment process it provides for. *


----------



## Sunsettommy

Skylar said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that is opinion. The constitution was designed to limit the authority of the federal government over the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's the explicit findings of the US Supreme Court. They found that while Baltimore had clearly violated the rights of Barron.....they could do nothing about it as the federal courts weren't empowered to apply the Bill of Rights to the State of Maryland.
> 
> The assumptions of the founders, that the States would preserve the rights of the people, was found to be factually inaccurate by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And it is these inaccurate assumptions that render the founders judgment flawed and in need of correction. Which, of course, we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the opinion of the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.
> 
> You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.
> 
> You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.
Click to expand...


The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.

The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.

The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.

There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.


----------



## Natural Citizen

regent said:


> The Federalist Papers are simply letters to the editor and have no legal power. The Constitution is not clear on the role of the Supreme Court but America has accepted Marbury as the law of the land.



I'm afraid the Federalist is a bit more than mere trivialization. Respectfully.

As Madison wrote Jefferson on February 8, 1825:

"The 'Federalist' may fairly enough be regarded as the most authentic exposition of the text of the federal Constitution, as understood by the Body which prepared & the Authority which accepted it."

Relevant reading: "The Federalist"--A Rich Source of Sound Knowledge

That's a great read, and I recommend it for any and all who might be interested in why the Federalist is often introduced into discussion with regard to the Constitution, and, in fact, the thought process which led to the beginnings of our compound Repubic.


----------



## Skylar

Sunsettommy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's the explicit findings of the US Supreme Court. They found that while Baltimore had clearly violated the rights of Barron.....they could do nothing about it as the federal courts weren't empowered to apply the Bill of Rights to the State of Maryland.
> 
> The assumptions of the founders, that the States would preserve the rights of the people, was found to be factually inaccurate by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And it is these inaccurate assumptions that render the founders judgment flawed and in need of correction. Which, of course, we did.
> 
> 
> 
> It was the opinion of the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.
> 
> You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.
> 
> You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.
> 
> The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.
> 
> The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.
> 
> There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.
Click to expand...


Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions. 

Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government. 

Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.


----------



## Skylar

Natural Citizen said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist Papers are simply letters to the editor and have no legal power. The Constitution is not clear on the role of the Supreme Court but America has accepted Marbury as the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid the Federalist is a bit more than mere trivialization. Respectfully.
> 
> As Madison wrote Jefferson on February 8, 1825:
> 
> "The 'Federalist' may fairly enough be regarded as the most authentic exposition of the text of the federal Constitution, as understood by the Body which prepared & the Authority which accepted it."
> 
> Relevant reading: "The Federalist"--A Rich Source of Sound Knowledge
> 
> That's a great read, and I recommend it for any and all who might be interested in why the Federalist is often introduced into discussion with regard to the Constitution, and, in fact, the thought process which led to the beginnings of our compound Repubic.
Click to expand...


They also lay out the form of government advocated by the Federalists in opposition to the Anti-Federalists.

And the Federalists won.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Skylar said:


> They also lay out the form of government advocated by the Federalists in opposition to the Anti-Federalists.
> 
> And the Federalists won.



Yeah. They sure did.

As it turns out, the anti-federalists were correct in their predictions, though. Government has got way to big and way to powerful while our liberties continue to erode bill by bill.

If I was alive back then, I'd have been an anti-federalist, for sure.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Skylar said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the opinion of the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.
> 
> You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.
> 
> You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.
> 
> The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.
> 
> The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.
> 
> There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions.
> 
> Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government.
> 
> Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.
Click to expand...


What have they done that is amoral?


----------



## Skylar

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court is the body that authoritatively interprets the constitution by design. Read Federalist Paper 78.
> 
> You're dismissing the intent of the founders in the role of the judiciary. Which doesn't bode well for your 'understanding the constitution' argument.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.
> 
> You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.
> 
> The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.
> 
> The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.
> 
> There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions.
> 
> Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government.
> 
> Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have they done that is amoral?
Click to expand...


Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress.  The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.

If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Skylar said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not dismissing anything. Which doesn’t bode well for you “interpretation of written word”...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.
> 
> You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.
> 
> The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.
> 
> The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.
> 
> There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions.
> 
> Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government.
> 
> Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have they done that is amoral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress.  The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.
> 
> If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.
Click to expand...


Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.

*"3. Korematsu v. United States (1944):* Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens. In a cruel and ironic twist, this was also the first time the Court applied strict scrutiny to racial discrimination by the U.S. government, belying the idea that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact."

LINK

Their Constitutional rights as citizens were VIOLATED!


----------



## Skylar

Sunsettommy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.
> 
> You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.
> 
> The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.
> 
> The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.
> 
> There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions.
> 
> Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government.
> 
> Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have they done that is amoral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress.  The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.
> 
> If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.
Click to expand...


Fred Korematsu was already interned by the President. Executive Order 9066 was issued in Febuary of 1942. The Korematsu decision didn't come down until 1944....._more than 2 years later. _

The President was the one who took the 'evil action' in your own estimation.

Does that mean that the Executive doesn't have the Executive Power mentioned by the Constitution? Of course not.

*Your entire argument is a red herring. *As poor execution of constitutional powers *has nothing to do* with what authority  is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Skylar said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.
> 
> The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.
> 
> The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.
> 
> There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions.
> 
> Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government.
> 
> Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What have they done that is amoral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress.  The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.
> 
> If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fred Korematsu was already interned by the President. Executive Order 9066 was issued in Febuary of 1942. The Korematsu decision didn't come down until 1944....._more than 2 years later. _
> 
> The President was the one who took the 'evil action' in your own estimation.
> 
> Does that mean that the Executive doesn't have the Executive Power mentioned by the Constitution? Of course not.
> 
> *Your entire argument is a red herring. *As poor execution of constitutional powers *has nothing to do* with what authority  is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution.
Click to expand...


You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the President and Congress were guilty.

You also forgot that SCOTUS made a decision, which if they had agreed with Fred, would have overturned the vile Executive order, _why didn't you think of that possibility_, that SCOTUS could have shot down the illegal Executive order since he had NO evidence of sabotage to fall on.

How come he didn't round up the Germans and the Italians into camps, as they also enemies at the time?



Meanwhile read about the finding of Congress in December 1982:

Justice Denied

Summary

Germans and German Americans

Executive Order 9066 was illegal.


----------



## Skylar

Sunsettommy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress has passed absolute garbage legislation. The Executive has taken absolutely amoral actions.
> 
> Neither have a thing to do with the constitutional authority granted their respective branches of government.
> 
> Nor do bad decisions have any relevance to the constitutional authority granted the Judiciary to interpret the constitution in the Judicial Power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What have they done that is amoral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress.  The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.
> 
> If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fred Korematsu was already interned by the President. Executive Order 9066 was issued in Febuary of 1942. The Korematsu decision didn't come down until 1944....._more than 2 years later. _
> 
> The President was the one who took the 'evil action' in your own estimation.
> 
> Does that mean that the Executive doesn't have the Executive Power mentioned by the Constitution? Of course not.
> 
> *Your entire argument is a red herring. *As poor execution of constitutional powers *has nothing to do* with what authority  is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the President and Congress were guilty.
Click to expand...


Then by your own argument, Congress no longer has the Legislative Power granted them by the Constitution? And the President doesn't have the Executive Power.....because Congress and the President were both 'guilty' of 'evil' uses of their authority?

Of course not. 

Again, *your entire argument is a red herring.* As poor execution of constitutional powers *has nothing to do* with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution. Which is what we're discussing. And the point you're willfully ignoring.


----------



## regent

So do the Federalist Papers have any legal authority?
Where in Article 3 of the Constitution does it state that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review?


----------



## frigidweirdo

longknife said:


> *What's difficult to understand? It's the most brilliant document in human history and basically outlines what limits are set on government over individual rights.*



And then people start from this point, saying it's simple, then set about misinterpreting it for their own gain.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Skylar said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS is, itself, limited by the Constitution.
> 
> Article VI trumps.  Additionally, any decision in any case is limited to the 'law of the case' and binds only those parties involved in it.
> 
> See Federalist 83 here.
> 
> 
> 
> Not since they seized power under Marbury v. Madison....Ever since, we've had  judicial oligarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The judicial power is to interpret the constitution. So says the federalist papers. The judiciary has not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law.
> 
> Thus, if a law is contradicted by the constitution, the judiciary overturns that law and affirms the constitution.
> 
> And 'oligarchy'? I don't think that term means what you think it means.
Click to expand...

Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Skylar said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have they done that is amoral?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress.  The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.
> 
> If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fred Korematsu was already interned by the President. Executive Order 9066 was issued in Febuary of 1942. The Korematsu decision didn't come down until 1944....._more than 2 years later. _
> 
> The President was the one who took the 'evil action' in your own estimation.
> 
> Does that mean that the Executive doesn't have the Executive Power mentioned by the Constitution? Of course not.
> 
> *Your entire argument is a red herring. *As poor execution of constitutional powers *has nothing to do* with what authority  is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the President and Congress were guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then by your own argument, Congress no longer has the Legislative Power granted them by the Constitution? And the President doesn't have the Executive Power.....because Congress and the President were both 'guilty' of 'evil' uses of their authority?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Again, *your entire argument is a red herring.* As poor execution of constitutional powers *has nothing to do* with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution. Which is what we're discussing. And the point you're willfully ignoring.
Click to expand...


You are truly too stupid to realize that NO ONE can be above the law, including the President who by an Executive Order rounded up legal citizens over a bogus claim that *NEVER* existed, which YOU keep ignoring. There was no demonstrated evidence of danger from the people he rounded up. No evidence of organized unlawful activities were ever found, which begs the question of what were Executive orders designed for in the first place:

Wikipedia on Executive Orders:

*"Basis in the United States Constitution*
The United States Constitution does not have a provision that explicitly permits the use of executive orders. The term _executive power_ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution is not entirely clear. *The term is mentioned as direction to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and is part of Article II, Section 3. *The consequence of failing to comply could possibly be removal from office.[4][5]

The U.S. Supreme Court has held[6] that all executive orders from the President of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch.[7] Specifically, such orders must be rooted in Article II of the US Constitution or enacted by the congress in statutes. Attempts to block such orders have been successful at times when such orders exceeded the authority of the president or could be better handled through legislation.[8]

The Office of the Federal Register is responsible for assigning the executive order a sequential number after receipt of the signed original from the White House and printing the text of the executive order in the daily _Federal Register_ and Title 3 of the _Code of Federal Regulations_.[9] "

_bolding mine
_
Oops, there NO specific mention of Executive orders in the first place!


----------



## Skylar

Sunsettommy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy cites the 'evil Korematsu v. United States' decision. Korematsu was interned by executive order by the President and funding of the US congress.  The 'evil' decision merely upheld the authority of both Congress and the Executive to intern citizens during time of war.
> 
> If the decision is evil.....surely the Executive Order by the president and the funding by the congress were at least as evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fred Korematsu was already interned by the President. Executive Order 9066 was issued in Febuary of 1942. The Korematsu decision didn't come down until 1944....._more than 2 years later. _
> 
> The President was the one who took the 'evil action' in your own estimation.
> 
> Does that mean that the Executive doesn't have the Executive Power mentioned by the Constitution? Of course not.
> 
> *Your entire argument is a red herring. *As poor execution of constitutional powers *has nothing to do* with what authority  is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the President and Congress were guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then by your own argument, Congress no longer has the Legislative Power granted them by the Constitution? And the President doesn't have the Executive Power.....because Congress and the President were both 'guilty' of 'evil' uses of their authority?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Again, *your entire argument is a red herring.* As poor execution of constitutional powers *has nothing to do* with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution. Which is what we're discussing. And the point you're willfully ignoring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are truly too stupid to realize that NO ONE can be above the law, including the President who by an Executive Order rounded up legal citizens over a bogus claim that *NEVER* existed, which YOU keep ignoring. There was no demonstrated evidence of danger from the people he rounded up. No evidence of organized unlawful activities were ever found, which begs the question of what were Executive orders designed for in the first place:
> 
> Wikipedia on Executive Orders:
> 
> *"Basis in the United States Constitution*
> The United States Constitution does not have a provision that explicitly permits the use of executive orders. The term _executive power_ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution is not entirely clear. *The term is mentioned as direction to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and is part of Article II, Section 3. *The consequence of failing to comply could possibly be removal from office.[4][5]
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court has held[6] that all executive orders from the President of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch.[7] Specifically, such orders must be rooted in Article II of the US Constitution or enacted by the congress in statutes. Attempts to block such orders have been successful at times when such orders exceeded the authority of the president or could be better handled through legislation.[8]
> 
> The Office of the Federal Register is responsible for assigning the executive order a sequential number after receipt of the signed original from the White House and printing the text of the executive order in the daily _Federal Register_ and Title 3 of the _Code of Federal Regulations_.[9] "
> 
> _bolding mine
> _
> Oops, there NO specific mention of Executive orders in the first place!
Click to expand...


Yawning....

Again, *your entire argument is a red herring.* As poor execution of constitutional powers *has nothing to do* with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution. Which is what we're discussing. 

And the point you're willfully ignoring.


----------



## Sunsettommy

It gets worse when this was decided the same year:

*"Ex parte Endo*, or _*Ex parte Mitsuye Endo*_, 323 U.S. 283 (1944),[1] was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast—which they had found not to violate citizen rights in their _Korematsu v. United States_ decision on the same date—the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II."

Since there was ZERO evidence as pointed out in TWO reports, one requested by President Roosevelt himself, that Japanese Americans were NOT a threat to security of the nation.

"Japanese Americans and other Asians in the U.S. had suffered for decades from prejudice and racially-motivated fear. Laws preventing Asian Americans from owning land, voting, testifying against whites in court, and other racially discriminatory laws existed long before World War II. Additionally, the FBI, Office of Naval Intelligence and Military Intelligence Division had been conducting surveillance on Japanese American communities in Hawaii and the U.S. mainland from the early 1930s.[5] In early 1941, President Roosevelt secretly commissioned a study to assess the possibility that Japanese Americans would pose a threat to U.S. security. The report, submitted exactly one month before Pearl Harbor was bombed, found that, "There will be no armed uprising of Japanese" in the United States. "For the most part," the Munson Report said, "the local Japanese are loyal to the United States or, at worst, hope that by remaining quiet they can avoid concentration camps or irresponsible mobs."[4] A second investigation started in 1940, written by Naval Intelligence officer Kenneth Ringle and submitted in January 1942, likewise found no evidence of fifth column activity and urged against mass incarceration.[6]* Both were ignored*."

Over two-thirds of the people of Japanese ethnicity were incarcerated—almost 70,000—were American citizens. Many of the rest had lived in the country between 20 and 40 years. Most Japanese Americans, particularly the first generation born in the United States (the _nisei_), considered themselves loyal to the United States of America. No Japanese American citizen or Japanese national residing in the United States was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage.[4]

It goes on to show that the Roosevelt administration quickly realized they had no legal justification to keep the camps in place:

"The unanimous opinion ruling in Endo's favor was written by Justice William O. Douglas, with Justices Frank Murphy and Owen Roberts concurring. It stopped short of addressing the question of the government's right to exclude citizens based on military necessity, instead focusing on the actions of the WRA: "In reaching that conclusion [that Endo should be freed] we do not come to the underlying constitutional issues which have been argued. ... [W]e conclude that, whatever power the War Relocation Authority may have to detain other classes of citizens, it has no authority to subject citizens who are concededly loyal to its leave procedure."[1]

Because of this avoidance, it is very difficult to reconcile _Endo_ with _Korematsu_, which was decided the same day. As Justice Roberts pointed out in his _Korematsu_ dissent, distinguishing the cases required a reliance on the legal fiction that _Korematsu_ only dealt with the exclusion of Japanese Americans, not their detention—that Fred Korematsu could have gone anywhere else in the United States, when in reality he would have been subject to the detainment found illegal in _Endo_.[4] In short, while _Endo_ determined that a citizen could not be imprisoned if the government was unable to prove she was disloyal, _Korematsu_ allowed the government a loophole to criminally punish that citizen for refusing to be illegally imprisoned.[5]

The Roosevelt administration, having been alerted to the Court's decision, issued Public Proclamation No. 21 the day before the _Endo_ and _Korematsu_ rulings were made public, on December 17, 1944, rescinding the exclusion orders and declaring that Japanese Americans could begin returning to the West Coast in January 1945.[5]"

_boldings mine
_
You are too stupid to realize you have jack shit. Your red herring claims are STUPID as hell.

Sop defending the proven terrible SCOTUS decision and that lawless Executive Order 9066!


----------



## Sunsettommy

Skylar said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were all GUILTY, but the SCOTUS was the one who gave the President and Congress their desired support, of which they could have smashed if they ruled differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fred Korematsu was already interned by the President. Executive Order 9066 was issued in Febuary of 1942. The Korematsu decision didn't come down until 1944....._more than 2 years later. _
> 
> The President was the one who took the 'evil action' in your own estimation.
> 
> Does that mean that the Executive doesn't have the Executive Power mentioned by the Constitution? Of course not.
> 
> *Your entire argument is a red herring. *As poor execution of constitutional powers *has nothing to do* with what authority  is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the President and Congress were guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then by your own argument, Congress no longer has the Legislative Power granted them by the Constitution? And the President doesn't have the Executive Power.....because Congress and the President were both 'guilty' of 'evil' uses of their authority?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Again, *your entire argument is a red herring.* As poor execution of constitutional powers *has nothing to do* with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution. Which is what we're discussing. And the point you're willfully ignoring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are truly too stupid to realize that NO ONE can be above the law, including the President who by an Executive Order rounded up legal citizens over a bogus claim that *NEVER* existed, which YOU keep ignoring. There was no demonstrated evidence of danger from the people he rounded up. No evidence of organized unlawful activities were ever found, which begs the question of what were Executive orders designed for in the first place:
> 
> Wikipedia on Executive Orders:
> 
> *"Basis in the United States Constitution*
> The United States Constitution does not have a provision that explicitly permits the use of executive orders. The term _executive power_ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution is not entirely clear. *The term is mentioned as direction to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and is part of Article II, Section 3. *The consequence of failing to comply could possibly be removal from office.[4][5]
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court has held[6] that all executive orders from the President of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch.[7] Specifically, such orders must be rooted in Article II of the US Constitution or enacted by the congress in statutes. Attempts to block such orders have been successful at times when such orders exceeded the authority of the president or could be better handled through legislation.[8]
> 
> The Office of the Federal Register is responsible for assigning the executive order a sequential number after receipt of the signed original from the White House and printing the text of the executive order in the daily _Federal Register_ and Title 3 of the _Code of Federal Regulations_.[9] "
> 
> _bolding mine
> _
> Oops, there NO specific mention of Executive orders in the first place!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawning....
> 
> Again, *your entire argument is a red herring.* As poor execution of constitutional powers *has nothing to do* with what authority is granted each branch of the government by the Constitution. Which is what we're discussing.
> 
> And the point you're willfully ignoring.
Click to expand...


This is my FIRST post in reply to YOU:

"The Dreadful Scott decision VIOLATED the rights of a natural born American man.

The awful Plessy vs. Ferguson decision VIOLATED the rights of ALL of Natural born Black people of America, as they were put into legally enforced secondary status in a country they were born in.

The evil Korematsu vs. United States decision VIOLATED the rights of Japanese people, who were lawful residents of America.

There are many more awful SCOTUS decisions you seem to have forgotten."

which a was a reply to YOUR comment, you made to Vasator :

"Sure you are. You're dismissing the authoritative findings of the Supreme Court when they found that the States violated the rights of a citizen.

You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution.

I'll stick with the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers over you. As would anyone who was interested in understanding the constitution."

From the start I was talking about their *TERRIBLE* "authoritative" Supreme court decisions, which was a legitimate reply to your comment. YOU wrote,

"....You can ignore the ruling. But you can't make *us* ignore the ruling. Or the judicial power. Or the intent of the founders that the judiciary be the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of the constitution."

You talked about RULINGS they have made such as this statement YOU WROTE:

"It is the role of the judiciary to act as an intermediary between the people and the legislature *and keep the legislature within the bounds of its authority. *If the legislature oversteps and passes laws in contradiction of the constitution, the judiciary puts the constitution over the law. As its is the judiciary that interprets the *meaning* of the constitution."

Which is why I brought up the evidence that even Supreme Courts make bad decisions too. You talked about SCOTUS keeping the Legislature in their place by ruling the constitution over bad law congress makes.

Thus my SCOTUS making bad decisions applies here, it is NOT a Red Herring at all.

_
============================
_
From Wikipedia:
_
"A *red herring* is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation."_

Never disputed their constitutional authority, but points out they can make terrible decisions from time to time, which you keep claiming is a red herring, which is demonstrably false.

Your comments are truly stupid as hell.


----------



## Meathead

longknife said:


> *What's difficult to understand? It's the most brilliant document in human history and basically outlines what limits are set on government over individual rights.*


The most brilliant document in history was the Ten Commandments. I won't tell you why. You'll have to guess.


----------



## Natural Citizen

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.



No place is Judicial review found.

No place.

Why? Because it isn't there.


----------



## Skylar

Natural Citizen said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No place is Judicial review found.
> 
> No place.
> 
> Why? Because it isn't there.
Click to expand...


Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Federalist No. 78 paper make clear there is a legitimate concept of Judicial Review, it is their only real power they have since they have no control over money or the Military. They depend on the OTHER two branches to accept their decisions.

*"Judicial review[edit]*
Federalist No. 78 describes the process of judicial review, in which the federal courts review statutes to determine whether they are consistent with the Constitution and its statutes. Federalist No. 78 indicates that under the Constitution, the legislature is not the judge of the constitutionality of its own actions. Rather, it is the responsibility of the federal courts to protect the people by restraining the legislature from acting inconsistently with the Constitution:

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.

Federalist No. 78 views the judicial branch as inherently weak because of its inability to control either the money or the military of the country. The only power of the judicial branch is the power of judgment:

The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

Because of the courts' weakness, Federalist No. 78 sees the possibility of corruption using judicial review as a non-issue. The people will never be in danger if the structure of the government written up in the Constitution remains. It also asserts that judgment needs to be removed from the groups that make the legislation and rule:

It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.

Federalist No. 78 views Supreme Court Justices as an embodiment of the Constitution, a last group to protect the foundation laws set up in the Constitution. This coincides with the view above that the judicial branch is the branch of judgment:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

According to Federalist No. 78, the federal courts have a duty to interpret and apply the Constitution, and to disregard any statute that is inconsistent with the Constitution:

If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .

Federalist No. 78 argues that the power of judicial review should be used by the judicial branch to protect the liberties guaranteed to the people by the Constitution and to provide a check on the power of the legislature:

[W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . "

[W]henever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

Federalist No. 78 therefore indicates that the federal judiciary has the power to determine whether statutes are constitutional, and to find them invalid if in conflict with the Constitution. This principle of judicial review was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of _Marbury v. Madison_ (1803). "

I own the book *The Federalist,* which is a MUST because the men who wrote them.... were..... there......


----------



## Natural Citizen

Skylar said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No place is Judicial review found.
> 
> No place.
> 
> Why? Because it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.
Click to expand...


No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic safe from the ''our Democracy'' crowd.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Natural Citizen said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No place is Judicial review found.
> 
> No place.
> 
> Why? Because it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic.
Click to expand...


I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?

Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78?


----------



## Sunsettommy

Oddball said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS is, itself, limited by the Constitution.
> 
> Article VI trumps.  Additionally, any decision in any case is limited to the 'law of the case' and binds only those parties involved in it.
> 
> See Federalist 83 here.
> 
> 
> 
> Not since they seized power under Marbury v. Madison....Ever since, we've had  judicial oligarchy.
Click to expand...


Can't "seize power" already given...…..

To this day they still depend on the Congress and Executive branch to accept their decisions as they have no economic or military power to back it up, therefore their " seized power" is dependent on their COMPLIANCE nothing more.

You have nothing here, oddball!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sunsettommy said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No place is Judicial review found.
> 
> No place.
> 
> Why? Because it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?
> 
> Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78?
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court is supposed to do what all courts do:  decide specific cases according to the written law.

I have no idea why this is confusing to anyone.

Let me walk you through an example.  A friend of mine is an attorney who has argued before the US Supreme Court a number of times.  One of his cases was a client who was charged with possession based on a police search of his car.  During his client's trial, the court didn't start nattering about what the law should or shouldn't be regarding drug possession.  The court just said, "This is the law as written.  You violated it.  You're guilty."  End of discussion.

My friend the attorney appealed the guilty verdict to the Appeals Court.  Again, the Appeals Court didn't start ruling on whether or not the law should be XYZ.  They just said, "This is the law.  This is how it applies."

The appeal to the Supreme Court was on the basis of 4th Amendment illegal search and seizure, because my friend maintained that the police did not have probable cause to search the car, and did not have his client's permission to do so in lieu of probable cause.  The Supreme Court upheld that argument, invalidating the decisions of the lower courts.  They looked at the written laws regarding search and seizure, and then they rendered a decision applying those laws as written.

And that's what their job is.


----------



## Sunsettommy

*How could anyone misunderstand the Supreme Courts role?*

*"Section 2*
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."


----------



## Skylar

Natural Citizen said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No place is Judicial review found.
> 
> No place.
> 
> Why? Because it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic safe from the ''our Democracy'' crowd.
Click to expand...


Judicial Review is part of the Judicial Power. Again, read Federalist 78. 

Its the duty of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution. And if a law by the legislature is in variance with the Constitution, to put the Constitution above the law.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No place is Judicial review found.
> 
> No place.
> 
> Why? Because it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?
> 
> Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is supposed to do what all courts do:  decide specific cases according to the written law.
Click to expand...


With the Constitution being the Supreme 'written law'. Its the role of the judiciary is to interpret the constitution and interpret the meaning of any given law. And if there is an irreconcilable variance between a law and the constitution, that the judiciary should put the constitution above the law.

It is the role of the judiciary to act as an intermediary between the people and the legislature *and keep the legislature within the bounds of its authority. *If the legislature oversteps and passes laws in contradiction of the constitution, the judiciary puts the constitution over the law. As its is the judiciary that interprets the *meaning* of the constitution.

That's what the Judiciary is supposed to do. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.


----------



## Oddball

Sunsettommy said:


> Can't "seize power" already given...…..
> 
> To this day they still depend on the Congress and Executive branch to accept their decisions as they have no economic or military power to back it up, therefore their " seized power" is dependent on their COMPLIANCE nothing more.
> 
> You have nothing here, oddball!


I defy you to cite article and section where the USSC has explicit enumerated power to rule over any other branch....That's what Marbury did, when USSC seized the power to deem anything they wanted to be (un)constitutional at any given moment.

The one with nothing here is you.


----------



## Skylar

Oddball said:


> I defy you to cite article and section where the USSC has explicit power to rule over any pother branch....That's what Marbury did, when USSC seized the power to deem anything they wanted to be (un)constitutional at any given moment.
> 
> The one with nothing here is you.



Its the Judicial Power. Which includes the authority to interpret the constitution per Federalist Paper 78

Show me a better source than the Federalist Papers on the meaning of the Judicial Power.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Oddball said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't "seize power" already given...…..
> 
> To this day they still depend on the Congress and Executive branch to accept their decisions as they have no economic or military power to back it up, therefore their " seized power" is dependent on their COMPLIANCE nothing more.
> 
> You have nothing here, oddball!
> 
> 
> 
> I defy you to cite article and section where the USSC has explicit enumerated power to rule over any other branch....That's what Marbury did, when USSC seized the power to deem anything they wanted to be (un)constitutional at any given moment.
> 
> The one with nothing here is you.
Click to expand...


My my, you failed to see what was RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.

 Straight from the CONSTITUTION!

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Who writes and passes the laws?

CONGRESS

Who signs the passed bills (laws) and Treaties?

The PRESIDENT

It is clear you have NOT read Federalist Paper #78 written by Alexander Hamilton, titled:

*The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution
*
You are in effect saying Alexander is wrong, good luck with that.


----------



## Skylar

Sunsettommy said:


> It gets worse when this was decided the same year:
> 
> *"Ex parte Endo*, or _*Ex parte Mitsuye Endo*_, 323 U.S. 283 (1944),[1] was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast—which they had found not to violate citizen rights in their _Korematsu v. United States_ decision on the same date—the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II."
> 
> Since there was ZERO evidence as pointed out in TWO reports, one requested by President Roosevelt himself, that Japanese Americans were NOT a threat to security of the nation.
> 
> "Japanese Americans and other Asians in the U.S. had suffered for decades from prejudice and racially-motivated fear. Laws preventing Asian Americans from owning land, voting, testifying against whites in court, and other racially discriminatory laws existed long before World War II. Additionally, the FBI, Office of Naval Intelligence and Military Intelligence Division had been conducting surveillance on Japanese American communities in Hawaii and the U.S. mainland from the early 1930s.[5] In early 1941, President Roosevelt secretly commissioned a study to assess the possibility that Japanese Americans would pose a threat to U.S. security. The report, submitted exactly one month before Pearl Harbor was bombed, found that, "There will be no armed uprising of Japanese" in the United States. "For the most part," the Munson Report said, "the local Japanese are loyal to the United States or, at worst, hope that by remaining quiet they can avoid concentration camps or irresponsible mobs."[4] A second investigation started in 1940, written by Naval Intelligence officer Kenneth Ringle and submitted in January 1942, likewise found no evidence of fifth column activity and urged against mass incarceration.[6]* Both were ignored*."
> 
> Over two-thirds of the people of Japanese ethnicity were incarcerated—almost 70,000—were American citizens. Many of the rest had lived in the country between 20 and 40 years. Most Japanese Americans, particularly the first generation born in the United States (the _nisei_), considered themselves loyal to the United States of America. No Japanese American citizen or Japanese national residing in the United States was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage.[4]
> 
> It goes on to show that the Roosevelt administration quickly realized they had no legal justification to keep the camps in place:
> 
> "The unanimous opinion ruling in Endo's favor was written by Justice William O. Douglas, with Justices Frank Murphy and Owen Roberts concurring. It stopped short of addressing the question of the government's right to exclude citizens based on military necessity, instead focusing on the actions of the WRA: "In reaching that conclusion [that Endo should be freed] we do not come to the underlying constitutional issues which have been argued. ... [W]e conclude that, whatever power the War Relocation Authority may have to detain other classes of citizens, it has no authority to subject citizens who are concededly loyal to its leave procedure."[1]
> 
> Because of this avoidance, it is very difficult to reconcile _Endo_ with _Korematsu_, which was decided the same day. As Justice Roberts pointed out in his _Korematsu_ dissent, distinguishing the cases required a reliance on the legal fiction that _Korematsu_ only dealt with the exclusion of Japanese Americans, not their detention—that Fred Korematsu could have gone anywhere else in the United States, when in reality he would have been subject to the detainment found illegal in _Endo_.[4] In short, while _Endo_ determined that a citizen could not be imprisoned if the government was unable to prove she was disloyal, _Korematsu_ allowed the government a loophole to criminally punish that citizen for refusing to be illegally imprisoned.[5]
> 
> The Roosevelt administration, having been alerted to the Court's decision, issued Public Proclamation No. 21 the day before the _Endo_ and _Korematsu_ rulings were made public, on December 17, 1944, rescinding the exclusion orders and declaring that Japanese Americans could begin returning to the West Coast in January 1945.[5]"
> 
> _boldings mine
> _
> You are too stupid to realize you have jack shit. Your red herring claims are STUPID as hell.
> 
> Sop defending the proven terrible SCOTUS decision and that lawless Executive Order 9066!



You're just punching strawmen. As *no one* is defending anything related to Japanese Internment.

I'm citing the glorious irrelevance of a bad decision by the USSC with what we're discussing: the authority granted the Judiciary by the constitution.

Has the Judiciary made bad calls? Absolutely. Has the Executive? You bet. Has the Legislature? Undoubtedly.

*Yet each still possesses the authority granted them by the Constitution.* In terms of the authority granted each branch of government, poor use of authority has absolutely nothing to do with the grant of authority by the Constitution. And its those grants of authority that we're discussing.

Its entirely possible we're just talking past each other. As in points of substance, we appear to agree.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Skylar said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No place is Judicial review found.
> 
> No place.
> 
> Why? Because it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic safe from the ''our Democracy'' crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judicial Review is part of the Judicial Power. Again, read Federalist 78.
> 
> Its the duty of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution. And if a law by the legislature is in variance with the Constitution, to put the Constitution above the law.
Click to expand...

Correct.

It was the Framers’ intent that government enact laws and measures reflecting the will of the people through their elected representatives.

As long as government acted consistent with the Constitution and its case law, there would be no need for the judiciary to become involved; indeed, acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, in deference to the will of the people.

And when the people err and enact laws and measures repugnant to the Constitution, it is the role of the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to invalidate those unlawful acts of government.

It’s incumbent upon lawmakers, therefore, to know the Constitution and its case law, to enact measures in good faith consistent with that case law, thus avoiding needless court challenges.


----------



## longknife

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No place is Judicial review found.
> 
> No place.
> 
> Why? Because it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?
> 
> Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is supposed to do what all courts do:  decide specific cases according to the written law.
> 
> I have no idea why this is confusing to anyone.
> 
> Let me walk you through an example.  A friend of mine is an attorney who has argued before the US Supreme Court a number of times.  One of his cases was a client who was charged with possession based on a police search of his car.  During his client's trial, the court didn't start nattering about what the law should or shouldn't be regarding drug possession.  The court just said, "This is the law as written.  You violated it.  You're guilty."  End of discussion.
> 
> My friend the attorney appealed the guilty verdict to the Appeals Court.  Again, the Appeals Court didn't start ruling on whether or not the law should be XYZ.  They just said, "This is the law.  This is how it applies."
> 
> The appeal to the Supreme Court was on the basis of 4th Amendment illegal search and seizure, because my friend maintained that the police did not have probable cause to search the car, and did not have his client's permission to do so in lieu of probable cause.  The Supreme Court upheld that argument, invalidating the decisions of the lower courts.  They looked at the written laws regarding search and seizure, and then they rendered a decision applying those laws as written.
> 
> And that's what their job is.
Click to expand...


*Then I think the SCOTUS ruling ignored one fact - when you license a motor vehicle, you are obtaining permission from the licensing authority to operate that vehicle within appropriate laws and regulations. If you fail to do so, local authorities have the right to determine whether or not you are following the law - to include a search of the licensed vehicle!*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No place is Judicial review found.
> 
> No place.
> 
> Why? Because it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?
> 
> Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is supposed to do what all courts do:  decide specific cases according to the written law.
> 
> I have no idea why this is confusing to anyone.
> 
> Let me walk you through an example.  A friend of mine is an attorney who has argued before the US Supreme Court a number of times.  One of his cases was a client who was charged with possession based on a police search of his car.  During his client's trial, the court didn't start nattering about what the law should or shouldn't be regarding drug possession.  The court just said, "This is the law as written.  You violated it.  You're guilty."  End of discussion.
> 
> My friend the attorney appealed the guilty verdict to the Appeals Court.  Again, the Appeals Court didn't start ruling on whether or not the law should be XYZ.  They just said, "This is the law.  This is how it applies."
> 
> The appeal to the Supreme Court was on the basis of 4th Amendment illegal search and seizure, because my friend maintained that the police did not have probable cause to search the car, and did not have his client's permission to do so in lieu of probable cause.  The Supreme Court upheld that argument, invalidating the decisions of the lower courts.  They looked at the written laws regarding search and seizure, and then they rendered a decision applying those laws as written.
> 
> And that's what their job is.
Click to expand...

Actually not.

If the ‘written law’ says that public schools should compel students to learn Christian religious dogma, then the ‘written law’ is repugnant to the Constitution, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and subject to invalidation by the Supreme Court, just as the Court is supposed to do.

‘Written law’ must comport with Constitutional jurisprudence; when it does not the Supreme Court is at liberty to disregard ‘written law’ and strike it down accordingly.


----------



## regent

Skylar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No place is Judicial review found.
> 
> No place.
> 
> Why? Because it isn't there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its part of the Judicial Power. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No place is judicial review found in the Articles. The court does not have veto power over other branches of government. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. And hopefully not any day, if we can manage to keep our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?
> 
> Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is supposed to do what all courts do:  decide specific cases according to the written law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the Constitution being the Supreme 'written law'. Its the role of the judiciary is to interpret the constitution and interpret the meaning of any given law. And if there is an irreconcilable variance between a law and the constitution, that the judiciary should put the constitution above the law.
> 
> It is the role of the judiciary to act as an intermediary between the people and the legislature *and keep the legislature within the bounds of its authority. *If the legislature oversteps and passes laws in contradiction of the constitution, the judiciary puts the constitution over the law. As its is the judiciary that interprets the *meaning* of the constitution.
> 
> That's what the Judiciary is supposed to do. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers.
Click to expand...

So where is the power derived for the Federalist Papers to have any power over any aspect of the government? Calling the papers federalist does not make them a part of any government agency or the power to make government laws. Three men, Madison, Jay and Hamilton wrote letters to the editor hopefully to get the Constitution approved by the states.


----------



## Natural Citizen

regent said:


> So where is the power derived for the Federalist Papers to have any power over any aspect of the government? Calling the papers federalist does not make them a part of any government agency or the power to make government laws. Three men, Madison, Jay and Hamilton wrote letters to the editor hopefully to get the Constitution approved by the states.



They're completely blind to the tenor of #78. Chuckle and move along. Nothing to see here. Heh heh.

#78 was written on the assumption that the Congress would not become so derelict in their duty to allow the Judiciary to become so powerful. No place in Article III do we find judicial review. Jefferson fought it the first time they tried to seize power. He prevailed and he shut them down. When he died, they went right back to it. It was Marbury v Madison that the SCOTUS gave themselves the power of judicial review.

But, as we see, the opposite of the tenor in #78 has happened, The Judiciary routinely vetos Congress, which is outside the parameters of its constitutional function in terms of our system of checks and balances, therefore rendering the tenor in #78 redundant.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Something else people don't likely know is that there hasn't always been just 9 people on the SCOTUS throughout history. Nope.  And for good reason. Why the heck should 1 person have the power to define the Constitution? 

No reason why there can't be 100 SC judges. Throughout history there have been 6, 5, back to 6, 9, 7, 10, 9...


----------



## Natural Citizen

regent said:


> Where in Article 3 of the Constitution does it state that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review?



It's not there. You win the debate. 

They can pop off all they want, but their argument is just a bunch of white noise.

You're right and they're wrong. Heh heh.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Natural Citizen said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the power derived for the Federalist Papers to have any power over any aspect of the government? Calling the papers federalist does not make them a part of any government agency or the power to make government laws. Three men, Madison, Jay and Hamilton wrote letters to the editor hopefully to get the Constitution approved by the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're completely blind to the tenor of #78. Chuckle and move along. Nothing to see here. Heh heh.
> 
> #78 was written on the assumption that the Congress would not become so derelict in their duty to allow the Judiciary to become so powerful. No place in Article III do we find judicial review. Jefferson fought it the forst time they tried it. He prevailed and he shtut them down. When he died, they went right back to it. It was Marbury v Madison that the SCOTUS gave themselves the power of judicial review.
> 
> But, as we see, the opposite of the tenor in #78 has happened, The Judiciary routinely vetos Congress, which is outside the parameters of its constitutional function in terms of our system of checks and balances, therefore rendering the tenor in #78 redundant.
Click to expand...


You are fighting Hamilton on this because those papers (published in 1788) were written to help people understand various parts of the Constitution that was being ratified in 1789

Wikipedia

""Federalist No. 78", also written by Hamilton, lays the groundwork for the doctrine of judicial review by federal courts of federal legislation or executive acts."

You completely avoided this comment:

"I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?

Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78? "

Here is a simple discussion of the paper:

"In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton said that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Federalist No. 78 quotes Montesquieu: "Of the three powers [...], the judiciary is next to nothing." There was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the political branches; since Congress controlled the flow of money and the President the military, courts did not have nearly the same clout from a constitutional design standpoint. The Judiciary would depend on the political branches to uphold its judgments. Legal academics often argue over Hamilton's description of the judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch. Hamilton also explains how federal judges should retain life terms as long as those judges exhibit good behavior. [2]

Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress."


----------



## Natural Citizen

Sunsettommy, I'll tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna go onto the Fed 78 wiki page, I'm gonna edit it, and I'm gonna resolve it concisely. K?

Wait for it. Maybe tonight, I'll do it, if I feel like it. And then I'm gonna lock it.



Sunsettommy said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the power derived for the Federalist Papers to have any power over any aspect of the government? Calling the papers federalist does not make them a part of any government agency or the power to make government laws. Three men, Madison, Jay and Hamilton wrote letters to the editor hopefully to get the Constitution approved by the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're completely blind to the tenor of #78. Chuckle and move along. Nothing to see here. Heh heh.
> 
> #78 was written on the assumption that the Congress would not become so derelict in their duty to allow the Judiciary to become so powerful. No place in Article III do we find judicial review. Jefferson fought it the forst time they tried it. He prevailed and he shtut them down. When he died, they went right back to it. It was Marbury v Madison that the SCOTUS gave themselves the power of judicial review.
> 
> But, as we see, the opposite of the tenor in #78 has happened, The Judiciary routinely vetos Congress, which is outside the parameters of its constitutional function in terms of our system of checks and balances, therefore rendering the tenor in #78 redundant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are fighting Hamilton on this because those papers (published in 1788) were written to help people understand various parts of the Constitution that was being ratified in 1789
> 
> Wikipedia
> 
> ""Federalist No. 78", also written by Hamilton, lays the groundwork for the doctrine of judicial review by federal courts of federal legislation or executive acts."
> 
> You completely avoided this comment:
> 
> "I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?
> 
> Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78? "
> 
> Here is a simple discussion of the paper:
> 
> "In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton said that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Federalist No. 78 quotes Montesquieu: "Of the three powers [...], the judiciary is next to nothing." There was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the political branches; since Congress controlled the flow of money and the President the military, courts did not have nearly the same clout from a constitutional design standpoint. The Judiciary would depend on the political branches to uphold its judgments. Legal academics often argue over Hamilton's description of the judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch. Hamilton also explains how federal judges should retain life terms as long as those judges exhibit good behavior. [2]
> 
> Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress."
Click to expand...


----------



## Sunsettommy

Natural Citizen said:


> Sunsettommy, I'll tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna go onto the Fed 78 wiki page, I'm gonna edit it, and I'm gonna resolve it concisely. K?
> 
> Wait for it. Maybe tonight, I'll do it, if I feel like it. And then I'm gonna lock it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is the power derived for the Federalist Papers to have any power over any aspect of the government? Calling the papers federalist does not make them a part of any government agency or the power to make government laws. Three men, Madison, Jay and Hamilton wrote letters to the editor hopefully to get the Constitution approved by the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're completely blind to the tenor of #78. Chuckle and move along. Nothing to see here. Heh heh.
> 
> #78 was written on the assumption that the Congress would not become so derelict in their duty to allow the Judiciary to become so powerful. No place in Article III do we find judicial review. Jefferson fought it the forst time they tried it. He prevailed and he shtut them down. When he died, they went right back to it. It was Marbury v Madison that the SCOTUS gave themselves the power of judicial review.
> 
> But, as we see, the opposite of the tenor in #78 has happened, The Judiciary routinely vetos Congress, which is outside the parameters of its constitutional function in terms of our system of checks and balances, therefore rendering the tenor in #78 redundant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are fighting Hamilton on this because those papers (published in 1788) were written to help people understand various parts of the Constitution that was being ratified in 1789
> 
> Wikipedia
> 
> ""Federalist No. 78", also written by Hamilton, lays the groundwork for the doctrine of judicial review by federal courts of federal legislation or executive acts."
> 
> You completely avoided this comment:
> 
> "I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?
> 
> Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78? "
> 
> Here is a simple discussion of the paper:
> 
> "In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton said that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Federalist No. 78 quotes Montesquieu: "Of the three powers [...], the judiciary is next to nothing." There was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the political branches; since Congress controlled the flow of money and the President the military, courts did not have nearly the same clout from a constitutional design standpoint. The Judiciary would depend on the political branches to uphold its judgments. Legal academics often argue over Hamilton's description of the judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch. Hamilton also explains how federal judges should retain life terms as long as those judges exhibit good behavior. [2]
> 
> Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Go ahead, and make a fool of yourself.

I have the BOOK The Federalist Papers in my possession, which YOU can't edit. It clearly shows what Alexander Hamilton though about Judicial Power:

Wiki correctly states:

"Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress." 

Go ahead be a fool.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Sunsettommy said:


> Go ahead, and make a fool of yourself.
> 
> I have the BOOK The Federalist Papers in my possession, which YOU can't edit. It clearly shows what Alexander Hamilton though about Judicial Power:
> 
> Wiki correctly states:
> 
> "Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress."
> 
> Go ahead be a fool.



Oh, I do it all the time. Ha. That's how winning is done, Tommyboy. 

Hamilton's horse pucky created the outline for every single unconstitutional federal act we've seen. As well as the nationalization of every nonsensical issue in America.Hamilton was the architect for big government in America.

''Implied powers'' were never part of the plan. Which is why they're not found in Article III.

It's no surprise to conservatives that our friends who are trustees in big government have an undying love for Hamilton.  We get it.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Natural Citizen said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead, and make a fool of yourself.
> 
> I have the BOOK The Federalist Papers in my possession, which YOU can't edit. It clearly shows what Alexander Hamilton though about Judicial Power:
> 
> Wiki correctly states:
> 
> "Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress."
> 
> Go ahead be a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I do it all the time. Ha. Tht's how winning is done, Tommyboy.
> 
> Hamilton's horse pucky created the outline for every single unconstitutional federal act we've seen. As well as the nationalization of every nonsensical issue in America.Hamilton was the architect for big government in America.
> 
> ''Implied powers'' were never part of the plan. Which is why they're not found in Article III.
Click to expand...


When will you ever answer two questions I have asked you several times now?


"I have to ask the obvious question then, what is the Supreme Court supposed to do?

Meanwhile when will you READ Federalist paper #78? "


----------



## Natural Citizen

Heck, truth be told, the majority of our elected ones are Hamiltonian. 

It's why people are having their pants pulled down at the airport just to fly from point A to point B. Crazy.


----------



## EGR one

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court; to understand that case law is to understand the Constitution.
> 
> Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Pure BS.  The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and case law can be overturned at any time that five lawyers decide to do so.  The Constitution is not a guide, it is the law.


----------



## EGR one

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS is, itself, limited by the Constitution.
> 
> Article VI trumps.  Additionally, any decision in any case is limited to the 'law of the case' and binds only those parties involved in it.
> 
> See Federalist 83 here.
> 
> 
> 
> Not since they seized power under Marbury v. Madison....Ever since, we've had  judicial oligarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The judicial power is to interpret the constitution. So says the federalist papers. The judiciary has not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law.
> 
> Thus, if a law is contradicted by the constitution, the judiciary overturns that law and affirms the constitution.
> 
> And 'oligarchy'? I don't think that term means what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Articles III and VI also codify the judiciary’s authority to determine what the Constitution means.
Click to expand...


No, they do not.


----------



## beagle9

capego said:


> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?


We'll it could be that most are dead now, and the new generations could care less.  It is why the master piece is vulnerable to these types of characters these days. If it isn't being empowered in the schools from 4th grade up, then each generation gets a little more lost, and a lot more sheeple they become in their ways.


----------



## Natural Citizen

EGR one said:


> Pure BS.  The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and case law can be overturned at any time that five lawyers decide to do so.  The Constitution is not a guide, it is the law.




Yep. That's correct.


----------



## koshergrl

capego said:


> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?


I carry a copy of the constitution in my purse.


----------



## Natural Citizen

beagle9 said:


> We'll it could be that most are dead now, and *the new generations could care less.*



Yep. It's why we always hear those modern populist words "Our Democracy'' instead of the truth of the matter --  ''Our Republic"


----------



## regent

A number of Americans understand the Constitution besides the judges. Who teaches the judges, who teaches law school students, who teaches college students of the Constitution, who teaches high school students the Constitution?


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment, why do we have security problems in our free States.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" More Left Wing Quackery "*

** Necessary Acts Without Knowing The Future **


Sunsettommy said:


> You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the *President and Congress were guilty*.


An interesting digress in constitutional law on this topic has been informative and interesting , but to allege that the President and Congress at the time of wwii were , or should be , " guilty " is legally false and libel .

To second guess a military strategy that implemented imminent domain to secure an area of operations on the us pacific coast was more realistic than the contemporary reverse racist racist propaganda to vilify the history of us peoples and its administrators as contemptuous and morally bereft .

Should one surmise a further contempt of armchair absurdity that us should have sacrificed an estimated 500,000 fighting men above and beyond the nearly 400,000 who were to die altogether , to invade japan and force a capitulation of its emperor , rather than issuing the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia .

Alternatively , us could have ignored a persistent of japanese imperialism , except that it came to pass that they provoked a declaration of war through a clear infraction against us military and that was something germany was not so gawd awful stupid to do .

** Complaining About The Opportunity To Participate **

The relocated japanese were not deprived of first amendment for a redress of grievances and it certainly make strategic sense to blanket remove potential spies or conspirators and even to intern them for their own protection .

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, *and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]*

Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
On August 10, 1988, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which had been sponsored by Representative Norman Mineta and Senator Alan K. Simpson, who had met while Mineta was interned at Heart Mountain Relocation Center in Wyoming. * It provided financial redress of $20,000 for each surviving detainee, totaling $1.2 billion.* The question of to whom reparations should be given, how much, and even whether monetary reparations were appropriate were subjects of sometimes contentious debate within the Japanese American community and Congress.[205]

On September 27, 1992, the Civil Liberties Act Amendments of 1992, appropriating an additional *$400 million to ensure all remaining internees received their $20,000 redress payments,* was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. He issued another formal apology from the U.S. government on December 7, 1991, on the 50th Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, saying:

** No Evidence Needed **


Sunsettommy said:


> You also forgot that SCOTUS made a decision, which if they had agreed with Fred, would have overturned the vile Executive order, _why didn't you think of that possibility_,* that SCOTUS could have shot down the illegal Executive order since he had NO evidence of sabotage to fall on.*
> *How come he didn't round up the Germans and the Italians into camps, as they also enemies at the time?*
> 
> Meanwhile read about the finding of Congress in December 1982:
> Justice Denied
> Summary
> Germans and German Americans
> Executive Order 9066 was illegal.


The german conflict with other european countries was perceived to be isolated to europe and to those territories sought by germans for germany .

At the time , us posture in WWII was formally neutral and it was japan which attacked the us directly , and not germany which had more sense than to provoke the us directly into the war .

Yet , armchair propagandists with 10/10 revisionism , exercise skewed perceptions to character assassinate those responsible for the gravity of potential future outcomes .

Military history of the United States during World War II - Wikipedia
Highest priority went to the defeat of Germany in Europe, *but first the war against Japan in the Pacific was more urgent after the sinking of the main battleship fleet at Pearl Harbor.*

The *military history of the United States in World War II* covers the war against Germany, Italy, Japan and starting with the 7 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. *During the first two years of World War II, the United States had maintained formal neutrality as made officially in the Quarantine Speech delivered by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937, while supplying Britain, the Soviet Union, and China with war materiel through the Lend-Lease Act which was signed into law on 11 March 1941, as well as deploying the U.S. military to replace the British invasion forces in Iceland.* In the Pacific Theater, there was unofficial early U.S. combat activity such as the Flying Tigers.

Executive Order 9066 - Wikipedia
*Executive Order 9066* was a United States presidential executive order signed and issued during World War II by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. *This order authorized the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones, clearing the way for the incarceration of Japanese Americans, German Americans, and Italian Americans in U.S. concentration camps.*

Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
The *internment of Japanese Americans* in the United States during World War II was the forced relocation and incarceration in concentration camps in the western interior of the country of between 110,000 and 120,000[5] people of Japanese ancestry, *most of whom lived on the Pacific coast.* Sixty-two percent of the internees were United States citizens.[6][7] *These actions were ordered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt shortly after Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.**[8]*


----------



## Sunsettommy

Monk-Eye said:


> *" More Left Wing Quackery "*
> 
> ** Necessary Acts Without Knowing The Future **
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the *President and Congress were guilty*.
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting digress in constitutional law on this topic has been informative and interesting , but to allege that the President and Congress at the time of wwii were , or should be , " guilty " is legally false and libel .
> 
> To second guess a military strategy that implemented imminent domain to secure an area of operations on the us pacific coast was more realistic than the contemporary reverse racist racist propaganda to vilify the history of us peoples and its administrators as contemptuous and morally bereft .
> 
> Should one surmise a further contempt of armchair absurdity that us should have sacrificed an estimated 500,000 fighting men above and beyond the nearly 400,000 who were to die altogether , to invade japan and force a capitulation of its emperor , rather than issuing the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia .
> 
> Alternatively , us could have ignored a persistent of japanese imperialism , except that it came to pass that they provoked a declaration of war through a clear infraction against us military and that was something germany was not so gawd awful stupid to do .
> 
> ** Complaining About The Opportunity To Participate **
> 
> The relocated japanese were not deprived of first amendment for a redress of grievances and it certainly make strategic sense to blanket remove potential spies or conspirators and even to intern them for their own protection .
> 
> First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, *and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]*
> 
> Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
> On August 10, 1988, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which had been sponsored by Representative Norman Mineta and Senator Alan K. Simpson, who had met while Mineta was interned at Heart Mountain Relocation Center in Wyoming. * It provided financial redress of $20,000 for each surviving detainee, totaling $1.2 billion.* The question of to whom reparations should be given, how much, and even whether monetary reparations were appropriate were subjects of sometimes contentious debate within the Japanese American community and Congress.[205]
> 
> On September 27, 1992, the Civil Liberties Act Amendments of 1992, appropriating an additional *$400 million to ensure all remaining internees received their $20,000 redress payments,* was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. He issued another formal apology from the U.S. government on December 7, 1991, on the 50th Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, saying:
> 
> ** No Evidence Needed **
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also forgot that SCOTUS made a decision, which if they had agreed with Fred, would have overturned the vile Executive order, _why didn't you think of that possibility_,* that SCOTUS could have shot down the illegal Executive order since he had NO evidence of sabotage to fall on.*
> *How come he didn't round up the Germans and the Italians into camps, as they also enemies at the time?*
> 
> Meanwhile read about the finding of Congress in December 1982:
> Justice Denied
> Summary
> Germans and German Americans
> Executive Order 9066 was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The german conflict with other european countries was perceived to be isolated to europe and to those territories sought by germans for germany .
> 
> At the time , us posture in WWII was formally neutral and it was japan which attacked the us directly , and not germany which had more sense than to provoke the us directly into the war .
> 
> Yet , armchair reverse racist racist , with 10/10 revisionism , exercise skewed perceptions to character assassinate those responsible for the gravity of potential future outcomes .
> 
> Military history of the United States during World War II - Wikipedia
> Highest priority went to the defeat of Germany in Europe, *but first the war against Japan in the Pacific was more urgent after the sinking of the main battleship fleet at Pearl Harbor.*
> 
> The *military history of the United States in World War II* covers the war against Germany, Italy, Japan and starting with the 7 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. *During the first two years of World War II, the United States had maintained formal neutrality as made officially in the Quarantine Speech delivered by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937, while supplying Britain, the Soviet Union, and China with war materiel through the Lend-Lease Act which was signed into law on 11 March 1941, as well as deploying the U.S. military to replace the British invasion forces in Iceland.* In the Pacific Theater, there was unofficial early U.S. combat activity such as the Flying Tigers.
> 
> Executive Order 9066 - Wikipedia
> *Executive Order 9066* was a United States presidential executive order signed and issued during World War II by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. *This order authorized the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones, clearing the way for the incarceration of Japanese Americans, German Americans, and Italian Americans in U.S. concentration camps.*
> 
> Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
> The *internment of Japanese Americans* in the United States during World War II was the forced relocation and incarceration in concentration camps in the western interior of the country of between 110,000 and 120,000[5] people of Japanese ancestry, *most of whom lived on the Pacific coast.* Sixty-two percent of the internees were United States citizens.[6][7] *These actions were ordered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt shortly after Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.**[8]*
Click to expand...


Post 59 showed that the Roosevelt Administration realized they had no credible basis to continue the internment camps just before the  Supreme Court Decision was posted in public.

Their actions showed they KNEW they were wrong as the quickly changed their minds BEFORE the 9-0 SCOTUS decision was made public, along with several reports showing there were no evidence that the Japanese Americans were a risk to America.:

Your statement here is dumb as hell:

"an interesting digress in constitutional law on this topic has been informative and interesting , but to allege that the President and Congress at the time of wwii were , or should be , " guilty " is legally false and libel ."

Ooops.


----------



## longknife

*All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.*

*The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.*


----------



## regent

The error of 1099 is probably the US had checked and tagged suspicious Germans and Italians and they were picked up and interred, that had not been done with the Japanese-Americans and the Japanese.


----------



## beagle9

Sunsettommy said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" More Left Wing Quackery "*
> 
> ** Necessary Acts Without Knowing The Future **
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to get your glasses?, I actually AGREED with you that the *President and Congress were guilty*.
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting digress in constitutional law on this topic has been informative and interesting , but to allege that the President and Congress at the time of wwii were , or should be , " guilty " is legally false and libel .
> 
> To second guess a military strategy that implemented imminent domain to secure an area of operations on the us pacific coast was more realistic than the contemporary reverse racist racist propaganda to vilify the history of us peoples and its administrators as contemptuous and morally bereft .
> 
> Should one surmise a further contempt of armchair absurdity that us should have sacrificed an estimated 500,000 fighting men above and beyond the nearly 400,000 who were to die altogether , to invade japan and force a capitulation of its emperor , rather than issuing the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia .
> 
> Alternatively , us could have ignored a persistent of japanese imperialism , except that it came to pass that they provoked a declaration of war through a clear infraction against us military and that was something germany was not so gawd awful stupid to do .
> 
> ** Complaining About The Opportunity To Participate **
> 
> The relocated japanese were not deprived of first amendment for a redress of grievances and it certainly make strategic sense to blanket remove potential spies or conspirators and even to intern them for their own protection .
> 
> First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, *and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]*
> 
> Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
> On August 10, 1988, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which had been sponsored by Representative Norman Mineta and Senator Alan K. Simpson, who had met while Mineta was interned at Heart Mountain Relocation Center in Wyoming. * It provided financial redress of $20,000 for each surviving detainee, totaling $1.2 billion.* The question of to whom reparations should be given, how much, and even whether monetary reparations were appropriate were subjects of sometimes contentious debate within the Japanese American community and Congress.[205]
> 
> On September 27, 1992, the Civil Liberties Act Amendments of 1992, appropriating an additional *$400 million to ensure all remaining internees received their $20,000 redress payments,* was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. He issued another formal apology from the U.S. government on December 7, 1991, on the 50th Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, saying:
> 
> ** No Evidence Needed **
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also forgot that SCOTUS made a decision, which if they had agreed with Fred, would have overturned the vile Executive order, _why didn't you think of that possibility_,* that SCOTUS could have shot down the illegal Executive order since he had NO evidence of sabotage to fall on.*
> *How come he didn't round up the Germans and the Italians into camps, as they also enemies at the time?*
> 
> Meanwhile read about the finding of Congress in December 1982:
> Justice Denied
> Summary
> Germans and German Americans
> Executive Order 9066 was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The german conflict with other european countries was perceived to be isolated to europe and to those territories sought by germans for germany .
> 
> At the time , us posture in WWII was formally neutral and it was japan which attacked the us directly , and not germany which had more sense than to provoke the us directly into the war .
> 
> Yet , armchair reverse racist racist , with 10/10 revisionism , exercise skewed perceptions to character assassinate those responsible for the gravity of potential future outcomes .
> 
> Military history of the United States during World War II - Wikipedia
> Highest priority went to the defeat of Germany in Europe, *but first the war against Japan in the Pacific was more urgent after the sinking of the main battleship fleet at Pearl Harbor.*
> 
> The *military history of the United States in World War II* covers the war against Germany, Italy, Japan and starting with the 7 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. *During the first two years of World War II, the United States had maintained formal neutrality as made officially in the Quarantine Speech delivered by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937, while supplying Britain, the Soviet Union, and China with war materiel through the Lend-Lease Act which was signed into law on 11 March 1941, as well as deploying the U.S. military to replace the British invasion forces in Iceland.* In the Pacific Theater, there was unofficial early U.S. combat activity such as the Flying Tigers.
> 
> Executive Order 9066 - Wikipedia
> *Executive Order 9066* was a United States presidential executive order signed and issued during World War II by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. *This order authorized the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones, clearing the way for the incarceration of Japanese Americans, German Americans, and Italian Americans in U.S. concentration camps.*
> 
> Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
> The *internment of Japanese Americans* in the United States during World War II was the forced relocation and incarceration in concentration camps in the western interior of the country of between 110,000 and 120,000[5] people of Japanese ancestry, *most of whom lived on the Pacific coast.* Sixty-two percent of the internees were United States citizens.[6][7] *These actions were ordered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt shortly after Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.**[8]*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post 59 showed that the Roosevelt Administration realized they had no credible basis to continue the internment camps just before the  Supreme Court Decision was posted in public.
> 
> Their actions showed they KNEW they were wrong as the quickly changed their minds BEFORE the 9-0 SCOTUS decision was made public, along with several reports showing there were no evidence that the Japanese Americans were a risk to America.:
> 
> Your statement here is dumb as hell:
> 
> "an interesting digress in constitutional law on this topic has been informative and interesting , but to allege that the President and Congress at the time of wwii were , or should be , " guilty " is legally false and libel ."
> 
> Ooops.
Click to expand...

No, you second guessing the history of this nation concerning the things that you haven't a clue about is what is wrong here.

Of course this is the game being played today by the left in which is actually posing a serious threat towards the security of this nation from within.  It is proven daily now, but the civility of those holding power tend to want to give the benefit of a doubt in regards to it all because this is America after all.  One wonders though, about when the re-awakening will come, and when the tolerence of all the wacko crap will end.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Pressing Issue Priorities "*

** Imminent Domain **



Sunsettommy said:


> It gets worse when this was decided the same year:
> 
> Post 59 showed that the Roosevelt Administration realized they had no credible basis to continue the internment camps just before the  Supreme Court Decision was posted in public.
> 
> Their actions showed they KNEW they were wrong as the quickly changed their minds BEFORE the 9-0 SCOTUS decision was made public, along with several reports showing there were no evidence that the Japanese Americans were a risk to America.:
> 
> Your statement here is dumb as hell:
> 
> "an interesting digress in constitutional law on this topic has been informative and interesting , but *to allege that the President and Congress at the time of wwii were , or should be , " guilty " is legally false and libel ."*
> 
> Ooops.


Where in the revisionist history are the criminal convictions to which you allude ?

Apparently you do not know the difference between a civil infraction and a criminal infraction , because one is not found guilty of a civil infraction - ever , and stating that one is guilty of a crime in reference to a civil infraction is libel .

The internment was found to be unconstitutional , but not the relocation , and the internment was unconstitutional because a valid vetting process was not exercised , but of course when would one suppose that to have occurred :  before , during , or after assessing wartime threats ?
*
"Ex parte Endo*, or _*Ex parte Mitsuye Endo*_, 323 U.S. 283 (1944),[1] was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. *Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast—which they had found not to violate citizen rights in their Korematsu v. United States decision on the same date*—the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II."

** Cooperative Volunteers Versus Obstruction During War ** 

Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
*Approximately 5,000 Japanese Americans relocated outside the exclusion zone before March 1942,[16] *while some 5,500 community leaders had been arrested immediately after the Pearl Harbor attack and thus were already in custody.[17] The majority of nearly 130,000 Japanese Americans living in the U.S. mainland were forcibly relocated from their West Coast homes during the spring of 1942.


----------



## Skylar

longknife said:


> *All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.*
> 
> *The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.*



They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.

The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.

The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended. 

If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.


----------



## danielpalos

Providing for the general welfare is a general power, not a major or specific or common power.


----------



## beagle9

Skylar said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.*
> 
> *The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.
> 
> The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.
> 
> The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.
> 
> If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.*
> 
> *The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.
> 
> The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.
> 
> The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.
> 
> If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.
Click to expand...


Women, black people, and non-property owners voting would probably shock the hell out of them. I don't use the Founders as my benchmark of morality or high society. 

But their intentions and writings, most specifically the Federalist Papers, definitely inform the meaning of the constitution.


----------



## regent

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.*
> 
> *The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.
> 
> The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.
> 
> The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.
> 
> If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women, black people, and non-property owners voting would probably shock the hell out of them. I don't use the Founders as my benchmark of morality or high society.
> 
> But their intentions and writings, most specifically the Federalist Papers, definitely inform the meaning of the constitution.
Click to expand...

So of what need is there for a Supreme Court?


----------



## Flopper

capego said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the Constitution would you like to discuss? All of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the important parts.
> 
> I've looked online and I find only very shoddy looking sites for the purpose of either discussing or promoting the constitution (excepting this one, but I don't find online forums are an appropriate place for serious discussion).
Click to expand...

*The constitution is pretty clear. I don't see any problem understanding it in the context it was written.  The problem comes trying to apply it to everyday life today.  For example, is the issue of Net neutrality a 1st amendment issue?  To answer questions like this, you have to understand what the founders meant by what they wrote since there was no Internet and nothing even similar.  This is where courts and constitutional scholars come into the picture. 
*


----------



## Skylar

regent said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.*
> 
> *The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.
> 
> The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.
> 
> The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.
> 
> If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women, black people, and non-property owners voting would probably shock the hell out of them. I don't use the Founders as my benchmark of morality or high society.
> 
> But their intentions and writings, most specifically the Federalist Papers, definitely inform the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So of what need is there for a Supreme Court?
Click to expand...


Several things. The interpretation of the laws is the proper province of the judiciary (with the Supreme Court at its head). With the constitution regarded as a fundamental law. It belongs to judiciary to ascertain the constitution's meaning, as well as the meaning of any law that comes from the legislature. And if there is an irreconcilable variance between the the constitution and a piece of legislation, to put the Constitution first. 

The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order to keep the legislature within the limits of its authority.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Skylar said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.*
> 
> *The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.
> 
> The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.
> 
> The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.
> 
> If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women, black people, and non-property owners voting would probably shock the hell out of them. I don't use the Founders as my benchmark of morality or high society.
> 
> But their intentions and writings, most specifically the Federalist Papers, definitely inform the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So of what need is there for a Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several things. The interpretation of the laws is the proper province of the judiciary (with the Supreme Court at its head). With the constitution regarded as a fundamental law. It belongs to judiciary to ascertain the constitution's meaning, as well as the meaning of any law that comes from the legislature. And if there is an irreconcilable variance between the the constitution and a piece of legislation, to put the Constitution first.
> 
> The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order to keep the legislature within the limits of its authority.
Click to expand...

Correct. 

And that these fundamental facts of the law – facts settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – must be explained at all is both sad and troubling.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.*
> 
> *The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.
> 
> The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.
> 
> The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.
> 
> If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women, black people, and non-property owners voting would probably shock the hell out of them. I don't use the Founders as my benchmark of morality or high society.
> 
> But their intentions and writings, most specifically the Federalist Papers, definitely inform the meaning of the constitution.
Click to expand...


The non-property owners would, because they'd wonder what the fuck was wrong with us, letting people with no stake in the system take part in the decision-making.  I wonder that myself.

But since women and black people both voted back then, despite what your leftist masters want you to believe, I doubt that would shock them at all.


----------



## Skylar

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All this talk about the Federalist Papers omits one thing - they were simply opinion pieces by those who felt the federal government had some form of supremacy.*
> 
> *The most important point is that SCOTUS is controlled by Congress as approved by the Chief Executive. If either or both do not like the way the court is going, they can act to make changes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They described what government would be created if the Federalists won.
> 
> The Federalists won. The Federalist Papers were written by those who wrote the constitution. They describe a president, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, virtually the whole of the constitution.
> 
> The Federalist Papers were literally the framework of the constitution. And demonstrate, in detail, what the founders intended.
> 
> If you have a better source than the Federalist Papers, show me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well, what the founders never anticipated was the situation that we have in this nation today, where as for over 30 years or better now, we have seen the rise of certain cultures in this nation that have these men turning over in their graves now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women, black people, and non-property owners voting would probably shock the hell out of them. I don't use the Founders as my benchmark of morality or high society.
> 
> But their intentions and writings, most specifically the Federalist Papers, definitely inform the meaning of the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The non-property owners would, because they'd wonder what the fuck was wrong with us, letting people with no stake in the system take part in the decision-making.  I wonder that myself.
> 
> But since women and black people both voted back then, despite what your leftist masters want you to believe, I doubt that would shock them at all.
Click to expand...


If property taxes were the only method one could pay taxes, then you might have a point. But income and sales tax alone demonstrate the absurdity that those tax payers 'don't have a stake in the system'.

As it stands, your argument is laughably false. As every tax payer has a 'stake in the system'. 

Yeah, that's why we had a 19th amendment. Because women_ already_ had the vote. That's why we had the 13th amendment. Because black people were already free to do things like vote. Unless you think that slaves were voting.

As I said.....I don't hold the Founders as paragons of morality or society. The executed gays. They wallowed in and benefited from slavery. They created a racist, sexist society that was typical of their age. We've done better on all those counts.

But if you're looking for the intent of the constitution then the writings of the founders can inform you. With the Federalist Papers being the most relevant, most detailed and most helpful in that endeavor.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

And again…

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

To understand the Constitution is to understand that case law.

As Justice Kennedy explained in _Lawrence_:

_Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom._

As a consequence of their wisdom and humility, the Framers knew it would be impossible to have a comprehensive understanding of what manifests as liberty and freedom, and to codify that in to a governing document.

It was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the courts would determine the limits of government authority with regard to the regulation of citizens’ rights and protected liberties through the judicial process, when the political process has failed, the result of the ignorance, fear, or hate of the people and their elected representatives.  
Ultimately the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means.

At this point of the discussion most conservatives will start whining: “But _Dred Scott_! But _Plessy v. Ferguson_! But the Supreme Court is sometimes ‘wrong’!”

In addition to failing as red herring fallacies, references to when the Supreme Court was ‘wrong’ exhibit an ignorance of the law and the judicial process; as the notion of the Court being ‘wrong’ in no manner mitigates its authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution, and that the Court’s rulings are in fact the indisputable the law of the land.

Indeed, in _Lawrence _the Supreme Court overturned a previous ruling what was clearly wrong, _Bowers v. Hardwick_, which had incorrectly upheld laws that criminalized being gay.


----------



## Walt104

capego said:


> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?


When it comes to violating U.S. Constitutional law at thinking he is above it and federal law, it appears tRump has no understanding of the Constitution nor cares at being a dictator wannabe. This comes to being out of compliance with U.S. Constitutional law and federal law, and based on numerous impeachable violations thus far.


----------



## Walt104

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court; to understand that case law is to understand the Constitution.
> 
> Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution"  Well this so-called president 45 certainly meets that deplorable criteria which is also a clear violation of that squalid oath he took.


----------



## longknife

Walt104 said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to violating U.S. Constitutional law at thinking he is above it and federal law, it appears tRump has no understanding of the Constitution nor cares at being a dictator wannabe. This comes to being out of compliance with U.S. Constitutional law and federal law, and based on numerous impeachable violations thus far.
Click to expand...


*Instead of spouting off* - *PROVE IT!*


----------



## Darkwind

capego said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the Constitution would you like to discuss? All of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the important parts.
> 
> I've looked online and I find only very shoddy looking sites for the purpose of either discussing or promoting the constitution (excepting this one, but I don't find online forums are an appropriate place for serious discussion).
Click to expand...

LOL

You just disqualified yourself.

ALL of the Constitution is important.  Not some parts of it.


----------



## Darkwind

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court; to understand that case law is to understand the Constitution.
> 
> Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are still trying to pass that nonsense.


----------



## Skylar

Darkwind said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capego said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court; to understand that case law is to understand the Constitution.
> 
> Ignorance of, or contempt for, that case law is to not understand the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you are still trying to pass that nonsense.
Click to expand...


And by 'nonsense', you mean the practical basis of virtually every court ruling on constitutional issues for the last couple centuries?


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

capego said:


> The only people I've met or am otherwise familiar with that understand the constitution are federal judges - and all of them knowingly betray it for personal gain (or some secret treaty I am unaware of).  There are a few people who have a fairly good understanding, like David Knight, but these are highly exceptional.
> 
> Is there some club for people that understand the Constitution that I am just completely unaware of, or are the numbers of people that understand the Constitution really this low ?



There are different ways or aspects to understand.  Historical origins, natural law, economic aspects, aspects for the peoples interests, aspects for the structure of government under the constitution, the relationship of military authority to the constitution, etc.  There is a lot.

The best thing for the people to do is focus on the peoples interests because that is what the constitution is supposed to serve.

The most least understood is the 9th Amendment and how it should be used.  I specialize in that.


----------



## regent

To understand the Constitution and the period in which it was written, one should start with a dramatic period of change: "The Age of Enlightenment". It is the period that Western  Europe  and the new American Colonies begin to change their philosophies of governments, people, religion and the purpose of life. The period will dominate the Founders concept of  the above.


----------



## Skylar

regent said:


> To understand the Constitution and the period in which it was written, one should start with a dramatic period of change: "The Age of Enlightenment". It is the period that Western  Europe  and the new American Colonies begin to change their philosophies of governments, people, religion and the purpose of life. The period will dominate the Founders concept of  the above.



The founders cherry picked what they wanted from the 'Age of Enlightenment'. Making it a rather unreliable measuring stick. Its probably better to read the philosophy and writings of men of that era in America. Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson. With Locke being a great influence on the the three, with Paine and Jefferson most accutely influenced. 

The founders also had a rather profound distrust of direct democracies. They insulated almost every fuction of the government from them. In their original conception of the federal government only the House of Representatives used it. All other branches were populated using parlimentary processes considered by the founders to be more reliable. With State legislatures being the single most powerful agent in the Founder's conception of government.


----------



## regent

Skylar said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> To understand the Constitution and the period in which it was written, one should start with a dramatic period of change: "The Age of Enlightenment". It is the period that Western  Europe  and the new American Colonies begin to change their philosophies of governments, people, religion and the purpose of life. The period will dominate the Founders concept of  the above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founders cherry picked what they wanted from the 'Age of Enlightenment'. Making it a rather unreliable measuring stick. Its probably better to read the philosophy and writings of men of that era in America. Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson. With Locke being a great influence on the the three, with Paine and Jefferson most accutely influenced.
> 
> The founders also had a rather profound distrust of direct democracies. They insulated almost every fuction of the government from them. In their original conception of the federal government only the House of Representatives used it. All other branches were populated using parlimentary processes considered by the founders to be more reliable. With State legislatures being the single most powerful agent in the Founder's conception of government.
Click to expand...

The states were necessary for the ratification of the Constitution and so it was necessary they be in the picture.


----------



## Skylar

regent said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> To understand the Constitution and the period in which it was written, one should start with a dramatic period of change: "The Age of Enlightenment". It is the period that Western  Europe  and the new American Colonies begin to change their philosophies of governments, people, religion and the purpose of life. The period will dominate the Founders concept of  the above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founders cherry picked what they wanted from the 'Age of Enlightenment'. Making it a rather unreliable measuring stick. Its probably better to read the philosophy and writings of men of that era in America. Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson. With Locke being a great influence on the the three, with Paine and Jefferson most accutely influenced.
> 
> The founders also had a rather profound distrust of direct democracies. They insulated almost every fuction of the government from them. In their original conception of the federal government only the House of Representatives used it. All other branches were populated using parlimentary processes considered by the founders to be more reliable. With State legislatures being the single most powerful agent in the Founder's conception of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The states were necessary for the ratification of the Constitution and so it was necessary they be in the picture.
Click to expand...


Being 'in the picture' and being the single most powerful agent in the Constitution under the Founders aren't the same thing.

Under the founder's constitution, the people only voted for one half of one branch of government. Nothing else. The people didn't elect the president. *The State legislatures did*, through the electoral college. The people didn't elect senators. *The State Legislatures did. *

The people didn't elect any members of the federal judiciary. They were nominated by the President, *seated by State legislatures*......and confirmed by the Senate, *all seated by State legislatures.*

The founders didn't have much faith in direct democracy. While the 'Age of Enlightenment' was far more optimistic about it. The founders were practical men, working with in a specific framework of States that had united for a common defense. And that context informs the constitution as much as the writing of any author of the Age of Enlightement. 

The Age of Enlightenment generally provided the moral justification for some of the more marketable arguments of the founders when rebelling against the English. It didn't have nearly as much influence on the government created by the US constitution.


----------



## regent

Skylar said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> To understand the Constitution and the period in which it was written, one should start with a dramatic period of change: "The Age of Enlightenment". It is the period that Western  Europe  and the new American Colonies begin to change their philosophies of governments, people, religion and the purpose of life. The period will dominate the Founders concept of  the above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founders cherry picked what they wanted from the 'Age of Enlightenment'. Making it a rather unreliable measuring stick. Its probably better to read the philosophy and writings of men of that era in America. Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson. With Locke being a great influence on the the three, with Paine and Jefferson most accutely influenced.
> The Age was a period of changing ideas over a period of time
> The founders also had a rather profound distrust of direct democracies. They insulated almost every fuction of the government from them. In their original conception of the federal government only the House of Representatives used it. All other branches were populated using parlimentary processes considered by the founders to be more reliable. With State legislatures being the single most powerful agent in the Founder's conception of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The states were necessary for the ratification of the Constitution and so it was necessary they be in the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being 'in the picture' and being the single most powerful agent in the Constitution under the Founders aren't the same thing.
> 
> Under the founder's constitution, the people only voted for one half of one branch of government. Nothing else. The people didn't elect the president. *The State legislatures did*, through the electoral college. The people didn't elect senators. *The State Legislatures did. *
> 
> The people didn't elect any members of the federal judiciary. They were nominated by the President, *seated by State legislatures*......and confirmed by the Senate, *all seated by State legislatures.*
> 
> The founders didn't have much faith in direct democracy. While the 'Age of Enlightenment' was far more optimistic about it. The founders were practical men, working with in a specific framework of States that had united for a common defense. And that context informs the constitution as much as the writing of any author of the Age of Enlightement.
> 
> The Age of Enlightenment generally provided the moral justification for some of the more marketable arguments of the founders when rebelling against the English. It didn't have nearly as much influence on the government created by the US constitution.
Click to expand...


The Age was not a blueprint for America it was more of suggestions for a better life for the world.


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

regent said:


> To understand the Constitution and the period in which it was written, one should start with a dramatic period of change: "The Age of Enlightenment". It is the period that Western  Europe  and the new American Colonies begin to change their philosophies of governments, people, religion and the purpose of life. The period will dominate the Founders concept of  the above.



The framers and their predecessors drew on everything worthy for self governance that they could find.  It was the First Nations people, the Six Nations Iroquois confederacy that convinced Franklin in 1744 to form a federation of states.


But, the natural law of the 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment were the truely valuable contributions.

No one today has heard of the "Greater Meaning of Free speech", but it was a well known spiritual and philosophical doctrine behind the right to free speech.

~~From the practice of free speech between people, and understanding can be formed.  From the understanding can come' forgivness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.~~

Clearly, the Toryes were paying people in gold to oppose the inclusion of the entire think in the Declaration of Independence (DOI).  I learned that the Torys were doing everything they could to sabotage and hijack the creation of the framing documents.  So the DOI only has 30% of the doctrine.

Certainly "The Age Of Enlightenment" played a large role in creating the openess to these philosophies.  Some of the first Europeans named the Seneca after the famous Greek Philosopher, and the name stuck.  The framers were amazed at the many different self governance experiments the Native people had used, and kept record of.

The European mind cannot accept the record keeping methods of the Natives, because of religious influences, but it was those capabilities that made them such profound philosophers.  Oral histories.  We really do not know what they are.


----------



## danielpalos

we have a mixed-market economy and allege to subscribe to capitalism for the self-evident market based metrics. 

The right wing alleges to be for Capitalism and definitely Not, socialism on a national basis.

They need to pay for their alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; or abolish them simply Because, they refuse to pay Taxes for them; Thus, Congress is Not delegated those social Powers.


----------

