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.
Quote from: alienhand 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.
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.
Quote from: alienhand 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.
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.
Quote from: Solar on March 21, 2019, 06:42:39 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.
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 21, 2019, 04:27:01 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 :)
Quote from: alienhand on March 23, 2019, 08:55:07 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/
Quote from: Solar on March 23, 2019, 09:28:27 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!
Quote from: alienhand 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.
Liberals will say anything to portray America as a bad place.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 23, 2019, 10:06:45 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.
QuoteRulings 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.
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.
Quote from: Centinel 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Centinel 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.
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:
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.
Quote from: Centinel 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.
Spot On! And we're glad to have one more critical thinker on the forum.
Feel free to jump into the Poli forum, there is sooo much more to the forum than these specific forums.
By the way, how did you come across this forum, was it referenced or a simple search?
Quote from: Centinel 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.
Welcome. Hope you stick around.
I agree and disagree with you on precedent. I think precedent is a good guide for misguided lawyers and judges, of which we have many. However, each case is different and specific facts in a case should not be dismissed just because of precedent.
I just came across it through a google search. I did have to search a few different phrases but eventually I found it, and I definitely will look at that other section. I just started off here since I have such an interest in the constitution.
Going back to precedent though if what you mean by a good guide for lawyers and judges is that you can use past cases as a learning tool then I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. I love reading past cases and learning both what is good and what is bad about them. You can also get a lot of good arguments from people who were fighting the same bad ideas in their time that we are fighting today. But that past case should not then be a reason for making a decision in a present case.
My objection is to Judges using other cases to make decisions because what you should be doing is focusing on the facts and specifics at hand and then comparing them to the constitution and making you're decision, as the only thing of relevance in any case is whether or not it is in line with the original public meaning of the words of the constitution and not the opinions of other judges.
Quote from: Centinel on April 19, 2019, 01:33:00 PM
I just came across it through a google search. I did have to search a few different phrases but eventually I found it, and I definitely will look at that other section. I just started off here since I have such an interest in the constitution.
Going back to precedent though if what you mean by a good guide for lawyers and judges is that you can use past cases as a learning tool then I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. I love reading past cases and learning both what is good and what is bad about them. You can also get a lot of good arguments from people who were fighting the same bad ideas in their time that we are fighting today. But that past case should not then be a reason for making a decision in a present case.
My objection is to Judges using other cases to make decisions because what you should be doing is focusing on the facts and specifics at hand and then comparing them to the constitution and making you're decision, as the only thing of relevance in any case is whether or not it is in line with the original public meaning of the words of the constitution and not the opinions of other judges.
Just a forum tip.
Your post was an obvious response to my post. In those cases, please use the "quote" function in the right hand corner of the post. This will bring up the post and allows one to respond.