Author Topic: The Louisiana Purchase  (Read 1939 times)

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
The Louisiana Purchase
« on: March 21, 2019, 02:27:06 AM »
 Did the Founding Fathers stay within the boundaries of their own rules or did they break them from time to time?  I've heard the Louisiana Purchase by Thomas Jefferson was unconstitutional and he as the president was not authorized to do that yet he did. 

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12996
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2019, 04:27:01 AM »
Did the Founding Fathers stay within the boundaries of their own rules or did they break them from time to time?  I've heard the Louisiana Purchase by Thomas Jefferson was unconstitutional and he as the president was not authorized to do that yet he did.

One thing to keep in mind when discussing actions of the founding fathers. Forming our republic was a work in progress. It was not a "one and done" deal when the Constitution was written. The Bill of Rights came later etc;. I cannot answer the specific question about the Louisiana Purchase other than it was a good deal.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 66944
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2019, 06:42:39 AM »
Did the Founding Fathers stay within the boundaries of their own rules or did they break them from time to time?  I've heard the Louisiana Purchase by Thomas Jefferson was unconstitutional and he as the president was not authorized to do that yet he did.
Adams and Jefferson disagreed on taxes, Adams went on to raise them even more for what was considered trivial BS in Jefferson's opinion, opening a can of cockroaches that breed uncontrolled.
Adams was wrong, Jefferson was Right, though the amount was trivial, as in one tenth of one penny on today's standards, had they never started down that road?

The problem wasn't the Founders, it was the electorate wanting more and more from govt, so the only way to get more, was to grow it.
The original 10 Amendments was all that would ever be necessary, all addendum's were redundant to our Constitution, or for that matter, downright illegal.
SCOTUS was not necessary, it should never have been given the power to even entertain changing or defining our laws.

No, the problem wasn't the Founders, the problem is people thinking the live in a Democracy.
#WWG1WGA

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2019, 08:55:07 AM »
Adams and Jefferson disagreed on taxes, Adams went on to raise them even more for what was considered trivial BS in Jefferson's opinion, opening a can of cockroaches that breed uncontrolled.
Adams was wrong, Jefferson was Right, though the amount was trivial, as in one tenth of one penny on today's standards, had they never started down that road?

The problem wasn't the Founders, it was the electorate wanting more and more from govt, so the only way to get more, was to grow it.
The original 10 Amendments was all that would ever be necessary, all addendum's were redundant to our Constitution, or for that matter, downright illegal.
SCOTUS was not necessary, it should never have been given the power to even entertain changing or defining our laws.

No, the problem wasn't the Founders, the problem is people thinking the live in a Democracy.

You don't believe there should have been a surpreme court at all?

And, I think it was the Federalists who said that none of the amendments were necessary and that they were redundant.  It was the anti-Federalists who insisted they be in there I think.

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2019, 08:55:40 AM »
One thing to keep in mind when discussing actions of the founding fathers. Forming our republic was a work in progress. It was not a "one and done" deal when the Constitution was written. The Bill of Rights came later etc;. I cannot answer the specific question about the Louisiana Purchase other than it was a good deal.

No question it was a good deal. Never disputed you there :)

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 66944
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2019, 09:28:27 AM »
You don't believe there should have been a surpreme court at all?

And, I think it was the Federalists who said that none of the amendments were necessary and that they were redundant.  It was the anti-Federalists who insisted they be in there I think.
No, I do not, because as the Founders warned us and why the Judiciary is not one of the three Branches of Govt.
They knew the courts could be used to usurp the power of Congress.

Her's an article that speaks on the subject.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/22/supreme-court-not-final-say-constitution/
#WWG1WGA

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2019, 09:59:45 AM »
No, I do not, because as the Founders warned us and why the Judiciary is not one of the three Branches of Govt.
They knew the courts could be used to usurp the power of Congress.

Her's an article that speaks on the subject.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/22/supreme-court-not-final-say-constitution/

Wow Interesting!

Online Sick Of Silence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1347
  • Militant Libertarian
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2019, 10:06:45 AM »
Did the Founding Fathers stay within the boundaries of their own rules or did they break them from time to time?  I've heard the Louisiana Purchase by Thomas Jefferson was unconstitutional and he as the president was not authorized to do that yet he did.

Liberals will say anything to portray America as a bad place.
Social Media are multi-national billion dollar corporations with foreign investors that are going unchecked with the power to effect our election process.

"Book burnings" have evolved into "de-plat forming". Its the same principles behind both: to eliminate accessible knowledge.

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2019, 10:16:37 AM »
Liberals will say anything to portray America as a bad place.

No, it's not bad compared to countries like North Korea.  Our country is good.  Constitution is good.  I have the freedom to make my arguments here and won't get prosecuted or shot.  I do have one issue with a number of people which I won't bring up here but in a different thread at some point.

Offline T Hunt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 656
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2019, 03:37:11 AM »
Quote
Rulings from the Supreme Court should not affect the whole country–and certainly not rulings from district courts.

You don’t go to the courts to solve general matters; for that, you go to the legislature. You go to the court to resolve particular disputes.

Best line of the article. It almost makes me think that there should be a way to bring 'general cases' in front of certain congressional commitees, just as you would bring a case before a court. Then Congress would be forced do its job and settle certain issues before the nation that need resolving. Instead of kicking the can down the road.


Offline Centinel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • All men are by nature equally free and independent
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2019, 09:47:48 PM »
I do agree that the original judicial power vested into the Supreme Court did not involve the power to overturn legislation, as at the time of the founding and even today if I am not mistaken British Courts couldn't overturn laws passed by Parliament. In fact the power to overturn laws was basically given to the Court by the Court itself (See Marbury v. Madison), with that said though I do see some value in it.

Now I'm not one to advocate for increasing Federal power but adding additional checks and balances to the system seems like a good thing to me as it betters secures our rights from being interfered with by the government. You could argue that the power of judicial review has warped over the years and become far more political in nature than it was originally or that it has warped into courts legislating by fiat, but the central premise of one branch saying to another "You cannot do a certain thing as it violates the constitution" to me is not inherently a bad thing.

If all the court was saying was "this law is allowed and this one is not" then it's not really usurping the power of congress as it is just enforcing the laws by which congress is governed (i.e. the constitution). There may be ways to improve the system to make it function better, but my point is that I do believe that the Supreme Court is good by adding an additional check on federal power assuming it is exercised correctly.
We hold these truths to be self evident...

To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice...

Offline s3779m

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2543
  • Gender: Male
  • Keep looking, it's there
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2019, 05:06:05 AM »
I do agree that the original judicial power vested into the Supreme Court did not involve the power to overturn legislation, as at the time of the founding and even today if I am not mistaken British Courts couldn't overturn laws passed by Parliament. In fact the power to overturn laws was basically given to the Court by the Court itself (See Marbury v. Madison), with that said though I do see some value in it.

Now I'm not one to advocate for increasing Federal power but adding additional checks and balances to the system seems like a good thing to me as it betters secures our rights from being interfered with by the government. You could argue that the power of judicial review has warped over the years and become far more political in nature than it was originally or that it has warped into courts legislating by fiat, but the central premise of one branch saying to another "You cannot do a certain thing as it violates the constitution" to me is not inherently a bad thing.

If all the court was saying was "this law is allowed and this one is not" then it's not really usurping the power of congress as it is just enforcing the laws by which congress is governed (i.e. the constitution). There may be ways to improve the system to make it function better, but my point is that I do believe that the Supreme Court is good by adding an additional check on federal power assuming it is exercised correctly.

For starters, one federal judge should not be able to strike down law for the whole country, they should recommend the case to advance up the ladder, but not strike it down. Any circuit court that strikes down any federal or state law as unconstitutional should have that case automatically advance to the supreme court. This would not stop the politics some judges like to play, but might slow it down.

Offline Centinel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • All men are by nature equally free and independent
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2019, 09:45:03 AM »
I agree that having one judge preside over a case of constitutionality is not a very good structure as it puts a lot of power into one person. I would not really agree though with simply sending every case regarding constitutionality to the Supreme Court if only for practical purposes as the reason we have lower courts is to filter through the large number of cases that occur. Additionally not allowing lower courts to really do anything simply pushes all power up to the highest level which is something that you don't want.

It would be similar at least in my mind to saying to state legislatures that they can only suggest laws and that in order for them to go into effect you have to go up the ladder and get them approved by Congress. It would also make the fights over the Supreme Court even more fierce and political because now the fate of the entire country rests with 5 out of 9 justices as opposed to the many judges in the lower courts as well.

A way to improve the situation though would be requiring that lower courts have three or five judge panels in regards to cases of constitutionality as you would mitigate the effects of one judge simply imposing his political will.
We hold these truths to be self evident...

To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice...

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 66944
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2019, 09:58:24 AM »
I agree that having one judge preside over a case of constitutionality is not a very good structure as it puts a lot of power into one person. I would not really agree though with simply sending every case regarding constitutionality to the Supreme Court if only for practical purposes as the reason we have lower courts is to filter through the large number of cases that occur. Additionally not allowing lower courts to really do anything simply pushes all power up to the highest level which is something that you don't want.

It would be similar at least in my mind to saying to state legislatures that they can only suggest laws and that in order for them to go into effect you have to go up the ladder and get them approved by Congress. It would also make the fights over the Supreme Court even more fierce and political because now the fate of the entire country rests with 5 out of 9 justices as opposed to the many judges in the lower courts as well.

A way to improve the situation though would be requiring that lower courts have three or five judge panels in regards to cases of constitutionality as you would mitigate the effects of one judge simply imposing his political will.
Bingo!
The problem was what the left started referring to as law, was nothing more than precedent, they started adjudicating from lower benches and since it went unchallenged, the lazy RINO allowed it to usurp their powers and in essence, become standing law.
Now, even though unconstitutional, we have lower courts dictating law with impudence.

Welcome Centinel... :thumbup:
#WWG1WGA

Offline Centinel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • All men are by nature equally free and independent
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2019, 10:28:46 AM »
I have always believed that precedence was a major issue with the judicial system we have. I understand that it arose due to the fact that people wanted consistency in the application of the law, which is not all that bad of a goal, the issue comes though when a court makes a wrong decision which it inevitably will given that we are all human. Once that wrong decision has been made then if you rigidly follow precedent that wrong decision will continue to be until someone comes along that does not care for precedence or cares for it less so. Then you get I what I would argue is something just as bad which is a Judge that only follows precedent when it agrees with their political opinion and they try and use it as a club to get others to agree with them.

That is why I would always advocate for a Judge disregarding precedent and simply looking at the case before them and then finding the right answer, as that is not only the correct way to go about things but then allows for the correction of past wrongs.

I'm not sure what others think of this but when I was thinking about precedence you could perhaps make the argument that it violates equal protection because the first case of a certain type is thoroughly examined while all subsequent cases are treated differently because assuming you followed precedent you'd just see that a similar case has been come up and then automatically go back to whatever the original decision was without actually looking at the case.

And thanks! I'm glad I found this place.
We hold these truths to be self evident...

To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice...

 

Powered by EzPortal