The Courts!
That's correct: the arbiters of justice stole justice.
The courts have taken for themselves what did not belong to them: they pillaged the Constitution and the nation.
1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.
The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement- money and or power- would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
a. You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.
2. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As they own the schools and the media, the simpleminded have been trained to foam at the mouth whenever they hear the phrase "states rights."
a. Again: the understanding of the colonies that ratified the Constitution was one in which they retained a degree of sovereignty.
3. But, in 1793, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state (Chisholm v. Georgia).
a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism
4. This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!
a. The 11th amendment explicitly denies the federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
b. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman
5. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.
Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.
6. Marshall represents a pivotal point in the pirating of power by the federal government.
Consider the Judiciary act of 1789, in which section 25 hands powers to the court: " One of the most controversial provisions of the act, Section 25, granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions from the high courts of the states when those decisions involved questions of the constitutionality of state or federal laws or authorities." History of the Federal Judiciary
a. Had Marshall read the amendment through the prism of it's intended purpose, how would he have viewed section 25?
Yup: unconstitutional.
John Marshall, as is true of most modern judges, expressed his hostility toward limitations of federal power.
And, living under a cloak of stupidity, far too many folks imagine the the clear language of a law is unintelligible until some anointed one in a black robe tells them what is says.
The time is long past to smack the judges back into the role they were assigned.
That's correct: the arbiters of justice stole justice.
The courts have taken for themselves what did not belong to them: they pillaged the Constitution and the nation.
1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.
The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement- money and or power- would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
a. You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.
2. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As they own the schools and the media, the simpleminded have been trained to foam at the mouth whenever they hear the phrase "states rights."
a. Again: the understanding of the colonies that ratified the Constitution was one in which they retained a degree of sovereignty.
3. But, in 1793, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state (Chisholm v. Georgia).
a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism
4. This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!
a. The 11th amendment explicitly denies the federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
b. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman
5. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.
Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.
6. Marshall represents a pivotal point in the pirating of power by the federal government.
Consider the Judiciary act of 1789, in which section 25 hands powers to the court: " One of the most controversial provisions of the act, Section 25, granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions from the high courts of the states when those decisions involved questions of the constitutionality of state or federal laws or authorities." History of the Federal Judiciary
a. Had Marshall read the amendment through the prism of it's intended purpose, how would he have viewed section 25?
Yup: unconstitutional.
John Marshall, as is true of most modern judges, expressed his hostility toward limitations of federal power.
And, living under a cloak of stupidity, far too many folks imagine the the clear language of a law is unintelligible until some anointed one in a black robe tells them what is says.
The time is long past to smack the judges back into the role they were assigned.
