Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Foxfyre]

Well that would be one way to d

My various occupations have often involved working closely with lots of attorneys and judges. And while there are attorneys I rate as great and while there are judges I respect completely, there are an awful lot of them I would not want put into any random pool for a position as important as the Supreme Court.

In the articles each state I believe could chhose 1 or 2 judges to throw into the pool, we now have a committe I think that makes recommendations to the president......something similar to thse could be done.

That would not prevent the President from choosing the justices who would further the President's agenda, however. Until we make sure that the justices who go onto the SCOTUS are constitutional scholars and are committed 100% to original intent of the Constitution, they will continue to rewrite it however the ideological leanings dictate.

yes it would prevent the president from choosing because the president would have nothing to do with it........the last step would be pulling a name out of a hat.

Okay, that would be one way to do it. But I still want some restrictions on the high court to ensure that it does follow the existing Constitution and the existing law, that it cannot rewrite the Constitution or the law to suit itself, and that the people have some remedy for a rogue court that does not do its job.

Again with so many 5/4 decisions from the high court, they either don't know what the Constitution says or some are deliberately ignoring it.

right I agree at least somewhat..........maybe if the Court finds something unconstitutional the Congress has a time frame in which they can counter that with a proposed amendment, during which time the courts opinion would not take effect.

Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one but maybe when I'm more awake.

 

[Agit8r]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

 

[Foxfyre]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

But a more perfect union WAS intended that those who didn't want to play didn't have to and didn't have to contribute their ball anyway. Community A could do its thing to suit itself and be at peace when Community B did its own thing to suit itself. Each could be polar opposites in what sort of society they wanted and created and yet live side by side in harmony and peace.

At some point we got away from that live and let live mentality and now the trend is to dictate a one-size-fits-all system for everybody. I think THAT is what Michelsen is really addressing with his proposal.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well that would be one way to d

In the articles each state I believe could chhose 1 or 2 judges to throw into the pool, we now have a committe I think that makes recommendations to the president......something similar to thse could be done.

That would not prevent the President from choosing the justices who would further the President's agenda, however. Until we make sure that the justices who go onto the SCOTUS are constitutional scholars and are committed 100% to original intent of the Constitution, they will continue to rewrite it however the ideological leanings dictate.

yes it would prevent the president from choosing because the president would have nothing to do with it........the last step would be pulling a name out of a hat.

Okay, that would be one way to do it. But I still want some restrictions on the high court to ensure that it does follow the existing Constitution and the existing law, that it cannot rewrite the Constitution or the law to suit itself, and that the people have some remedy for a rogue court that does not do its job.

Again with so many 5/4 decisions from the high court, they either don't know what the Constitution says or some are deliberately ignoring it.

right I agree at least somewhat..........maybe if the Court finds something unconstitutional the Congress has a time frame in which they can counter that with a proposed amendment, during which time the courts opinion would not take effect.

Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one but maybe when I'm more awake.

Okay I've given it some thought. In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall assigned the high court the power to do judicial review of acts of Congress--the first time the high court had ever assumed such authority. It was never intended for the high court to have such power and for it to have such power begs the court to assume partisan positions on just about everything.

Michelsen's proposed amendment would rein in that power, but I think we need specific wording forbidding ANY court at any level from writing its own law. If the law is silent, then so must be the court. The court's duty should be referee to judge, based on the law and only the law as it was intended, and rule between competing interests at odds with each other.

And I do think a super majority of the court must agree on a decision requiring at least a 7 to 2 majority in order for a decision to be a decision. It is absurd that the court would be split 5/4 on so many decisions if they are all going by the same Constitution and the same law.

 

[dcraelin]

Well that would be one way to d

That would not prevent the President from choosing the justices who would further the President's agenda, however. Until we make sure that the justices who go onto the SCOTUS are constitutional scholars and are committed 100% to original intent of the Constitution, they will continue to rewrite it however the ideological leanings dictate.

yes it would prevent the president from choosing because the president would have nothing to do with it........the last step would be pulling a name out of a hat.

Okay, that would be one way to do it. But I still want some restrictions on the high court to ensure that it does follow the existing Constitution and the existing law, that it cannot rewrite the Constitution or the law to suit itself, and that the people have some remedy for a rogue court that does not do its job.

Again with so many 5/4 decisions from the high court, they either don't know what the Constitution says or some are deliberately ignoring it.

right I agree at least somewhat..........maybe if the Court finds something unconstitutional the Congress has a time frame in which they can counter that with a proposed amendment, during which time the courts opinion would not take effect.

Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one but maybe when I'm more awake.

Okay I've given it some thought. In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall assigned the high court the power to do judicial review of acts of Congress--the first time the high court had ever assumed such authority. It was never intended for the high court to have such power and for it to have such power begs the court to assume partisan positions on just about everything.

Michelsen's proposed amendment would rein in that power, but I think we need specific wording forbidding ANY court at any level from writing its own law. If the law is silent, then so must be the court. The court's duty should be referee to judge, based on the law and only the law as it was intended, and rule between competing interests at odds with each other.

And I do think a super majority of the court must agree on a decision requiring at least a 7 to 2 majority in order for a decision to be a decision. It is absurd that the court would be split 5/4 on so many decisions if they are all going by the same Constitution and the same law.

??? in order for a decision to be a decision? your last paragraph makes no sense to me.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well that would be one way to d

yes it would prevent the president from choosing because the president would have nothing to do with it........the last step would be pulling a name out of a hat.

Okay, that would be one way to do it. But I still want some restrictions on the high court to ensure that it does follow the existing Constitution and the existing law, that it cannot rewrite the Constitution or the law to suit itself, and that the people have some remedy for a rogue court that does not do its job.

Again with so many 5/4 decisions from the high court, they either don't know what the Constitution says or some are deliberately ignoring it.

right I agree at least somewhat..........maybe if the Court finds something unconstitutional the Congress has a time frame in which they can counter that with a proposed amendment, during which time the courts opinion would not take effect.

Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one but maybe when I'm more awake.

Okay I've given it some thought. In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall assigned the high court the power to do judicial review of acts of Congress--the first time the high court had ever assumed such authority. It was never intended for the high court to have such power and for it to have such power begs the court to assume partisan positions on just about everything.

Michelsen's proposed amendment would rein in that power, but I think we need specific wording forbidding ANY court at any level from writing its own law. If the law is silent, then so must be the court. The court's duty should be referee to judge, based on the law and only the law as it was intended, and rule between competing interests at odds with each other.

And I do think a super majority of the court must agree on a decision requiring at least a 7 to 2 majority in order for a decision to be a decision. It is absurd that the court would be split 5/4 on so many decisions if they are all going by the same Constitution and the same law.

??? in order for a decision to be a decision? your last paragraph makes no sense to me.

What I mean is, the law is what the law is. The Constitution is what the Constitution is. A court with integrity would not split 5/4--such splits say loud and clear that some members of the court are voting via partisanship or ideology and not the law. So if the court cannot agree at least 7 to 2 on a decision, then it should render no decision at all.

 

[dcraelin]

Well that would be one way to d
Okay, that would be one way to do it. But I still want some restrictions on the high court to ensure that it does follow the existing Constitution and the existing law, that it cannot rewrite the Constitution or the law to suit itself, and that the people have some remedy for a rogue court that does not do its job.

Again with so many 5/4 decisions from the high court, they either don't know what the Constitution says or some are deliberately ignoring it.

right I agree at least somewhat..........maybe if the Court finds something unconstitutional the Congress has a time frame in which they can counter that with a proposed amendment, during which time the courts opinion would not take effect.

Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one but maybe when I'm more awake.

Okay I've given it some thought. In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall assigned the high court the power to do judicial review of acts of Congress--the first time the high court had ever assumed such authority. It was never intended for the high court to have such power and for it to have such power begs the court to assume partisan positions on just about everything.

Michelsen's proposed amendment would rein in that power, but I think we need specific wording forbidding ANY court at any level from writing its own law. If the law is silent, then so must be the court. The court's duty should be referee to judge, based on the law and only the law as it was intended, and rule between competing interests at odds with each other.

And I do think a super majority of the court must agree on a decision requiring at least a 7 to 2 majority in order for a decision to be a decision. It is absurd that the court would be split 5/4 on so many decisions if they are all going by the same Constitution and the same law.

??? in order for a decision to be a decision? your last paragraph makes no sense to me.

What I mean is, the law is what the law is. The Constitution is what the Constitution is. A court with integrity would not split 5/4--such splits say loud and clear that some members of the court are voting via partisanship or ideology and not the law. So if the court cannot agree at least 7 to 2 on a decision, then it should render no decision at all.

you got a point in a way, but I think that would be problematic for those looking to the court to resolve issues

 

[Foxfyre]

right I agree at least somewhat..........maybe if the Court finds something unconstitutional the Congress has a time frame in which they can counter that with a proposed amendment, during which time the courts opinion would not take effect.

Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one but maybe when I'm more awake.

Okay I've given it some thought. In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall assigned the high court the power to do judicial review of acts of Congress--the first time the high court had ever assumed such authority. It was never intended for the high court to have such power and for it to have such power begs the court to assume partisan positions on just about everything.

Michelsen's proposed amendment would rein in that power, but I think we need specific wording forbidding ANY court at any level from writing its own law. If the law is silent, then so must be the court. The court's duty should be referee to judge, based on the law and only the law as it was intended, and rule between competing interests at odds with each other.

And I do think a super majority of the court must agree on a decision requiring at least a 7 to 2 majority in order for a decision to be a decision. It is absurd that the court would be split 5/4 on so many decisions if they are all going by the same Constitution and the same law.

??? in order for a decision to be a decision? your last paragraph makes no sense to me.

What I mean is, the law is what the law is. The Constitution is what the Constitution is. A court with integrity would not split 5/4--such splits say loud and clear that some members of the court are voting via partisanship or ideology and not the law. So if the court cannot agree at least 7 to 2 on a decision, then it should render no decision at all.

you got a point in a way, but I think that would be problematic for those looking to the court to resolve issues

It should be problematic for those who want the court to rewrite the law to suit them. That was never a function given to the court at any level to do, and it is something we need to strongly address to restore the Constitution to the people.

 

[eagle1462010]

Well that would be one way to d
Okay, that would be one way to do it. But I still want some restrictions on the high court to ensure that it does follow the existing Constitution and the existing law, that it cannot rewrite the Constitution or the law to suit itself, and that the people have some remedy for a rogue court that does not do its job.

Again with so many 5/4 decisions from the high court, they either don't know what the Constitution says or some are deliberately ignoring it.

right I agree at least somewhat..........maybe if the Court finds something unconstitutional the Congress has a time frame in which they can counter that with a proposed amendment, during which time the courts opinion would not take effect.

Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one but maybe when I'm more awake.

Okay I've given it some thought. In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall assigned the high court the power to do judicial review of acts of Congress--the first time the high court had ever assumed such authority. It was never intended for the high court to have such power and for it to have such power begs the court to assume partisan positions on just about everything.

Michelsen's proposed amendment would rein in that power, but I think we need specific wording forbidding ANY court at any level from writing its own law. If the law is silent, then so must be the court. The court's duty should be referee to judge, based on the law and only the law as it was intended, and rule between competing interests at odds with each other.

And I do think a super majority of the court must agree on a decision requiring at least a 7 to 2 majority in order for a decision to be a decision. It is absurd that the court would be split 5/4 on so many decisions if they are all going by the same Constitution and the same law.

??? in order for a decision to be a decision? your last paragraph makes no sense to me.

What I mean is, the law is what the law is. The Constitution is what the Constitution is. A court with integrity would not split 5/4--such splits say loud and clear that some members of the court are voting via partisanship or ideology and not the law. So if the court cannot agree at least 7 to 2 on a decision, then it should render no decision at all.

The more I think on that one.........I'm in agreement...............to me they should be uniform in judgement..........7 to 2 is okay in my book.

 

[candycorn]

right I agree at least somewhat..........maybe if the Court finds something unconstitutional the Congress has a time frame in which they can counter that with a proposed amendment, during which time the courts opinion would not take effect.

Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one but maybe when I'm more awake.

Okay I've given it some thought. In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall assigned the high court the power to do judicial review of acts of Congress--the first time the high court had ever assumed such authority. It was never intended for the high court to have such power and for it to have such power begs the court to assume partisan positions on just about everything.

Michelsen's proposed amendment would rein in that power, but I think we need specific wording forbidding ANY court at any level from writing its own law. If the law is silent, then so must be the court. The court's duty should be referee to judge, based on the law and only the law as it was intended, and rule between competing interests at odds with each other.

And I do think a super majority of the court must agree on a decision requiring at least a 7 to 2 majority in order for a decision to be a decision. It is absurd that the court would be split 5/4 on so many decisions if they are all going by the same Constitution and the same law.

??? in order for a decision to be a decision? your last paragraph makes no sense to me.

What I mean is, the law is what the law is. The Constitution is what the Constitution is. A court with integrity would not split 5/4--such splits say loud and clear that some members of the court are voting via partisanship or ideology and not the law. So if the court cannot agree at least 7 to 2 on a decision, then it should render no decision at all.

The more I think on that one.........I'm in agreement...............to me they should be uniform in judgement..........7 to 2 is okay in my book.

Nonsense.
Federal Appeals Courts work well with 3 judge panels rendering 2-1 decisions all the time. It works great. If you have 9 judges on a panel and 7 of them agree, that is 72% or there about. A 5-4 decision is about 56%, a 6-3 decision is 66% in agreement (the same ratio as the appeals court that likely heard the case the High Court is hearing). The argument is that somehow, "integrity" lives in the 12% difference between 56 and 72 percent of justices agreeing. Comical actually doesn't begin to describe it.

The court has Integrity. Right wing disagreement with recent rulings doesn't change that.

 

[dcraelin]

Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one but maybe when I'm more awake.

Okay I've given it some thought. In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall assigned the high court the power to do judicial review of acts of Congress--the first time the high court had ever assumed such authority. It was never intended for the high court to have such power and for it to have such power begs the court to assume partisan positions on just about everything.

Michelsen's proposed amendment would rein in that power, but I think we need specific wording forbidding ANY court at any level from writing its own law. If the law is silent, then so must be the court. The court's duty should be referee to judge, based on the law and only the law as it was intended, and rule between competing interests at odds with each other.

And I do think a super majority of the court must agree on a decision requiring at least a 7 to 2 majority in order for a decision to be a decision. It is absurd that the court would be split 5/4 on so many decisions if they are all going by the same Constitution and the same law.

??? in order for a decision to be a decision? your last paragraph makes no sense to me.

What I mean is, the law is what the law is. The Constitution is what the Constitution is. A court with integrity would not split 5/4--such splits say loud and clear that some members of the court are voting via partisanship or ideology and not the law. So if the court cannot agree at least 7 to 2 on a decision, then it should render no decision at all.

The more I think on that one.........I'm in agreement...............to me they should be uniform in judgement..........7 to 2 is okay in my book.

Nonsense.
Federal Appeals Courts work well with 3 judge panels rendering 2-1 decisions all the time. It works great. If you have 9 judges on a panel and 7 of them agree, that is 72% or there about. A 5-4 decision is about 56%, a 6-3 decision is 66% in agreement (the same ratio as the appeals court that likely heard the case the High Court is hearing). The argument is that somehow, "integrity" lives in the 12% difference between 56 and 72 percent of justices agreeing. Comical actually doesn't begin to describe it.

The court has Integrity. Right wing disagreement with recent rulings doesn't change that.

remember citizens united..................the court is a joke

 

[candycorn]

Okay I've given it some thought. In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall assigned the high court the power to do judicial review of acts of Congress--the first time the high court had ever assumed such authority. It was never intended for the high court to have such power and for it to have such power begs the court to assume partisan positions on just about everything.

Michelsen's proposed amendment would rein in that power, but I think we need specific wording forbidding ANY court at any level from writing its own law. If the law is silent, then so must be the court. The court's duty should be referee to judge, based on the law and only the law as it was intended, and rule between competing interests at odds with each other.

And I do think a super majority of the court must agree on a decision requiring at least a 7 to 2 majority in order for a decision to be a decision. It is absurd that the court would be split 5/4 on so many decisions if they are all going by the same Constitution and the same law.

??? in order for a decision to be a decision? your last paragraph makes no sense to me.

What I mean is, the law is what the law is. The Constitution is what the Constitution is. A court with integrity would not split 5/4--such splits say loud and clear that some members of the court are voting via partisanship or ideology and not the law. So if the court cannot agree at least 7 to 2 on a decision, then it should render no decision at all.

The more I think on that one.........I'm in agreement...............to me they should be uniform in judgement..........7 to 2 is okay in my book.

Nonsense.
Federal Appeals Courts work well with 3 judge panels rendering 2-1 decisions all the time. It works great. If you have 9 judges on a panel and 7 of them agree, that is 72% or there about. A 5-4 decision is about 56%, a 6-3 decision is 66% in agreement (the same ratio as the appeals court that likely heard the case the High Court is hearing). The argument is that somehow, "integrity" lives in the 12% difference between 56 and 72 percent of justices agreeing. Comical actually doesn't begin to describe it.

The court has Integrity. Right wing disagreement with recent rulings doesn't change that.

remember citizens united..................the court is a joke

And having it be a 7-2 decision means that it wouldn't be a joke in your eyes.

Would Brown be less integral with a 5-4?

I'm guessing no.

 

[dcraelin]

??? in order for a decision to be a decision? your last paragraph makes no sense to me.

What I mean is, the law is what the law is. The Constitution is what the Constitution is. A court with integrity would not split 5/4--such splits say loud and clear that some members of the court are voting via partisanship or ideology and not the law. So if the court cannot agree at least 7 to 2 on a decision, then it should render no decision at all.

The more I think on that one.........I'm in agreement...............to me they should be uniform in judgement..........7 to 2 is okay in my book.

Nonsense.
Federal Appeals Courts work well with 3 judge panels rendering 2-1 decisions all the time. It works great. If you have 9 judges on a panel and 7 of them agree, that is 72% or there about. A 5-4 decision is about 56%, a 6-3 decision is 66% in agreement (the same ratio as the appeals court that likely heard the case the High Court is hearing). The argument is that somehow, "integrity" lives in the 12% difference between 56 and 72 percent of justices agreeing. Comical actually doesn't begin to describe it.

The court has Integrity. Right wing disagreement with recent rulings doesn't change that.

remember citizens united..................the court is a joke

And having it be a 7-2 decision means that it wouldn't be a joke in your eyes.

Would Brown be less integral with a 5-4?

I'm guessing no.

no it would still be a poor joke,....... if passed

less intergral?...........an attempt at a joke?

you managed to find a case where the court stumbled on the right choice apparently. I dont know how much it passed by.

 

[candycorn]

What I mean is, the law is what the law is. The Constitution is what the Constitution is. A court with integrity would not split 5/4--such splits say loud and clear that some members of the court are voting via partisanship or ideology and not the law. So if the court cannot agree at least 7 to 2 on a decision, then it should render no decision at all.

The more I think on that one.........I'm in agreement...............to me they should be uniform in judgement..........7 to 2 is okay in my book.

Nonsense.
Federal Appeals Courts work well with 3 judge panels rendering 2-1 decisions all the time. It works great. If you have 9 judges on a panel and 7 of them agree, that is 72% or there about. A 5-4 decision is about 56%, a 6-3 decision is 66% in agreement (the same ratio as the appeals court that likely heard the case the High Court is hearing). The argument is that somehow, "integrity" lives in the 12% difference between 56 and 72 percent of justices agreeing. Comical actually doesn't begin to describe it.

The court has Integrity. Right wing disagreement with recent rulings doesn't change that.

remember citizens united..................the court is a joke

And having it be a 7-2 decision means that it wouldn't be a joke in your eyes.

Would Brown be less integral with a 5-4?

I'm guessing no.

no it would still be a poor joke,....... if passed

less intergral?...........an attempt at a joke?

you managed to find a case where the court stumbled on the right choice apparently. I dont know how much it passed by.

If it were a joke, I apologize. I mean, would a 5-4 decision on Brown have less integrity than the 9-0 decision that it was? I don't think so.

 

[dcraelin]

The more I think on that one.........I'm in agreement...............to me they should be uniform in judgement..........7 to 2 is okay in my book.

Nonsense.
Federal Appeals Courts work well with 3 judge panels rendering 2-1 decisions all the time. It works great. If you have 9 judges on a panel and 7 of them agree, that is 72% or there about. A 5-4 decision is about 56%, a 6-3 decision is 66% in agreement (the same ratio as the appeals court that likely heard the case the High Court is hearing). The argument is that somehow, "integrity" lives in the 12% difference between 56 and 72 percent of justices agreeing. Comical actually doesn't begin to describe it.

The court has Integrity. Right wing disagreement with recent rulings doesn't change that.

remember citizens united..................the court is a joke

And having it be a 7-2 decision means that it wouldn't be a joke in your eyes.

Would Brown be less integral with a 5-4?

I'm guessing no.

no it would still be a poor joke,....... if passed

less intergral?...........an attempt at a joke?

you managed to find a case where the court stumbled on the right choice apparently. I dont know how much it passed by.

If it were a joke, I apologize. I mean, would a 5-4 decision on Brown have less integrity than the 9-0 decision that it was? I don't think so.

depends on what you mean by integrity.....in some ways the constitution itself may lack integrity.........its the courts role to interpret the contract not manipulate it to come up with PC decisions.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

There was no "way to ger".

It was never intended that internal affairs be the subject of the federal legislature. They were essentially there to keep the playing field level and to prevent states from bullying each other. Beyond that, they were to have a part time job making treaties and printing money.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Nonsense.
Federal Appeals Courts work well with 3 judge panels rendering 2-1 decisions all the time. It works great. If you have 9 judges on a panel and 7 of them agree, that is 72% or there about. A 5-4 decision is about 56%, a 6-3 decision is 66% in agreement (the same ratio as the appeals court that likely heard the case the High Court is hearing). The argument is that somehow, "integrity" lives in the 12% difference between 56 and 72 percent of justices agreeing. Comical actually doesn't begin to describe it.

The court has Integrity. Right wing disagreement with recent rulings doesn't change that.

remember citizens united..................the court is a joke

And having it be a 7-2 decision means that it wouldn't be a joke in your eyes.

Would Brown be less integral with a 5-4?

I'm guessing no.

no it would still be a poor joke,....... if passed

less intergral?...........an attempt at a joke?

you managed to find a case where the court stumbled on the right choice apparently. I dont know how much it passed by.

If it were a joke, I apologize. I mean, would a 5-4 decision on Brown have less integrity than the 9-0 decision that it was? I don't think so.

depends on what you mean by integrity.....in some ways the constitution itself may lack integrity.........its the courts role to interpret the contract not manipulate it to come up with PC decisions.

The process runs and it only has as much integrity as those who participate in it have.

I may not like the Warren Court. I may think that some decisions are activism.

But that is the process.....without it....what would we be.

I abide the Warren Court decisions...they help form the laws of this land.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

There was no "way to ger".

It was never intended that internal affairs be the subject of the federal legislature. They were essentially there to keep the playing field level and to prevent states from bullying each other. Beyond that, they were to have a part time job making treaties and printing money.

Nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause clearly illustrates the Framers' intent that the Federal government act at the behest of the American people to ensure that the rights and well-being of American citizens residing in the states are safeguarded and immune from attack by the states; the Founding Generation pursued a single National government created by the people, where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government. (US Term Limits v. Thornton)

 

[Foxfyre]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

There was no "way to ger".

It was never intended that internal affairs be the subject of the federal legislature. They were essentially there to keep the playing field level and to prevent states from bullying each other. Beyond that, they were to have a part time job making treaties and printing money.

Nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause clearly illustrates the Framers' intent that the Federal government act at the behest of the American people to ensure that the rights and well-being of American citizens residing in the states are safeguarded and immune from attack by the states; the Founding Generation pursued a single National government created by the people, where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government. (US Term Limits v. Thornton)

US Term Limits vs Thornton was strictly a ruling that said the states could not impose restrictions on the U.S. Congress greater than those imposed by the Constitution itself. By that ruling, SCOTUS declared Arkansas's attempt to impose term limits on its own representatives illegal. Personally I think SCOTUS was wrong in that ruling as it has been wrong on numerous rulings over the years.

But the case had nothing to do with protecting the rights and well-being of American citizens in general.

Michelsen's proposed amendment however would have given the people power to overrule SCOTUS had they chosen to do so.

 

[Agit8r]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

There was no "way to ger".

It was never intended that internal affairs be the subject of the federal legislature. They were essentially there to keep the playing field level and to prevent states from bullying each other. Beyond that, they were to have a part time job making treaties and printing money.

That is what the Anti-federalists wanted. But they lost. Tough titties