quote:
Originally posted by Lionsfan:
Renegade Nation: I'd like to see the results of your research. Reading about the opinions written by both Supreme Court justice and federal appeals court judges over the pat two centuries, there seem to be legitimate arguments for either position.
I would be interested if your research has included transcripts from hearings in which the current members of the Supreme Court have participated in oral arguments on questions of federal/state jurisdiction; also, any opinions or decisions these current members have written that include their views on the matter. As I'm sure you know, the pendulum has swing in both directions over the years.
Whether you or I like it or not, a Supreme Court will decide whether it is constitutional.
OK...sounds a little condescending to me...but I'll take you at your word you're asking a genuine question.
I'm of the opinion the Constitution should be read and understood as it was originally intended. The founders many times wrote of the necessity of having a government and laws easily understood. So I reject the idea that you have to be some sort of legal expert that sits on some pedestal that hands down some sort of divine opinion.
I think anyone that takes an honest look and reads enough to understand the traditions of thought of the founding generation can plainly understand what the Constitution means.
That being said...has the Supreme Court and the Federal government from the very beginning tried to break free of the chains of the Constitution...well of course...yes.
But is the Supreme Court the final say in all things constitutional? Well there are a several decades of tradition that say no.
I am firmly a Jeffersonian when it comes to constitutional matters. When it comes to 200 years of SCOTUS decisions and Thomas Jefferson...I readily side with Jefferson.
The individual states were free and sovereign...and created the federal government...and retain all powers not delegated to the federal government.
I explored this idea in this
POST I'll quote some of it here:
"While I'm glad the health care debate has people looking at the constitutional ways of curbing the federal government, I don't think there's any reason to call for a constitutional convention.
State nullification and state interposition are already IN the constitution. The 9th and specifically the 10th amendments. The point of Jefferson and Madison was that the constitution, while a brilliant document, was not self enforcing. The central government would always be trying to increase it's powers over the people. The citizens of each state would need a mechanism to fight central government usurpation of powers that belonged to the people and the states.
Consolidating the ideas of the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions...along with the principle behind the 10th amendment, Jefferson wrote probably his 2nd most important declaration. The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. In coordination with Jefferson, James Madison wrote the Virginia Resolutions of 1798.
Jefferson: "That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government;"
"Are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government"
In the Revolution they threw off tyrannical government. Why would the states voluntarily agree to impose another?
"they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government;"
They...The sovereign people of each state...gave only certain limited powers to the central government. The rest were retained...
Important here: "and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force"
If the "general" or federal government goes beyond those specific, limited powers that were delegated to it...then the states are not obligated to enforce those laws. Matter of fact it is the duty and obligation of the state to stand between the central government and the people's rights and liberties.
And maybe this is the most important and what we need to relearn...what the founding generation promised us in the Constitution:
"that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers;"
The central government was created by the states...and when the states did so, the compact...the constitution...did not make the central government the final judge! Why? Because, as we all well know...as did the founding generation, central governments by nature always try to expand their powers. So if the central government is the final judge...then their discretion and NOT the Constitution would be the limit of their powers.
Why have a constitution at all, if the central government has unlimited powers?
And Jefferson goes on: "but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
What people have to understand by this passage and the prior one...the central government's three branches... including the Supreme Court...all apart of the central government. So that's what Jefferson means by no common judge...the Supreme Court cannot be the final judge, because it's apart of the federal government.
The sovereign people of each individual states are to be the final judge. It's often referred to as "states rights". But states do not have rights. They have power. Just as the federal government has certain powers. These powers are granted by the people to protect their rights and liberty.
The role of the states in this brilliant system is to stand in the way of an encroaching federal government. We've all heard you can't fight city hall. Well how can one individual fight Washington DC...they can't. But people joined together, through their state governments can.
All this is constitutional and was practiced and understood to be true by most everyone from the 1790's to 1860's...We don't need lawsuits or constitutional conventions...we already have the power."
And I see absolutely nothing wrong with the posts you provided here. You may not like them but they ARE NOT incorrect.