Author Topic: Adjudicating From The Bench  (Read 3217 times)

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69882
  • Gender: Male
Adjudicating From The Bench
« on: December 10, 2018, 06:29:44 AM »
Ya know, I've looked all through out our Founding Documents, and for the life of me, I am unable to find where this practice is Constitutional.
Does anyone remember a point in time where a judge was given the power of Congress, or, that of usurpation over Congress, in making law from the bench?
Seriously, does anyone know, did SCOTUS blunder at some point, or did our so called Representatives fall asleep at the bench?
For the life of me, I don't remember a single case that stole the power granted to Congress.

Separation of Powers

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” – James Madison, Federalist 84, 1788

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison, Federalist 47, 1788

“A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” – James Madison, Federalist 51, 1788

“The principle of the Constitution is that of a separation of Legislative, Executive and Judiciary functions, except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the Constitution …” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1797
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Offline mrclose

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3098
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adjudicating From The Bench
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2019, 06:18:21 PM »
Solar

Sorry to respond so late on this but .. "Better late than never?"  :biggrin:

You may find the following interesting.

The Supreme Court Makes a Law
http://sovereignstates.org/books/NMAA/NineMen_15.html

Now check this out:

N I N E   M E N   A G A I N S T   A M E R I C A

The Supreme Court and Its Attack on American Liberties
(Each chapter is clickable)

http://sovereignstates.org/books/NMAA/NineMen_Contents.html

"When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead.
It is difficult only for the others.

It is the same when you are stupid."

~ Anonymous

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69882
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adjudicating From The Bench
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2019, 07:37:39 PM »
Solar

Sorry to respond so late on this but .. "Better late than never?"  :biggrin:

You may find the following interesting.

The Supreme Court Makes a Law
http://sovereignstates.org/books/NMAA/NineMen_15.html

Now check this out:

N I N E   M E N   A G A I N S T   A M E R I C A

The Supreme Court and Its Attack on American Liberties
(Each chapter is clickable)

http://sovereignstates.org/books/NMAA/NineMen_Contents.html
Sad how the media was allowed to prop up SCOTUS as arbiter of law. That job remains Congress, SCOTUS was only designed as a check on legality of law.
Roberts use of the court in claiming gay marriage final, was a slap to our laws under the Constitution.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Offline Dont need to know

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Adjudicating From The Bench
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2019, 02:16:57 AM »
Sad how the media was allowed to prop up SCOTUS as arbiter of law. That job remains Congress, SCOTUS was only designed as a check on legality of law.
Roberts use of the court in claiming gay marriage final, was a slap to our laws under the Constitution.

Actually most people in government don't seem to understand that they are limited to about 5 types of law.  And of course laws to the departments of government.

Tax - for national debt, common defence, and general welfare.  Commerce and import export.

War
Peace or treaties letters of marque and such.

Land - regulations not the tax of.  And only land that it owns.

Military and militia arming and training ( naval and ground forces ) respectfully noting the expansion to the air force.  Laws for such.  e.g. treaty of the second Geneva convention I believe being the standard for rules of engagement and warfare.  As well as the UCMJ

And departments of the government and the laws for those department.

Government was never given permission to make laws against any amendment enumerated in the bill of rights.  States were forbidden from doing so.  And if you have actually read through the first congress "Solar" you would note that at the time of the writing of the revised constitution they were diligently unaware that the system could be corrupted.

Yet here we are with laws being passed in ways they shouldn't.  Departments of government extending powers.  Government itself trying to strangulate the people of rights including the 4th and 5th by overstepping it's authority.

The reason they don't talk about that peace of history anymore is because if they do then they will be educating the next group of young men and women of the corruption of power these politicians have been allowing and even endorsing over the past 100 or so years.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69882
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adjudicating From The Bench
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2019, 05:42:24 AM »
Actually most people in government don't seem to understand that they are limited to about 5 types of law.  And of course laws to the departments of government.

Tax - for national debt, common defence, and general welfare.  Commerce and import export.

War
Peace or treaties letters of marque and such.

Land - regulations not the tax of.  And only land that it owns.

Military and militia arming and training ( naval and ground forces ) respectfully noting the expansion to the air force.  Laws for such.  e.g. treaty of the second Geneva convention I believe being the standard for rules of engagement and warfare.  As well as the UCMJ

And departments of the government and the laws for those department.

Government was never given permission to make laws against any amendment enumerated in the bill of rights.  States were forbidden from doing so.  And if you have actually read through the first congress "Solar" you would note that at the time of the writing of the revised constitution they were diligently unaware that the system could be corrupted.

Yet here we are with laws being passed in ways they shouldn't.  Departments of government extending powers.  Government itself trying to strangulate the people of rights including the 4th and 5th by overstepping it's authority.

The reason they don't talk about that peace of history anymore is because if they do then they will be educating the next group of young men and women of the corruption of power these politicians have been allowing and even endorsing over the past 100 or so years.
They were more than aware, that's why they designed the Republic with essentially three opposing Branches, literally stopgaps against an overbearing govt.
It took Congress nearly 200 years to finally bastardize it in an effort to grow govt.
Ben Franklin stated, we've been given a Republic, "If you can keep it".
We lost it, but we're fighting to recover it.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Offline Dont need to know

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Adjudicating From The Bench
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2019, 06:16:44 AM »
Not all of them.  There were arguments that government would not overstep the bounds of the constitution.  But yet here we are.

Offline ShawnJackson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adjudicating From The Bench
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2019, 09:47:24 AM »
The headline of this post is extremely misleading.  I'm thinking you meant to say legislating from the bench.  Adjudicating from the bench is what judges are supposed to do.  It's legislating from the bench that's the result of our judicially activist supreme court system.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69882
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adjudicating From The Bench
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2019, 09:55:17 AM »
The headline of this post is extremely misleading.  I'm thinking you meant to say legislating from the bench.  Adjudicating from the bench is what judges are supposed to do.  It's legislating from the bench that's the result of our judicially activist supreme court system.
Thanks for pointing that out, you are absolutely correct.
Lesson learned, and I should have known better than to start a thread when hungry. :biggrin:
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Offline mrclose

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3098
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adjudicating From The Bench
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2019, 03:51:14 PM »




"When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead.
It is difficult only for the others.

It is the same when you are stupid."

~ Anonymous

Online s3779m

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3253
  • Gender: Male
  • Keep looking, it's there
Re: Adjudicating From The Bench
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2019, 04:06:22 PM »




Had we not have had so many in congress and serving as president who trashed the constitution, I can't help but feel the above chart would have turned out closer to what was intended. One major fear would be a very liberal majority on the scotus, add to that a liberal congress and president and the bill of rights would be gone.

Offline Dont need to know

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Adjudicating From The Bench
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2019, 06:58:17 PM »
 :thumbsup:

 

Powered by EzPortal