How to reform the Supreme Court

[legaleagle_45]

Not illegal at all.

in leeegooeeees its called "extra-constitutional" meaning

Incorrect. In legalese it is the unauthorized act of an agent, the consequence being that, unless the principal ratifies the unauthorized act, the agent becomes soley responsible for the unauthorized act.

However, in this context it is irrelevant as nothing the Convention came up with would have been binding on the states without their subsequent ratification, whether their actions were authorized or not as the mandate was to come up with proposals which the principal would then review and adopt only if he approved. Another example was the Louisana Purchase. The agents were only given authority to buy New Orleans, however they got the entire Louisana Purchase at a great price. The USA was not thereby bound to honor the agreement negotiated, because the agents had no authority, but the US decided to ratify the action and approved the deal, so we got Louisana which became a state in April 1812, raising the number of states from 13 to 14 necessary to ratify TONA, so you lost again.. LOL

operating outside their authority

Correct.

meaning pierced the corporate veil

LOL, no. Not even close, different concept entirely. Once again demonstrating that you are a nit wit.

meaning ILLEGAL,

LOL, no. Not even close.

meaning its sue the fucking shit out of em time.

No damages no claim. It is clear that an unaurhorized act of an agent can be ratified by the principal and thereby become the act of the principal that is what happened here.

Ratification n. confirmation of an action which was not pre-approved and may not have been authorized, usually by a principal (employer) who adopts the acts of his/her agent (employee) (See: principal, agent)

ratification legal definition of ratification. ratification synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Yet another misunderstanding of the law by our resident whackadoodle who apparently believes that a bunch of lawyers in the US House and the US Senate actually approved a proposed Constitutional Amendment back in 1810 which would have stripped them of not only their jobs but their citizenship as well...

LOL

Still waiting for you to prove that you are a real person resident of the USA and not some whacky computer program which spits out loony legal arguments whenever key phrases are written on internet message boards.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

From my understanding the USSC chooses which cases it handles very carefully, with consideration of recommendations from lower courts. That is the only control that exists.

bullshit.

Congress has no control of the Supreme Court.

certainly not which laws they can rule on.

Werd. The only way congress could have any control whatsoever over the U.S. Supreme Court would be through constitutional amendment. [MENTION=5176]RetiredGySgt[/MENTION]: Remember the three branches of government? Did you graduate high school? The three branches are independent.

They are not completely independent. They all must cooperate at some level. Example: Presidential Veto, presidential choice of SCOTUS justices. Congress makes laws, but that doesn't mean that ever law it makes is going to stick. If Congress passes a law that is challenged, the SCOTUS decides if the law is legal (Constitutional) or not. There is overlap in the legislative process in that way and in the fact that the SCOTUS decisions are considered 'judge make laws.' Another area you might consider is war powers.

The three branches of our government are NOT completely independent. If they were completely independent then the government would be in complete gridlock 100% of the time.

CONTROL! The key word was "control." Try to keep up.

 

[Contumacious]

How to reform the Supreme Court

Reform the Court?

1- Abolish the seventeenth amendment , actually it was never ratified

2- Reverse the court nazistic decision in which they ruled that they have immunity from lawsuits;

But is all futile, a fascist congress will nominate fascist judges.

.

 

[Unkotare]

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

So you want to substitute the House and state legislatures for the SC?

No, I want to provide a check against 5 people that rule over all of us.

Why not just do away with the SC?

Because they serve an important function. They are not, however, omnipotent as the long list of AWFUL decisions clearly demonstrates.

Somebody has to make the call, in the US it's the SC

I would argue THE PEOPLE should ultimately make the call, not central planners or all powerful judges.

The people do make the call, and the "check" is to be more careful who we elect president, as current circumstances make all too clear.

 

[legaleagle_45]

From my understanding the USSC chooses which cases it handles very carefully, with consideration of recommendations from lower courts. That is the only control that exists.

Most cases heard by SCOTUS are based upon discretionary appeal. There are a few cases in which SCOTUS must hear the case, there are even some cases where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction (as opposed to appealate jurisdiction) but those instances are few and far between.

Application for these discretionary appeals is made through what is called a "Petition for Writ of Certiorari". The criteria for granting the writ of cert is found in Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules and can be summarized as follow:

1.) If there is a split in authority between the lower Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue.
2.) A state supreme court has decided a federal issue which is in conflict with the decisions of other states supreme courts or the opinions of a US Circuit Court of Appeal
3.) A state court or a US Circuit of Appeals has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

It really does not matter what the recommendations are of the lower court.

 

[legaleagle_45]

1- Abolish the seventeenth amendment , actually it was never ratified

There is in fact a pretty good argument that the 17th was not properly ratified, even though it did receive more that 3/4ths ratification from the states. I assume that is what you are referring to?

 

[Sunshine]

From my understanding the USSC chooses which cases it handles very carefully, with consideration of recommendations from lower courts. That is the only control that exists.



Werd. The only way congress could have any control whatsoever over the U.S. Supreme Court would be through constitutional amendment. [MENTION=5176]RetiredGySgt[/MENTION]: Remember the three branches of government? Did you graduate high school? The three branches are independent.

They are not completely independent. They all must cooperate at some level. Example: Presidential Veto, presidential choice of SCOTUS justices. Congress makes laws, but that doesn't mean that ever law it makes is going to stick. If Congress passes a law that is challenged, the SCOTUS decides if the law is legal (Constitutional) or not. There is overlap in the legislative process in that way and in the fact that the SCOTUS decisions are considered 'judge make laws.' Another area you might consider is war powers.

The three branches of our government are NOT completely independent. If they were completely independent then the government would be in complete gridlock 100% of the time.

CONTROL! The key word was "control." Try to keep up.

You are the one who is not keeping up. All branches do have some degree of CONTROL of other branches through the avenues I listed. Now, when did you get your JD? The branches are NOT 100% independent of one another. That was by design so the government would actually function.

Congress definitely has some CONTROL over the SCOTUS:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_cont...er_the_Supreme_Court's_appellate_jurisdiction

Congress can pass legislation that prevents the US Supreme Court from exercising appellate jurisdiction over certain Executive and Legislative actions, either in whole or in part. This is known as jurisdiction stripping, or curtailment of jurisdiction. Congress cannot pass legislation that interferes with the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, as granted by the constitution, nor can they concurrently remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and inferior courts, leaving no forum to challenge the legislation (although they may specify which court or courts will have original and appellate jurisdiction in such cases, as they did with Guantanamo detainees).

The power to assign jurisdiction derives from three constitutional sources:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 19

"...To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;"

Article III, Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Article III, Section 2

"...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."

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

From my understanding the USSC chooses which cases it handles very carefully, with consideration of recommendations from lower courts. That is the only control that exists.

Most cases heard by SCOTUS are based upon discretionary appeal. There are a few cases in which SCOTUS must hear the case, there are even some cases where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction (as opposed to appealate jurisdiction) but those instances are few and far between.

Application for these discretionary appeals is made through what is called a "Petition for Writ of Certiorari". The criteria for granting the writ of cert is found in Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules and can be summarized as follow:

1.) If there is a split in authority between the lower Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue.
2.) A state supreme court has decided a federal issue which is in conflict with the decisions of other states supreme courts or the opinions of a US Circuit Court of Appeal
3.) A state court or a US Circuit of Appeals has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

It really does not matter what the recommendations are of the lower court.

Yes, the justices know the rules and laws that apply. Nonetheless, are you going to try to pretend what motivates every last supreme court justice? They are human, and subject to the same wills and whims we are. Now, try to argue that a majority of justices never in history took a case on a whim. LMAO

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

They are not completely independent. They all must cooperate at some level. Example: Presidential Veto, presidential choice of SCOTUS justices. Congress makes laws, but that doesn't mean that ever law it makes is going to stick. If Congress passes a law that is challenged, the SCOTUS decides if the law is legal (Constitutional) or not. There is overlap in the legislative process in that way and in the fact that the SCOTUS decisions are considered 'judge make laws.' Another area you might consider is war powers.

The three branches of our government are NOT completely independent. If they were completely independent then the government would be in complete gridlock 100% of the time.

CONTROL! The key word was "control." Try to keep up.

You are the one who is not keeping up. All branches do have some degree of CONTROL of other branches through the avenues I listed. Now, when did you get your JD? The branches are NOT 100% independent of one another. That was by design so the government would actually function.

The topic of this particular debate was what control congress has over USSC. Don't try to confuse the issue by citing every last branch of government you are familiar with.

 

[Contumacious]

1- Abolish the seventeenth amendment , actually it was never ratified

There is in fact a pretty good argument that the 17th was not properly ratified, even though it did receive more that 3/4ths ratification from the states. I assume that is what you are referring to?

The Founding Fathers required that any measure removing the states equal suffrage in the senate be a UNANIMOUS DECISION.

.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I removed some of Patricks comments for space considerations and inserted (snip) in bold large red font where the removal took place

it was!!! LOL

Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788
Mr. HENRY.
( snip)

Who authorized them to speak the language of,
We, the people, instead of, We, the states?

States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives.

(snip)

The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.

This, of course was Patrick Henry's opinion which he addressed at the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 4, 1788. Henry was perhaps the leading anti-federalist and opposed just about every clause in the Constitution. .. including but not limited to "We, the people". What you left unsaid is that Henry's opinion was not the opinion of of the Virginia Ratifying Convention. A truly remarkable assembly of men, including (but not limited to) Patrick Henry, James Madison, John Marshall, George Mason, Governor Randolph, George Wythe, E. Pendleton, Edmund Custis and Henry Lee.

In direct response to the Henry objection you provided, we have this

Mr. PENDLETON.
But an objection is made to the form: the expression, We, the people, is thought improper. Permit me to ask the gentleman who made this objection, who but the people can delegate powers? Who but the people have a right to form government? The expression is a common one, and a favorite one with me. The representatives of the people, by their authority, is a mode wholly inessential. If the objection be, that the Union ought to be not of the people, but of the state governments, then I think the choice of the former very happy and proper. What have the state governments to do with it? Were they to determine, the people would not, in that case, be the judges upon what terms it was adopted.

But the power of the Convention is doubted. What is the power? To propose, not to determine. This power of proposing was very broad; it extended to remove all defects in government: the members of that Convention, who were to consider all the defects in our general government, were not confined to any particular plan. Were they deceived? This is the proper question here. Suppose the paper on your table dropped from one of the planets; the people found it, and sent us here to consider whether it was proper for their adoption; must we not obey them? Then the question must be between this government and the Confederation. The latter is no government at all. It has been said that it has carried us, through a dangerous war, to a happy issue. Not that Confederation, but common danger, and the spirit of America, were bonds of our union: union and unanimity, and not that insignificant paper, carried us through that dangerous war. "United, we stand — divided, we fall!" echoed and reëchoed through America — from Congress to the drunken carpenter — was effectual, and procured the end of our wishes, though now forgotten by gentlemen, if such there be, who incline to let go this stronghold, to catch at feathers; for such all substituted projects may prove.

Suffice it to say, the Virginia Ratifying Convention rejected Henry's objections and RATIFIED the Constitution on June 25, 1788, the act of ratification, as a matter of law, removes any claim that the act was unauthorized.

If you have the time and are sufficiently motivated, I suggest reading the entire debates covering June 2, 1788 through June 27, 1788. It is not too often where you can read the heated debates between and including such luminaries. Henry debating Madison. Marshall debating Mason Lee debating Randolph...

 

[Contumacious]

From my understanding the USSC chooses which cases it handles very carefully, with consideration of recommendations from lower courts. That is the only control that exists.

Most cases heard by SCOTUS are based upon discretionary appeal. There are a few cases in which SCOTUS must hear the case, there are even some cases where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction (as opposed to appealate jurisdiction) but those instances are few and far between.

Application for these discretionary appeals is made through what is called a "Petition for Writ of Certiorari". The criteria for granting the writ of cert is found in Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules and can be summarized as follow:

1.) If there is a split in authority between the lower Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue.
2.) A state supreme court has decided a federal issue which is in conflict with the decisions of other states supreme courts or the opinions of a US Circuit Court of Appeal
3.) A state court or a US Circuit of Appeals has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

It really does not matter what the recommendations are of the lower court.

Yes, the justices know the rules and laws that apply. Nonetheless, are you going to try to pretend what motivates every last supreme court justice? They are human, and subject to the same wills and whims we are. Now, try to argue that a majority of justices never in history took a case on a whim. LMAO

The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices

.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Yes, the justices know the rules and laws that apply. Nonetheless, are you going to try to pretend what motivates every last supreme court justice? They are human, and subject to the same wills and whims we are. Now, try to argue that a majority of justices never in history took a case on a whim. LMAO

Not going to say that, but I will inform you that it takes the concurrance of 4 justices to grant cert, so you do not need a majority of whimsical justices to hear a case as only four whimsical justices can force a hearing.

I can also tell you that only about 1% of the petitions for cert are granted by SCOTUS, so while they may be whimsical, they are also very, very picky.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Virginia promulgated its ratification in march, and on my last count march comes before april.

Assuming arguendo... The number and dates of states ratifying TONA according to you:

1.Maryland (December 25, 1810)
2.Kentucky (January 31, 1811)
3.Ohio (January 31, 1811)
4.Delaware (February 2, 1811)
5.Pennsylvania (February 6, 1811)
6.New Jersey (February 13, 1811)
7.Vermont (October 24, 1811)
8.Tennessee (November 21, 1811)
9.North Carolina (December 23, 1811)
10.Georgia (December 31, 1811)[1]
11.Massachusetts (February 27, 1812)
12. Virginia (March-- sometime date uncertain--1812)
13..New Hampshire (December 9, 1812)


In March 1812, 13 states were needed to ratify. Virginia (according to you) only provided the 12th. Then in April Louisana was admitted to the union, which raised the number of states needed to ratify from 13 to 14. I do believe April comes before December, so when New Hampshire ratified in December of 1812, there still was not a sufficient number of states to ratify, you are still one short.

LOL, so even if you are correct about Virginia you still lose... at no time did you have the sufficient 3/4ths states ratifying TONA based upon your count.

Even though you dont seem very good at it, seriously dont quit your day job.

Virginia officially ratified the day it was promulgated (March 12 1812), as I said earlier, and you obviously are completely clueless as to its meaning

anyway carry on with wacking your doodle.

 

[Sunshine]

CONTROL! The key word was "control." Try to keep up.

You are the one who is not keeping up. All branches do have some degree of CONTROL of other branches through the avenues I listed. Now, when did you get your JD? The branches are NOT 100% independent of one another. That was by design so the government would actually function.

The topic of this particular debate was what control congress has over USSC. Don't try to confuse the issue by citing every last branch of government you are familiar with.

Well, there are only 3, so it shouldn't stretch your intellect to the breaking point.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You are the one who is not keeping up. All branches do have some degree of CONTROL of other branches through the avenues I listed. Now, when did you get your JD? The branches are NOT 100% independent of one another. That was by design so the government would actually function.

The topic of this particular debate was what control congress has over USSC. Don't try to confuse the issue by citing every last branch of government you are familiar with.

Well, there are only 3, so it shouldn't stretch your intellect to the breaking point.

You STILL don't comprehend what the hell yourself and I were originally giving arguments about. "Hello, is there anybody in there?"

 

[francoHFW]

Op- stop electing bought off, pander to the greedy rich, new bs gop...

 

[legaleagle_45]

Virginia officially ratified the day it was promulgated (March 12 1812)

Meaning that if you are correct then on March 12, 1812, Virginia became the 12th state to ratify TONA. At that time 13 states were required to ratify TONA so you were still one short. In April 1812, Louisana joined the Union, which raised the requisite number of ratifying states to 14. Then New Hampshire ratified on December 9, 1812 raising the total from 12 to 13 but by then the number required was 14, so you are still one short and you still lose. EVEN IF WE ACCEPT YOUR ASSERTION ABOUT VIRGINIA

It is amazing that you are so dense you can not follow that LOL

you obviously are completely clueless as to its meaning

According to you you a whole bunch of Senators and Represenataives who were lawyers, voted to strip themselves and all other lawyers of citizenship and their job... and you call me clueless???

Did you know Georgia actually did adopt a provision in their state Constitution in 1777 which was remarakably similar to TONA? It provided:

No person shall be entitled to more than one vote, which shall be given in the county where such person resides, except as before excepted; nor shall any person who holds any title of nobility be entitled to a vote, or be capable of serving as a representative, or hold any post of honor, profit, or trust in this State, whilst such person claims his title of nobility; but if the person shall give up such distinction, in the manner as may be directed by future legislation, than, and in such case, he shall be entitled to a vote, and represent, as before directed, and enjoy all the other benefits of a free citizen.
Ga. Const. art. XI (1777).

Not one single lawyer was denied the right to vote or stripped of his cushy government job.. Why is that, oh great Legal Loony Tunes?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Not illegal at all.

in leeegooeeees its called "extra-constitutional" meaning

Incorrect. In legalese it is the unauthorized act of an agent, the consequence being that, unless the principal ratifies the unauthorized act, the agent becomes soley responsible for the unauthorized act.

However, in this context it is irrelevant as nothing the Convention came up with would have been binding on the states without their subsequent ratification, whether their actions were authorized or not as the mandate was to come up with proposals which the principal would then review and adopt only if he approved. Another example was the Louisana Purchase. The agents were only given authority to buy New Orleans, however they got the entire Louisana Purchase at a great price. The USA was not thereby bound to honor the agreement negotiated, because the agents had no authority, but the US decided to ratify the action and approved the deal, so we got Louisana which became a state in April 1812, raising the number of states from 13 to 14 necessary to ratify TONA, so you lost again.. LOL



Correct.



LOL, no. Not even close, different concept entirely. Once again demonstrating that you are a nit wit.



LOL, no. Not even close.

meaning its sue the fucking shit out of em time.

No damages no claim. It is clear that an unaurhorized act of an agent can be ratified by the principal and thereby become the act of the principal that is what happened here.

Ratification n. confirmation of an action which was not pre-approved and may not have been authorized, usually by a principal (employer) who adopts the acts of his/her agent (employee) (See: principal, agent)

ratification legal definition of ratification. ratification synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Yet another misunderstanding of the law by our resident whackadoodle who apparently believes that a bunch of lawyers in the US House and the US Senate actually approved a proposed Constitutional Amendment back in 1810 which would have stripped them of not only their jobs but their citizenship as well...

LOL

Still waiting for you to prove that you are a real person resident of the USA and not some whacky computer program which spits out loony legal arguments whenever key phrases are written on internet message boards.

you did not enter anything into evidence that lousiana was invited to this party in the first place.

tona stands ratified.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I removed some of Patricks comments for space considerations and inserted (snip) in bold large red font where the removal took place

it was!!! LOL

Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788
Mr. HENRY.
( snip)

Who authorized them to speak the language of,
We, the people, instead of, We, the states?

States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives.

(snip)

The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.

This, of course was Patrick Henry's opinion which he addressed at the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 4, 1788. Henry was perhaps the leading anti-federalist and opposed just about every clause in the Constitution. .. including but not limited to "We, the people". What you left unsaid is that Henry's opinion was not the opinion of of the Virginia Ratifying Convention. A truly remarkable assembly of men, including (but not limited to) Patrick Henry, James Madison, John Marshall, George Mason, Governor Randolph, George Wythe, E. Pendleton, Edmund Custis and Henry Lee.

In direct response to the Henry objection you provided, we have this

Mr. PENDLETON.
But an objection is made to the form: the expression, We, the people, is thought improper. Permit me to ask the gentleman who made this objection, who but the people can delegate powers? Who but the people have a right to form government? The expression is a common one, and a favorite one with me. The representatives of the people, by their authority, is a mode wholly inessential. If the objection be, that the Union ought to be not of the people, but of the state governments, then I think the choice of the former very happy and proper. What have the state governments to do with it? Were they to determine, the people would not, in that case, be the judges upon what terms it was adopted.

But the power of the Convention is doubted. What is the power? To propose, not to determine. This power of proposing was very broad; it extended to remove all defects in government: the members of that Convention, who were to consider all the defects in our general government, were not confined to any particular plan. Were they deceived? This is the proper question here. Suppose the paper on your table dropped from one of the planets; the people found it, and sent us here to consider whether it was proper for their adoption; must we not obey them? Then the question must be between this government and the Confederation. The latter is no government at all. It has been said that it has carried us, through a dangerous war, to a happy issue. Not that Confederation, but common danger, and the spirit of America, were bonds of our union: union and unanimity, and not that insignificant paper, carried us through that dangerous war. "United, we stand — divided, we fall!" echoed and reëchoed through America — from Congress to the drunken carpenter — was effectual, and procured the end of our wishes, though now forgotten by gentlemen, if such there be, who incline to let go this stronghold, to catch at feathers; for such all substituted projects may prove.

Suffice it to say, the Virginia Ratifying Convention rejected Henry's objections and RATIFIED the Constitution on June 25, 1788, the act of ratification, as a matter of law, removes any claim that the act was unauthorized.

If you have the time and are sufficiently motivated, I suggest reading the entire debates covering June 2, 1788 through June 27, 1788. It is not too often where you can read the heated debates between and including such luminaries. Henry debating Madison. Marshall debating Mason Lee debating Randolph...

fir you are incorrect.

it is not "We the people"

it is "We the People"

could be but not one in the same thing.

Despite your colorful paint jobs;

Henry was correct, it is "We the Estates", it has been determines as such in many court cases, see spies exparte v us