Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[PoliticalChic]

Your point does not address Judicial tyranny and the zero input We the People have in the Judicial process or in Judicial nullification.

The concept of Judicial Review does not exist in the Constitution and is flatly wrong imho.

Federal Judges can certainly point out when they feel a Law is at odds with the Constitution. But they cannot nullify a Law. Period.

You said the following: "Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES."

You are correct. So a simple question for you. What happens when Judicial Nullification destroys the will of the people as expressed through their duly appointed Congressional representatives? Is that legal? Is it proper?

Thank you.

Actually, yes

They have been able to nullify an unconstitutional law for 200 years

"We the people" do not get to vote on what rights other people are allowed
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper"

Actually no. The court gave itself the Power of Judicial Review long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established.

That power does not exist under the Constitution (as Foxy said). Only We the People can grant the Court that power. We the People never have.

That is the definition of tyranny.

Judicial Review to determine the Constitutionality of laws has been in effect since Marbury vs Madison

It only becomes an issue once we have gay marriage?

This thread is not about gay marriage other than in the much broader scope of judicial activism and what is and is not constitutional. Please desist in posts that derail this thread--there are dozens of threads out there in which to discuss the pros and cons of gay marriage. Rule one for this thread includes the requirement to stay on topic.

This thread is more butthurt over gay marriage

More....I'm going to take my ball and go home

I don't like the court ruling so I want to pass a law nullifying the court. Why did you post this thread today and not last week?

Being a Liberal, you are consistently wrong because you despise the general public.

This, from Chief Justice Rehnquist:

1. Those who have pondered the matter have always recognized that the ideal of judicial review has basically antidemocratic and antimajoritarian facets that require some justification in this Nation, which prides itself on being a self-governing representative democracy.

a. All who have studied law, and many who have not, are familiar with John Marshall’s classic defense of judicial review in his opinion for the Court in Marbury v. Madison. The ultimate source of authority in this Nation, Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original
Constitution and by later amending it. They have granted some authority to the federal government and have reserved authority not granted it to the states or to the people individually.

b. In addition, Marshall said that if the popular branches of government—state legislatures, the Congress, and the Presidency—are operating within the authority granted to them by the Constitution, their judgment and not that of the Court must
obviously prevail. When these branches overstep the authority given them by the Constitution, in the case of the President and the Congress, or invade protected individual rights, and a constitutional challenge to their action is raised in a lawsuit
brought in federal court, the Court must prefer the Constitution to the government acts.
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



"...the Court must prefer the Constitution to the government acts."

Note.....this is the rule that Brutus Roberts broke in the Burwell decision.

 

[JakeStarkey]

#2 in the rules is nonenforceable.

In terms of the proposed amendment, the wordage allows enclaves of America to reject law passed by due constitutional process. Nothing more need be said.

The principal of the doctrine of judicial review, which predated the Constitution and was understood by the Founders, places "original jurisdiction" of the Constitution in the hands of SCOTUS.

 

[Nosmo King]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, yes

They have been able to nullify an unconstitutional law for 200 years

"We the people" do not get to vote on what rights other people are allowed
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper"

Actually no. The court gave itself the Power of Judicial Review long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established.

That power does not exist under the Constitution (as Foxy said). Only We the People can grant the Court that power. We the People never have.

That is the definition of tyranny.

Judicial Review to determine the Constitutionality of laws has been in effect since Marbury vs Madison

It only becomes an issue once we have gay marriage?

This thread is not about gay marriage other than in the much broader scope of judicial activism and what is and is not constitutional. Please desist in posts that derail this thread--there are dozens of threads out there in which to discuss the pros and cons of gay marriage. Rule one for this thread includes the requirement to stay on topic.

This thread is more butthurt over gay marriage

More....I'm going to take my ball and go home

I don't like the court ruling so I want to pass a law nullifying the court. Why did you post this thread today and not last week?

Being a Liberal, you are consistently wrong because you despise the general public.

This, from Chief Justice Rehnquist:

1. Those who have pondered the matter have always recognized that the ideal of judicial review has basically antidemocratic and antimajoritarian facets that require some justification in this Nation, which prides itself on being a self-governing representative democracy.

a. All who have studied law, and many who have not, are familiar with John Marshall’s classic defense of judicial review in his opinion for the Court in Marbury v. Madison. The ultimate source of authority in this Nation, Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original
Constitution and by later amending it. They have granted some authority to the federal government and have reserved authority not granted it to the states or to the people individually.

b. In addition, Marshall said that if the popular branches of government—state legislatures, the Congress, and the Presidency—are operating within the authority granted to them by the Constitution, their judgment and not that of the Court must
obviously prevail. When these branches overstep the authority given them by the Constitution, in the case of the President and the Congress, or invade protected individual rights, and a constitutional challenge to their action is raised in a lawsuit
brought in federal court, the Court must prefer the Constitution to the government acts.
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



"...the Court must prefer the Constitution to the government acts."

Note.....this is the rule that Brutus Roberts broke in the Burwell decision.

Good argument PC but please watch the ad hominem which is reflected in assigning 'liberal' to the member's post and also in assigning what the member despises. Rebut the post but leave personal attributes of the member making it out of it. Rule #1 for this thread.

 

[WelfareQueen]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

Our Nation was set up for Majority Rule. That's Democracy. At least we can vote the bastards out if we want to.

Judicial excellence?

Can't vote those bastards out. Therefore, their power needs to be tightly regulated and under the full checks and balances of the Constitution.

 

[dcraelin]

Your point does not address Judicial tyranny and the zero input We the People have in the Judicial process or in Judicial nullification.

The concept of Judicial Review does not exist in the Constitution and is flatly wrong imho.

Federal Judges can certainly point out when they feel a Law is at odds with the Constitution. But they cannot nullify a Law. Period.

You said the following: "Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES."

You are correct. So a simple question for you. What happens when Judicial Nullification destroys the will of the people as expressed through their duly appointed Congressional representatives? Is that legal? Is it proper?

Thank you.

Actually, yes

They have been able to nullify an unconstitutional law for 200 years

"We the people" do not get to vote on what rights other people are allowed
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper"

Actually no. The court gave itself the Power of Judicial Review long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established.

That power does not exist under the Constitution (as Foxy said). Only We the People can grant the Court that power. We the People never have.

That is the definition of tyranny.

Judicial Review to determine the Constitutionality of laws has been in effect since Marbury vs Madison

It only becomes an issue once we have gay marriage?

This thread is not about gay marriage other than in the much broader scope of judicial activism and what is and is not constitutional. Please desist in posts that derail this thread--there are dozens of threads out there in which to discuss the pros and cons of gay marriage. Rule one for this thread includes the requirement to stay on topic.

This thread is more butthurt over gay marriage

More....I'm going to take my ball and go home

I don't like the court ruling so I want to pass a law nullifying the court. Why did you post this thread today and not last week?

It isnt just over Gay marriage..............the court generally get things wrong.....lifetime appointments doesnt get them out of the Washington bubble.......they are just as much under influence of lobbyists and old law buddies, and their clerks sure are......

they got citizens united and the kelo case wrong

reform is badly needed

 

[Foxfyre]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

It is definitely a question that deserves an answer, Nosmo. But do you think the Founders intended to create a branch of government that could be neither censored or challenged and could assign to itself unlimited power to censor or challenge the other two branches of government? And the members suffer no repercussions or consequences for their decisions because they have automatic lifetime appointments?

Michelsen's amendment would restore the original intent for the high court to be the ultimate arbiter and referee of disputes within the existing constitutional law and not a body that was its own uncontestable legislative authority or that could rewrite constitutional intent according to its own sociopolitical beliefs and prejudices.

 

[Nosmo King]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

Our Nation was set up for Majority Rule. That's Democracy. At least we can vote the bastards out if we want to.

Judicial excellence?

Can't vote those bastards out. Therefore, their power needs to be tightly regulated and under the full checks and balances of the Constitution.

Let's say our nation was set up as a majority rule Democracy. And let's say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subject to the same restrictions set up in the amendment as listed in the OP.

Do you imagine that the freedoms set forth in the Civil Rights Act would ever come to fruition? Do you suppose the freedoms set forth in the latest decision extending marriage equality would happen? And to what end? To what purpose should these liberties and freedoms be denied?

The majority can oppress without consequence. We need level heads to shine freedom while the majority sneers at it.

 

[Nosmo King]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

It is definitely a question that deserves an answer, Nosmo. But do you think the Founders intended to create a branch of government that could be neither censored or challenged and could assign to itself unlimited power to censor or challenge the other two branches of government? And the members suffer no repercussions or consequences for their decisions because they have automatic lifetime appointments?

Michelsen's amendment would restore the original intent for the high court to be the ultimate arbiter and referee of disputes within the existing constitutional law and not a body that was its own uncontestable legislative authority or that could rewrite constitutional intent according to its own sociopolitical beliefs and prejudices.

The justices are subject to appointment by the Executive and the advice and consent of the Legislative. Checks and balances are, and have been working for better than 225 years under the constitution.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater because partisans disagree that extending freedom is the right thing to do seems petulant.

 

[Foxfyre]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

Our Nation was set up for Majority Rule. That's Democracy. At least we can vote the bastards out if we want to.

Judicial excellence?

Can't vote those bastards out. Therefore, their power needs to be tightly regulated and under the full checks and balances of the Constitution.

Let's say our nation was set up as a majority rule Democracy. And let's say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subject to the same restrictions set up in the amendment as listed in the OP.

Do you imagine that the freedoms set forth in the Civil Rights Act would ever come to fruition? Do you suppose the freedoms set forth in the latest decision extending marriage equality would happen? And to what end? To what purpose should these liberties and freedoms be denied?

The majority can oppress without consequence. We need level heads to shine freedom while the majority sneers at it.

Yes, I believe the various states would have eventually come to the right decisions on all those matters. But those that got it wrong would not be able to impose their screw ups on everybody else.

When the federal government gets a universal concept or law wrong, it screws up everybody. Which is why the founders intended the authority and ability to screw up everybody would be very limited via constitutional restraints. All three divisions of government have been corrupting that intention for quite some time now. And I believe the negative consequences have far outweighed the benefits.

It really comes down to whether you want the people to have the liberty to live their lives and organize their societies as they choose or whether you trust an uncontestable authoritarian central government to order how they must live their lives and what sorts of societies they are required to have.

 

[Foxfyre]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

It is definitely a question that deserves an answer, Nosmo. But do you think the Founders intended to create a branch of government that could be neither censored or challenged and could assign to itself unlimited power to censor or challenge the other two branches of government? And the members suffer no repercussions or consequences for their decisions because they have automatic lifetime appointments?

Michelsen's amendment would restore the original intent for the high court to be the ultimate arbiter and referee of disputes within the existing constitutional law and not a body that was its own uncontestable legislative authority or that could rewrite constitutional intent according to its own sociopolitical beliefs and prejudices.

The justices are subject to appointment by the Executive and the advice and consent of the Legislative. Checks and balances are, and have been working for better than 225 years under the constitution.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater because partisans disagree that extending freedom is the right thing to do seems petulant.

Well that's how these discussions go. How you interpret Michelsen's proposed amendment seems petulant to you.

And it looks like a reasonable plan to fix much of what ails us to me.

Let the better argument rise to the top.

 

[Nosmo King]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

Our Nation was set up for Majority Rule. That's Democracy. At least we can vote the bastards out if we want to.

Judicial excellence?

Can't vote those bastards out. Therefore, their power needs to be tightly regulated and under the full checks and balances of the Constitution.

Let's say our nation was set up as a majority rule Democracy. And let's say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subject to the same restrictions set up in the amendment as listed in the OP.

Do you imagine that the freedoms set forth in the Civil Rights Act would ever come to fruition? Do you suppose the freedoms set forth in the latest decision extending marriage equality would happen? And to what end? To what purpose should these liberties and freedoms be denied?

The majority can oppress without consequence. We need level heads to shine freedom while the majority sneers at it.

Yes, I believe the various states would have eventually come to the right decisions on all those matters. But those that got it wrong would not be able to impose their screw ups on everybody else.

When the federal government gets a universal concept or law wrong, it screws up everybody. Which is why the founders intended the authority and ability to screw up everybody would be very limited via constitutional restraints. All three divisions of government have been corrupting that intention for quite some time now. And I believe the negative consequences have far outweighed the benefits.

It really comes down to whether you want the people to have the liberty to live their lives and organize their societies as they choose or whether you trust an uncontestable authoritarian central government to order how they must live their lives and what sorts of societies they are required to have.

I saw the Citizens United decision as a body blow to the power of the people. But I am not willing to circumvent to power granted the SCOTUS and amend the constitution simply because of that terrible decision. Same with Bush v Gore in 2000. And I fear the tyranny of the majority where civil rights are concerned. Continued repression for no sane grounds is truly tyranny.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Letting the individual states decide if the law of the land is truly the law of the land or merely a suggestion would ensure the tyranny of the majority and that is unacceptable.

 

[Foxfyre]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

Our Nation was set up for Majority Rule. That's Democracy. At least we can vote the bastards out if we want to.

Judicial excellence?

Can't vote those bastards out. Therefore, their power needs to be tightly regulated and under the full checks and balances of the Constitution.

Let's say our nation was set up as a majority rule Democracy. And let's say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subject to the same restrictions set up in the amendment as listed in the OP.

Do you imagine that the freedoms set forth in the Civil Rights Act would ever come to fruition? Do you suppose the freedoms set forth in the latest decision extending marriage equality would happen? And to what end? To what purpose should these liberties and freedoms be denied?

The majority can oppress without consequence. We need level heads to shine freedom while the majority sneers at it.

Yes, I believe the various states would have eventually come to the right decisions on all those matters. But those that got it wrong would not be able to impose their screw ups on everybody else.

When the federal government gets a universal concept or law wrong, it screws up everybody. Which is why the founders intended the authority and ability to screw up everybody would be very limited via constitutional restraints. All three divisions of government have been corrupting that intention for quite some time now. And I believe the negative consequences have far outweighed the benefits.

It really comes down to whether you want the people to have the liberty to live their lives and organize their societies as they choose or whether you trust an uncontestable authoritarian central government to order how they must live their lives and what sorts of societies they are required to have.

I saw the Citizens United decision as a body blow to the power of the people. But I am not willing to circumvent to power granted the SCOTUS and amend the constitution simply because of that terrible decision. Same with Bush v Gore in 2000. And I fear the tyranny of the majority where civil rights are concerned. Continued repression for no sane grounds is truly tyranny.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Letting the individual states decide if the law of the land is truly the law of the land or merely a suggestion would ensure the tyranny of the majority and that is unacceptable.

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

 

[Nosmo King]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

Our Nation was set up for Majority Rule. That's Democracy. At least we can vote the bastards out if we want to.

Judicial excellence?

Can't vote those bastards out. Therefore, their power needs to be tightly regulated and under the full checks and balances of the Constitution.

Let's say our nation was set up as a majority rule Democracy. And let's say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subject to the same restrictions set up in the amendment as listed in the OP.

Do you imagine that the freedoms set forth in the Civil Rights Act would ever come to fruition? Do you suppose the freedoms set forth in the latest decision extending marriage equality would happen? And to what end? To what purpose should these liberties and freedoms be denied?

The majority can oppress without consequence. We need level heads to shine freedom while the majority sneers at it.

Yes, I believe the various states would have eventually come to the right decisions on all those matters. But those that got it wrong would not be able to impose their screw ups on everybody else.

When the federal government gets a universal concept or law wrong, it screws up everybody. Which is why the founders intended the authority and ability to screw up everybody would be very limited via constitutional restraints. All three divisions of government have been corrupting that intention for quite some time now. And I believe the negative consequences have far outweighed the benefits.

It really comes down to whether you want the people to have the liberty to live their lives and organize their societies as they choose or whether you trust an uncontestable authoritarian central government to order how they must live their lives and what sorts of societies they are required to have.

I saw the Citizens United decision as a body blow to the power of the people. But I am not willing to circumvent to power granted the SCOTUS and amend the constitution simply because of that terrible decision. Same with Bush v Gore in 2000. And I fear the tyranny of the majority where civil rights are concerned. Continued repression for no sane grounds is truly tyranny.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Letting the individual states decide if the law of the land is truly the law of the land or merely a suggestion would ensure the tyranny of the majority and that is unacceptable.

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

 

[Foxfyre]

Our Nation was set up for Majority Rule. That's Democracy. At least we can vote the bastards out if we want to.

Judicial excellence?

Can't vote those bastards out. Therefore, their power needs to be tightly regulated and under the full checks and balances of the Constitution.

Let's say our nation was set up as a majority rule Democracy. And let's say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subject to the same restrictions set up in the amendment as listed in the OP.

Do you imagine that the freedoms set forth in the Civil Rights Act would ever come to fruition? Do you suppose the freedoms set forth in the latest decision extending marriage equality would happen? And to what end? To what purpose should these liberties and freedoms be denied?

The majority can oppress without consequence. We need level heads to shine freedom while the majority sneers at it.

Yes, I believe the various states would have eventually come to the right decisions on all those matters. But those that got it wrong would not be able to impose their screw ups on everybody else.

When the federal government gets a universal concept or law wrong, it screws up everybody. Which is why the founders intended the authority and ability to screw up everybody would be very limited via constitutional restraints. All three divisions of government have been corrupting that intention for quite some time now. And I believe the negative consequences have far outweighed the benefits.

It really comes down to whether you want the people to have the liberty to live their lives and organize their societies as they choose or whether you trust an uncontestable authoritarian central government to order how they must live their lives and what sorts of societies they are required to have.

I saw the Citizens United decision as a body blow to the power of the people. But I am not willing to circumvent to power granted the SCOTUS and amend the constitution simply because of that terrible decision. Same with Bush v Gore in 2000. And I fear the tyranny of the majority where civil rights are concerned. Continued repression for no sane grounds is truly tyranny.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Letting the individual states decide if the law of the land is truly the law of the land or merely a suggestion would ensure the tyranny of the majority and that is unacceptable.

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

 

[Nosmo King]

Let's say our nation was set up as a majority rule Democracy. And let's say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subject to the same restrictions set up in the amendment as listed in the OP.

Do you imagine that the freedoms set forth in the Civil Rights Act would ever come to fruition? Do you suppose the freedoms set forth in the latest decision extending marriage equality would happen? And to what end? To what purpose should these liberties and freedoms be denied?

The majority can oppress without consequence. We need level heads to shine freedom while the majority sneers at it.

Yes, I believe the various states would have eventually come to the right decisions on all those matters. But those that got it wrong would not be able to impose their screw ups on everybody else.

When the federal government gets a universal concept or law wrong, it screws up everybody. Which is why the founders intended the authority and ability to screw up everybody would be very limited via constitutional restraints. All three divisions of government have been corrupting that intention for quite some time now. And I believe the negative consequences have far outweighed the benefits.

It really comes down to whether you want the people to have the liberty to live their lives and organize their societies as they choose or whether you trust an uncontestable authoritarian central government to order how they must live their lives and what sorts of societies they are required to have.

I saw the Citizens United decision as a body blow to the power of the people. But I am not willing to circumvent to power granted the SCOTUS and amend the constitution simply because of that terrible decision. Same with Bush v Gore in 2000. And I fear the tyranny of the majority where civil rights are concerned. Continued repression for no sane grounds is truly tyranny.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Letting the individual states decide if the law of the land is truly the law of the land or merely a suggestion would ensure the tyranny of the majority and that is unacceptable.

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

Which have been restricted? Are folks no longer able to speak publically without government interdiction? Have churches been shut down by government fiat?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, I believe the various states would have eventually come to the right decisions on all those matters. But those that got it wrong would not be able to impose their screw ups on everybody else.

When the federal government gets a universal concept or law wrong, it screws up everybody. Which is why the founders intended the authority and ability to screw up everybody would be very limited via constitutional restraints. All three divisions of government have been corrupting that intention for quite some time now. And I believe the negative consequences have far outweighed the benefits.

It really comes down to whether you want the people to have the liberty to live their lives and organize their societies as they choose or whether you trust an uncontestable authoritarian central government to order how they must live their lives and what sorts of societies they are required to have.

I saw the Citizens United decision as a body blow to the power of the people. But I am not willing to circumvent to power granted the SCOTUS and amend the constitution simply because of that terrible decision. Same with Bush v Gore in 2000. And I fear the tyranny of the majority where civil rights are concerned. Continued repression for no sane grounds is truly tyranny.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Letting the individual states decide if the law of the land is truly the law of the land or merely a suggestion would ensure the tyranny of the majority and that is unacceptable.

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

Which have been restricted? Are folks no longer able to speak publically without government interdiction? Have churches been shut down by government fiat?

In the broader sense it is the federal government that is essentially unchallenged when it imposes requirements or rules or regulations or taxes on us all. Let's don't get bogged down in individual laws or decisions here but keep the focus on the big picture and the powers of government.

For instance, what necessary law that will apply to all the people should not require a 3/4ths majority of the people's representatives if such law is going to be enforceable? And how does a minority of a half dozen states who do not agree with the constitutionality of a law prevent the rest of the states enacting it for themselves?

 

[Syriusly]

You do realize by calling for the impeachment of Roberts and Kennedy for their decisions you are declaring your contempt for the Constitution and your unwillingness to follow it.

Utter nonsense.

Roberts openly declared that the statutes of law do not matter; in doing so he has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and should be removed from office - he is unfit to hold the position he occupies.

Again- every time you make this claim you are declaring your contempt for the Constitution.

The Constitution spells out specifically the grounds for impeachment- disagreeing with a ruling is not one of them.

 

[Nosmo King]

I saw the Citizens United decision as a body blow to the power of the people. But I am not willing to circumvent to power granted the SCOTUS and amend the constitution simply because of that terrible decision. Same with Bush v Gore in 2000. And I fear the tyranny of the majority where civil rights are concerned. Continued repression for no sane grounds is truly tyranny.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Letting the individual states decide if the law of the land is truly the law of the land or merely a suggestion would ensure the tyranny of the majority and that is unacceptable.

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

Which have been restricted? Are folks no longer able to speak publically without government interdiction? Have churches been shut down by government fiat?

In the broader sense it is the federal government that is essentially unchallenged when it imposes requirements or rules or regulations or taxes on us all. Let's don't get bogged down in individual laws or decisions here but keep the focus on the big picture and the powers of government.

For instance, what necessary law that will apply to all the people should not require a 3/4ths majority of the people's representatives if such law is going to be enforceable? And how does a minority of a half dozen states who do not agree with the constitutionality of a law prevent the rest of the states enacting it for themselves?

Are you taxed without representation? Do we not hold elections every two years for congress, every six for the senate and every four for the presidency? We have a representative republic, not a pure democracy. We elect representatives to conduct the business of governance for us. And, if we find ourselves to be dissatisfied with the governance they perform, we can, by voting, remove them from office and elect someone with whom we feel we are more in line with. I have been suffering in a congressional district that elects the radical right wing. I am not satisfied with my representation. But I can canvass, support and vote for his replacement when the election cycle rolls around again.

Congress does what it does. Sometimes effectively, sometimes it resorts to gridlock, filibuster and partisanship which accomplishes nothing. But I rely on elections to make the change. Relying on a handful of states to enforce the law of the land results in anarchy. Change the laws via the system we have relied upon since the constitution was ratified.

 

[Syriusly]

I saw the Citizens United decision as a body blow to the power of the people. But I am not willing to circumvent to power granted the SCOTUS and amend the constitution simply because of that terrible decision. Same with Bush v Gore in 2000. And I fear the tyranny of the majority where civil rights are concerned. Continued repression for no sane grounds is truly tyranny.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Letting the individual states decide if the law of the land is truly the law of the land or merely a suggestion would ensure the tyranny of the majority and that is unacceptable.

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

Which have been restricted? Are folks no longer able to speak publically without government interdiction? Have churches been shut down by government fiat?

In the broader sense it is the federal government that is essentially unchallenged when it imposes requirements or rules or regulations or taxes on us all. Let's don't get bogged down in individual laws or decisions here but keep the focus on the big picture and the powers of government.

The federal government is challenged on a regular basis. Look at the decisions of the Court this week- the court overturned EPA rules- because the government was challenged.