United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Police Celebrate 4th Of July With Nationwide No Refusal Checkpoints and Forced Blood Draws
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/po ... ationwide-refusal-checkpoints/
Published: Jul 4, 2015
Author: John Vibes
Post Date: 2015-07-04 10:46:33 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 61923
Comments: 141
Happy 4th of July, the day where Americans celebrate imaginary freedom, and police departments nationwide make millions of dollars violating the rights of nonviolent individuals. Under the pretense of catching drunk drivers, police will be patrolling the streets and setting up checkpoints all over the country this weekend. In some cases they will arrest drunk drivers, in others they will search and arrest nonviolent drug offenders, while other people may get citations for problems with their vehicle or registration. Especially for people who haven’t even done anything wrong, these checkpoints are a gross violation of privacy and other natural born rights. Free people should not be stopped and searched or questioned in any way if they are attempting to travel freely. However, we sadly now live in a world where rights like traveling are seen as privileges, to be given and taken by government. As it stands right now, the way that the state deals with drunk driving is tyrannical and infringes upon everyone’s rights, even people like myself, who hardly ever drink. Economist Jeffrey Tucker wrote an article on this subject and discussed the problems with the status quo while offering some solutions as well. Laws against drunk driving have vastly expanded police power and done nothing to stop the practice. The best prevention against unsafe driving from drinking has been provided privately: friends, services offered by bars and restaurants, community interest groups, etc. This is the humane and rational way societies deal with social risks. The police have only messed up this process by adding a coercive element that targets liberty rather than crime. And we can see where this is heading. Texting is now illegal in most places. So is talking on the phone. Maybe talking itself should be illegal. Some communities are talking about banning eating. All of this is a distraction from the real issue. If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn’t matter if it’s caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage. Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway. Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn’t about making the roads safer. It’s about a lingering hostility toward demon rum. There is no doubt that drunk driving should be discouraged and that solutions to prevent people from driving drunk should be explored. However, it is entirely possible to do this without violating anyone’s rights in the process. Meanwhile, in police state USA, it is business as usual. John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work he organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance” at bookpatch.com.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
And because it's the 4th they'll be playing this music at all the checkpoints:
I thought they were going to be saving/protecting us from terrorists and sharks this weekend.
Unlike your one trick pony, libtard anarchy routine, LE can actually multitask. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Is that so? Cop Kills Man with Patrol Car While Speeding & Looking at Laptop, Flexes Blue Privilege – No Charges Yeah - cops are above the law. Assholes! Oh - here's another one fascist-boy. Cop Drives 126mph While Texting, Kills Teen Girls Former Illinois State trooper Matt Mitchell was driving at 126 mph on Interstate 64 while emailing/texting his girlfriend on his phone. In his state, he crossed over the median and crashed head-on to another car, killing sisters Kelli and Jessica Uhl and injuring Kelly and Christine Marler, of Fayetteville. Mitchell sustained severe injuries to his leg. Mitchell was suspended with pay for two years on his $68,000 annual salary. After pleading guilty to criminal charges, Mitchell resigned from the state police. His guilty plea landed him 30 months probation. Now Mitchell is filing for worker's compensation, which could result in him receiving tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars, which are non-taxable. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much FANTASTIC...Great Work LE! Research shows that for every dollar invested in checkpoints, communities save between $6 and $23 in costs from alcohol-related crashes.
Tater, you sure that isn't in revenue from said offenses?
Forced blood draws are abhorrent.
Break that down... He: Drove Sped Typed on a laptop Killed And provided his own criminal defense... all at the same time. That's called multitasking. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Most states (if not all) require a vehicular fatality or an injury that most likely will result in a fatality to "force" a blood draw... and before the person is held down and a needle is "forced" in his arm, a WARRANT is signed by a judge. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I agree….but a drunk driver killing
Tater, you sure that isn't in revenue from said offenses? I think it means savings from the costs of alcohol-related crashes that result in something like this: What do you think, Fred?
I don't think you should be posting pictures of yourself on the Internet.
Drove Sped Typed on a laptop Killed And provided his own criminal defense... all at the same time. That's called multitasking. Add to that the paid vacation and probation instead of jail time. And you defend this murdering POS cop. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much The picture of what a drunk driver can do to a beautiful girl is repulsive....right, Fred?
Looks like the police state fascists are out in force today, and not just on the roads.
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much SCOTUS ruled a couple years back that police can't force DUI suspect to give a blood sample unless that have a search warrant. Forced blood draws can only be done in felony DUI cases with a search warrant. Forced blood draws are done in only a very small number of cases.
Sober people's lives matter....don't drink and drive! That is the message you should be trying to get out!!
More YELLA propaganda. I never defended anyone. Hell, I didn't even read your posted link. I don't willingly read your YELLA bullshit. For all I know, the officer should be wood chipped alive. All I said was, officers are able to multitask instead of your one trick cop blocking pony agenda. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Deckard, stand up and raise your right hand to make the “Sober Drivers Pledge.” Read this out loud: I hereby make a personal commitment to avoid driving drunk as well as to prevent drunk driving when I see it about to happen right in front of me. There, that made you feel better. You have a wonderful 4th of July…..remember, don’t drink and drive.
I've only seen one in my 20 years. He was driving intoxicated and he killed another motorist. Of course he was gonna refuse... it was his 4th DWI. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Unlike your one trick pony, libtard anarchy routine, LE can actually multitask. We can feed the terrorists to the sharks. That would be some excellent multitasking.
Would be nice to use chunks of Muslims for chum... I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I'm surprised at you two. A bone could get stuck in the throat of a shark....and they could choke!! #Animal Cruelty
Well, maybe we can borrow Saddam's wood-chipper first. Feet first!
The only good shark is a dead shark. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Oy. Mankind is...brutal. So brutal.
Are we talking fish here, or those who lord over us in our bureaucratic chambers and dungeons? Never mind ;-)
It is as you say….more YELLA propaganda! Meanwhile, in the USA, there is no news in any media source that confirms a “4th Of July Nationwide No Refusal Checkpoints and Forced Blood Draws.” Only thing in the news are the routine checkpoints conducted each 4th of July. The locations and times of those are published in the local media….always have been. But wait, Deckard….you say we are supposed to believe a concocted story by this guy:
How terrible... a police state where the police tell you IN ADVANCE where they will have a check point. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
That can't be squared with this The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized Maybe you honestly think that is the right thing to do. But you can' honestly say it squares with the requirements laid out in the constitution. To Rand Pauls credit I believe he would disagree with you.
To Rand Pauls credit I believe he would disagree with you. I don't believe stopping for 3 seconds on a public funded roadway and then driving though is unreasonable. They are only stopped longer and more intrusive if there is PC they are committing a crime. I won't agree with everything Rand stands for. I won't agree on everything any candidate stands for unless I run. I pick the lessor of how many evils that run. That's what we've done since the 2nd election. We pick the best of the lot... not the perfect. Problem is, sheeple don't pick best anymore. They choose because the color of their skin, if they have tits and special interests reasons. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Routine crime is no more legal than spontaneous crime. "Checkpoints" are a 4th amendment violation. Crimes by government officials are no less of a crime either. You've achieved independence from the rule of law. Enjoy your 4th of July crime spree!
PROVE THAT! You can't. Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can. The Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.
Duh? A crime committed by anyone is a crime, I agree.
Stone already proved it by quoting the 4th in post #30. Wake UP!
The Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. I would really like to know where in the constitution the Supreme Court gets these powers. Could you quote it for me? Please? I'll marry a fag if you can find it for me in the constitution. Ok I won't marry a fag but you can't because it isn't there.
The Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/searches/Edmond.htm “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Could you quote it for me? Please? How do you suggest we deal with grey areas? Surely, a few second stop, on a public roadway, funded and maintained by the populace, isn't unreasonable... if it makes the populace safer? Who should decide what's "unreasonable"? You? Me? Deckard? I don't agree with all of the USSC's decisions... but like presidential candidates, nothing is perfect. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You can have an opinion….but your opinion is just that, your opinion. It is the Supreme Court’s ruling that is final on the matter. Excerpts From Supreme Court's Decision Upholding Sobriety Checkpoints ….is here Additional Information: Sobriety checkpoints or roadblocks involve law enforcement officials stopping every vehicle (or more typically, every nth vehicle) on a public roadway and investigating the possibility that the driver might be too impaired to drive. They are often set up late at night or in the very early morning hours and on weekends, at which time the proportion of impaired drivers tends to be the highest. Checkpoints are also often set near the exit points of public events, to prevent large numbers of drunk drivers from being released into traffic simultaneously from the event. With a portable and quick alcohol breath test, the police can test all drivers (if the law permits), and process the cars one by one as in a conveyor belt. When there is no quick test, a more complicated routine is necessary. Upon suspicion, the stopped driver is required to exit the vehicle and take a roadside sobriety test that requires the demonstration of both mental and balance skills. If the officer determines based on his observations during the tests, the driver is then required to take an alcohol breath test (referred to as a Breathalyzer test in the United States). It is important to note that you can not pass or fail a field sobriety test as they are not "pass-or-fail", they are only meant to aid the officer in determining if you are impaired based on observations of the subjects performance of these tests. Being subjected to perform this test is not prohibited by the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution if the law enforcement entity posts or announces in advance that these checkpoints will occur and at what location; law enforcement agencies often post a sign in a small road or street during the weekdays when it is only seen by local residents and not by those attending a special event or those that only travel in that area of the city during the weekend to patronize local bars and clubs. These announcements are also sometimes printed in news papers. Numerous websites host a database of check points that are to occur based on information found in news papers, the internet and tips from visitors of such sites. There are also some smartphone apps that include a function to report sobriety checkpoints, show them on a map and use the device's GPS to alert the driver when a sobriety checkpoint is nearby. Sobriety checkpoints regularly catch much more than just drunk drivers. [citation needed] The identity checks will catch individuals wanted by the police, and DUI often occurs together with other crimes, such as vehicle inspection and registration violations, vehicle tax avoidance or driving without a license.
I never said it was in the Constitution, I said: “Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can (decide if checkpoints are illegal).” Now, my turn. If SCOTUS doesn’t decide….then who does?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Indianapolis_v._Edmond President Adams famously said "Mr Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" regarding the Dept of Interior requiring Preachers to obtain a permit to evangelize on Indian reservations. None were ever busted for preaching to Indians without buying a permit, the SCOTUS decision was just ignored. The supremes gave themselves the power to determine constitutionality of legislation in Marbury v Madison. The SCOTUS was supposed to be for disputes between the States.
Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final. They've overruled themselves before, and presidents have also openly defied and refused to enforce their rulings. The supremes have zero enforcement powers for their edicts.
All a president needs is a pen and an Obama phone, eh? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The constitution and a dictionary. I know it would require honest people. So all liberals would be disqualified.
Your attribution is incorrect. The correct president was Andrew Jackson and the story is quite possibly apocryphal. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html
I had to look in the dictionary for that one.
So under your concept, a cop and a perp will argue it out at the DUI check point.
It's the local lawless thug cop who delivers tyranny to your door. Pens and phones are inanimate objects. They could never throw a flashbang into a babies crib, or shoot a 4 year old out of fear for "officer safety". Ogongo's goons on the local PD perform those type of functions.
Tell that to the folks under Obamacare. Tell that to the folks who oppose gay marriage. You live in a make believe world....wake up. You are now quibbling....stop it.
Wait just a minute! You first said SCOTUS has no power to determine constitutionality. Now you say they have the power because they gave it to themselves. Which is it? Do they, or do they not, have the power?
both Georgia and Jackson simply ignored the decision. Ooops, brain fart. That's the important part. SCOTUS rulings are not necessarily "the law". The three branches of government are not supposed to rubber stamp each others actions. Unfortunately there is almost no disagreement between the branches these days. A sure sign of a corrupted system. It's a good 'ol boys 'n girls club, where everyone looks the other way as America dies. It pays well though.
This seems to be an argument about terminology. Court opinions are considered final when there is no further possibility of judicial proceedings upon the case in the issuing court unless it is reversed or set aside by a higher court. SCOTUS opinions cannot be appealed to a higher court. They are considered final. The holding can always be overturned by a ruling in a subsequent case or by a change in the law it relied upon. That does not change the final opinion in a prior case, but changes the court's interpretation of a legal point, and sets a new precedent. The 13th Amendment did not change the final opinion in Dred Scott but changed the law, invalidating Scott as binding precedent based upon a law that no longer exists. The SCOTUS opinion is final, but the legal issue may be revisited and a new opinion may set a new precedent. The opinion is final but the holding may be challenged in subsequent cases.
SCOTUS holdings are considered the law. SCOTUS does not enforce the law where others choose to ignore or violate the law. A lawless executive does not make a SCOTUS holding any less obligatory. It just makes the executive a law breaker.
Tell the rest of the story.
It's the polite way of saying somebody probably made it up and it has been repeated so many times it has assumed a life of its own, but is untraceable to the purported source, usually some historical figure.
Don't be a Deckard. You're the one that espouses that any group, faction or president can disregard any law, ruling or case law you don't like. So who's the "lawless thug"? If the USSC ruled against Obamacare, don't you think O'bunghole would have acted just like you do with drug laws? He would have said, "fuck that, I don't need to listen to the USSC... I'm the most important fucker I know". Would you have agreed with it, dummy? It doesn't really matter what you think, Hondo. Contrary to your self important liberal nature, you ain't the most important person you know. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Ah, but the judgments by the Supreme Court are virtually final. Their decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. And when they interpret a statute, then new legislative action can be taken. If you are suggesting that they need not be obeyed, then you are entirely wrong.
The legislature does not require any sort of court action to do their job, which is to legislate. You'd better check in with Acorn HQ for the latest talking points bulletin, this stuff you're coming up with is WEAK.
You had better learn to read.... When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is nullified and becomes unenforceable. Sometimes Congress quickly rewrites the law to bring it into compliance with the Constitution. Do you know of another way?
Direct Action. The federal cattle rustlers left, and the livestock was recovered. Jury nullification has been used extensively as well, particularly just prior to the amendment repealing prohibition. If you can't get a conviction on a so called "law" then it in effect doesn't exist, even though it's on the books. Mass civil disobedience works. Like Ghandi, but USA style... armed to the teeth.
That is only precisely accurate when SCOTUS rules on a constitutional issue. If it is ruling on a statute, its opinion may be overturned by a change in statute law. It may seem picky, but its worth keeping in mind.
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
I disagree. But I'd rather go this route. Don't they also have the option to limit the jurisdiction of the so called supreme court.
But I'd rather go this route. Don't they also have the option to limit the jurisdiction of the so called supreme court. The Legislature has attempted to pass laws contrary to Roe. SCOTUS plays whack-a-mole striking them down. The appellate jurisdiction case is Ex Parte McCardle. The case was fully argued and taken under advisement. Jurisdiction was withdrawn, preventing any opinion from being issued. http://supreme.justia.com/us/74/506/case.html Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 506 506 (1868) Ex parte McCardle 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus 1. The appellate jurisdiction of this court is conferred by the Constitution, and not derived from acts of Congress, but is conferred "with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as Congress may make," and, therefore, acts of Congress affirming such jurisdiction have always been construed as excepting from it all cases not expressly described and provided for. 2. When, therefore, Congress enacts that this court shall have appellate jurisdiction over final decisions of the Circuit Courts in certain cases, the act operates as a negation or exception of such jurisdiction in other cases, and the repeal of the act necessarily negatives jurisdiction under it of these cases also. 3. The repeal of such an act, pending an appeal provided for by it, is not an exercise of judicial power by the legislature, no matter whether the repeal takes effect before or after argument of the appeal. 4. The act of 27th March, 1868, repealing that provision of the act of 5th of February, 1867, to amend the Judicial Act of 1789, which authorized appeals to this court from the decisions of the Circuit Courts in cases of habeas corpus, does not except from the appellate jurisdiction of this 74 U. S. 507 court any cases but appeals under the act of 1867. It does not affect the appellate jurisdiction which was previously exercised in cases of habeas corpus. The case was this: The Constitution of the United States ordains as follows: "§ 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." "§ 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States," &c. And in these last cases, the Constitution ordains that, "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make." With these constitutional provisions in existence, Congress, on the 5th February, 1867, by "An act to amend an act to establish the judicial courts of the United States, approved September 24, 1789," provided that the several courts of the United States, and the several justices and judges of such courts, within their respective jurisdiction, in addition to the authority already conferred by law, should have power to grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the Constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States. And that, from the final decision of any judge, justice, or court inferior to the Circuit Court, appeal might be taken to the Circuit Court of the United States for the district in which the cause was heard, and from the judgment of the said Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States. This statute being in force, one McCardle, alleging unlawful restraint by military force, preferred a petition in the court below, for the writ of habeas corpus. 74 U. S. 508 The writ was issued, and a return was made by the military commander admitting the restraint, but denying that it was unlawful. It appeared that the petitioner was not in the military service of the United States, but was held in custody by military authority for trial before a military commission upon charges founded upon the publication of articles alleged to be incendiary and libelous, in a newspaper of which he was editor. The custody was alleged to be under the authority of certain acts of Congress. Upon the hearing, the petitioner was remanded to the military custody, but, upon his prayer, an appeal was allowed him to this court, and upon filing the usual appeal bond, for costs, he was admitted to bail upon recognizance, with sureties conditioned for his future appearance in the Circuit Court, to abide by and perform the final judgment of this court. The appeal was taken under the above-mentioned act of February 5, 1867. A motion to dismiss this appeal was made at the last term, and, after argument, was denied. [1] Subsequently, on the 2d, 3d, 4th, and 9th March, the case was argued very thoroughly and ably upon the merits, and was taken under advisement. While it was thus held, and before conference in regard to the decision proper to be made, an act was passed by Congress, [2] returned with objections by the President, and, on the 27th March, repassed by the constitutional majority, the second section of which was as follows: "And be it further enacted, That so much of the act approved February 5, 1867, entitled 'An act to amend an act to establish the judicial courts of the United States, approved September 24, 1789,' as authorized an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, or the exercise of any such jurisdiction by said Supreme Court, on appeals which have been, or may hereafter be taken, be, and the same is hereby repealed. " 74 U. S. 509 The attention of the court was directed to this statute at the last term, but counsel having expressed a desire to be heard in argument upon its effect, and the Chief Justice being detained from his place here by his duties in the Court of Impeachment, the cause was continued under advisement. Argument was now heard upon the effect of the repealing act. 74 U. S. 512 THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. The first question necessarily is that of jurisdiction, for if the act of March, 1868, takes away the jurisdiction defined by the act of February, 1867, it is useless, if not improper, to enter into any discussion of other questions. It is quite true, as was argued by the counsel for the petitioner, that the appellate jurisdiction of this court is not derived from acts of Congress. It is, strictly speaking, conferred 74 U. S. 513 by the Constitution. But it is conferred "with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make." It is unnecessary to consider whether, if Congress had made no exceptions and no regulations, this court might not have exercised general appellate jurisdiction under rules prescribed by itself. For among the earliest acts of the first Congress, at its first session, was the act of September 24th, 1789, to establish the judicial courts of the United States. That act provided for the organization of this court, and prescribed regulations for the exercise of its jurisdiction. The source of that jurisdiction, and the limitations of it by the Constitution and by statute, have been on several occasions subjects of consideration here. In the case of Durousseau v. The United States [3] particularly, the whole matter was carefully examined, and the court held that, while "the appellate powers of this court are not given by the judicial act, but are given by the Constitution," they are, nevertheless, "limited and regulated by that act, and by such other acts as have been passed on the subject." The court said further that the judicial act was an exercise of the power given by the Constitution to Congress "of making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court." "They have described affirmatively," said the court, "its jurisdiction, and this affirmative description has been understood to imply a negation of the exercise of such appellate power as is not comprehended within it." The principle that the affirmation of appellate jurisdiction implies the negation of all such jurisdiction not affirmed having been thus established, it was an almost necessary consequence that acts of Congress, providing for the exercise of jurisdiction, should come to be spoken of as acts granting jurisdiction, and not as acts making exceptions to the constitutional grant of it. The exception to appellate jurisdiction in the case before us, however, is not an inference from the affirmation of other 74 U. S. 514 appellate jurisdiction. It is made in terms. The provision of the act of 1867 affirming the appellate jurisdiction of this court in cases of habeas corpus is expressly repealed. It is hardly possible to imagine a plainer instance of positive exception. We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution, and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words. What, then, is the effect of the repealing act upon the case before us? We cannot doubt as to this. Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and, when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause. And this is not less clear upon authority than upon principle. Several cases were cited by the counsel for the petitioner in support of the position that jurisdiction of this case is not affected by the repealing act. But none of them, in our judgment, affords any support to it. They are all cases of the exercise of judicial power by the legislature, or of legislative interference with courts in the exercising of continuing jurisdiction. [4] On the other hand, the general rule, supported by the best elementary writers, [5] is that, "when an act of the legislature is repealed, it must be considered, except as to transactions past and closed, as if it never existed." And the effect of repealing acts upon suits under acts repealed has been determined by the adjudications of this court. The subject was fully considered in Norris v. Crecker, [6] and more recently in Insurance Company v. Ritchie. [7] In both of these cases, it was held that no judgment could be rendered in a suit after the repeal of the act under which it was brought and prosecuted. 74 U. S. 515 It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal, and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer. Counsel seem to have supposed, if effect be given to the repealing act in question, that the whole appellate power of the court, in cases of habeas corpus, is denied. But this is an error. The act of 1868 does not except from that jurisdiction any cases but appeals from Circuit Courts under the act of 1867. It does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised. [8] The appeal of the petitioner in this case must be DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. [1] See Ex parte McCardle, 6 Wallace 318. [2] Act of March 27, 1868, 15 Stat. at Large 44. [3] 10 U. S. 6 Cranch 312; Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dallas 321. [4] Lanier v. Gallatas, 13 Louisiana Annual 175; De Chastellux v. Fairchild, 15 Pennsylvania State 18; The State v. Fleming, 7 Humphreys 152; Lewis v. Webb, 3 Greenleaf 326. [5] Dwarris on Statutes 538. [6] 54 U. S. 13 Howard 429. [7] 72 U. S. 5 Wallace 541. [8] Ex parte McCardle, 6 Wallace 324.
Do you know of another way? Direct Action. Cite the law SCOTUS declared unconstitutional here. We are discussing SCOTUS and constitutionality.
The legislature does not require any sort of court action to do their job, which is to legislate. When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, my statement: Is correct....right?
I have a strong feeling Cliven Bundy is not off the hook. "Cliven Bundy has had multiple court orders to remove his cattle from federal public lands and he has not paid his grazing fees and he has not abided by the law," Jewell told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "We will continue to pursue that." Speaking ahead of her appearance at the Western Governors' Association meeting in Incline Village, Nev., earlier this week, the Obama administration official refused to put a deadline on any action, however, the newspaper reports. "The wheels of justice move at their own pace," Jewell said. "I am confident this issue is going to be appropriately resolved." Edit Add: Cliven Bundy is worried about one of his supporters. The recalcitrant Nevada rancher, who has waged a running battle of words and lawsuits with the federal government over public lands, made a phone call to an out-of-state supporter facing prison time over comments he made in support of the newly christened tea party folk hero. Pennsylvania resident Will Michael, 24, pleaded guilty last month in federal court to threatening a Bureau of Land Management official as well as making interstate communication threats during Bundy's 2014 standoff with federal officials over land grazing rights.
Jefferson also wrote that nullification — states’ ignoring of federal dictates — is the “rightful remedy” for all central-government usurpation of states’ powers. Of course, this includes plainly unconstitutional rulings by oligarchic federal courts. States have recourse to the “rightful remedy” of nullification because the Constitution reserves most powers to the states, and the states are not bound to follow unconstitutional federal edicts. In fact, in order to adhere to the Constitution, state are duty bound not to enforce such edicts, but to declare them null and void at the state border. nolu chan erroneously claims: -- Stone correctly disagrees. -- The fact is, ALL officials of Fed, State, and local govts are duty bound by their oaths of office to adhere to the Constitution and ONLY laws made "in pursuance thereof". All other (constitutionally questionable) edicts are null and void from enactment...
In nolu chans defense. I believe him to be stating the way it is actually working right now. Not what we wish or the way we think it should be.
nolu chan erroneously claims: -- The fact is, ALL officials of Fed, State, and local govts are duty bound by their oaths of office to adhere to the Constitution and ONLY laws made "in pursuance thereof". All other (constitutionally questionable) edicts are, or can be declared to be, null and void from enactment... Chan and I recently had a discussion on just that point, and I came away with the opposite impression: -- that for some reason, he wants the SCOTUS to have the final say on what is constitutional..
Stone correctly disagrees. -- The fact is, ALL officials of Fed, State, and local govts are duty bound by their oaths of office to adhere to the Constitution and ONLY laws made "in pursuance thereof". All other (constitutionally questionable) edicts are null and void from enactment... In the case of a Constitutional Amendment, it "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress." Fro the instant an Amendment is declared ratified, it is an integral part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts. The notion that Congress can legislate or SCOTUS can rule any part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional is absurd. When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says. The Judicial Branch is not some superfluous body which issues irrelevant opinions for all to ignore.
Chan and I recently had a discussion on just that point, and I came away with the opposite impression: -- that for some reason, he wants the SCOTUS to have the final say on what is constitutional.. Chan claims: --- -- The fact is, ALL officials of Fed, State, and local govts are duty bound by their oaths of office to adhere to the Constitution and ONLY laws made "in pursuance thereof". All other (constitutionally questionable) edicts are, and can be declared, null and void from enactment... Yep, that's what that part of the constitution says.. In Article VI it says that only laws made "in pursuance thereof", (of the constitution), -"shall be the supreme law of the land." It's absurd to you, granted. But you can't refute the fact of the supremacy clause. Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself. I've never claimed it was..
Nor would I try. Under the supremacy clause, the first listed is the Constitution, and it is the paramount law, the expression of the will of the people by which they created the government in all its branches, and it is superior to any other law in the land. The Executive must obey it, the Legislature can only legislate pursuant to it, and the Judicial cannot overrule it or strike it down, in whole or in part—the concept is an absurdity. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Steven F. Gifis Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 176-77 (1803) Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void. This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject. As far as I know, the court of tpaine does not hold appellate jurisdiction over SCOTUS, nor does any government authority. The Constitution is our "superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means." Misconstruing the supremacy clause does not overturn 2+ centuries of legal precedent.
Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself. And nothing you just posted refutes my position. -- As usual you are posting long winded opinions I have no problem with, as if they proved your position. -- They don't.
So you are saying the constitution is flawed. That there is no remedy when 9 Supreme Court Judges lie and say the constitution means one thing when in basic English it clearly says something different.
Mr Chan I believe you should concede that point. Nolu Chans argument in my view is that there needs to be some check on the President and congress from making laws that are contrary to the constitution. Which is reasonable. But since we are imperfect people and liars and thieves and on the take. Since that is the case we are going to get incorrect and even evil decisions. We are then stuck with these decisions. That people with common sense know are lies and incorrect. The evil among us are fine to lie and say that yes that is what the Constitution says. They know they are lying but will not admit it. Then there are the ignorant which are on both sides. Tpaine doesn't like this. He recognizes that the Supreme Court and its functions aren't prescribed in the constitution. Nolu Chan on the other hand wants the same thing as you. He wants them to follow the constitution. So he sees it as a court has to make a determination. A court ruled in the Marberry vs Madisoin case. He accepts this as he sees that there is a need for there to be some authority to check the laws and strike them down if they are contrary to the constitution. So Chan sees it as the courts are set up by the constitution and ruled and that is that. Even if it is not directly mentioned in the constitution. You see it as they ruled incorrectly and when the Supreme Court gets it wrong you legitimately get pissed and point out that the Supreme Court doesn't have that authority. I'm sure Tpaine also thinks that there should be some check. But he thinks they should just follow it. He knows what it is, what it says and they better do it. If the Supreme Court gets it wrong the President has the right to ignore it and do what the constitution says. That is fine and I kind of agree with it. But the problem with that is the President could lie and just ignore the constitution also. So maybe as men we can't make a perfect system, and since we have liars and pieces of crap because our values have broken down. Also because people were always corrupt. So maybe that's is what who was it Benjamin Franklin said it was a system made for morale and religious people. You know people that are honest and do what the constitution said and didn't lie to subvert it for whatever purpose.
And nothing you just posted refutes my position. -- As usual you are posting long winded opinions I have no problem with, as if they proved your position. -- They don't. You just have a basic misunderstanding of the law and do not know what you are talking about. You can not and never have cited any legal authority that the judiciary can strike down a constitutional amendment or any other part of the Constitution. Your position continues to be absurd.
No. The assertion that a constitutional amendment, or any part of the Constitution, can be struck down by the judiciary, or that anyone is free to legally ignore any part of the Constitution, continues to be an unsupportable legal absurdity.
There is always a check. If the people think the court has erred in constitutional interpretation, they can amend the Constitution to overturn the holding of the Court. If the Congress thinks the Court has erred in statutory interpretation, Congress can just write another law, overturning what the Court has held. Everyone ignoring all but his or her own notion of the Constitution is not a check, it is anarchy.
Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself. I've cited the constitution itself, and you cannot refute its words. Your opinion is noted, and the fact that the best 'proof' you can cite is to call Stone and I absurd....
Congress can impeach and remove supreme justices, and also the president. Justices are appointed "for a term of good behavior" ONLY. If they misbehave... BOOT THEM OUT! It's the Republican and Democrat party voters fault for electing POS congresscritters. Members of the D&R crime family LOVE violating the Constitution. Congress has the power to remedy the situation, but Boehner and McConnell won't. They love graft, corruption, and selling We The People down the river.
Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself. Your opinion is supported by nothing at all. Repeating an absurdity over and over makes it no less absurd. Cite the case where a constitutional amendment has ever been struck down by SCOTUS. Cite the case where SCOTUS has ever claimed such authority. Cite the case where a SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution has been overturned by congressional legislation.
Certainly. The can also limit the court's appellate jurisdiction, increase or decrease (but not eliminate) the justices on the court, and eliminate all the federal courts except the Supreme court. But Congress can not overturn a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution.
That has only happenbed 17 times in 240 years. 9 judges exercising a power that is not identified in the constitution. Then millions and millions of just have to go through a long process to overturn their tyranny. If it is as you say then the constitution has a fatal flaw in it and it sucks.
Because a court that gave itself powers not contained in the constitution. Then people obey it like sheep. It is "color of law". But it is not based on the constitution.
Then you should be able to quote from the constitution to make your point. But you can't.
Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself. Chan responded at #52: --- Seems to me that you addressed this issue honestly back at #52, Chan.. --- Can you explain why we are all 'absurd' now?
Your opinion is supported by nothing at all. Repeating an absurdity over and over makes it no less absurd. Cite the case where a constitutional amendment has ever been struck down by SCOTUS. Cite the case where SCOTUS has ever claimed such authority. Cite the case where a SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution has been overturned by congressional legislation. Cite any recognized legal authority to support your imaginary concept that SCOTUS has struck down a constitutional amendment or claimed the authority to strike down a constitutional amendment. Is your source nonexistent or so embarrassing that you refuse to identify it? Don't be bashful, cite any recognized legal authority, preferably one that is a lawyer and not a wingnut with a blog.
Seems to me that you addressed this issue honestly back at #52, Chan.. --- Can you explain why we are all 'absurd' now? Unable to answer a reasonable question, you repeat your "absurd" allegations, and resume your barracks type lawyer leading questions: -- I've never made such claims, as you know.. Again, I've never claimed they have, - mr leading question wannabe lawyer.. You're repeating yourself, poor thing. -- I suggest you regain control, and consider telling us why you were honest about the issue at post #52, and are now claiming everyone else is absurd..
If that were true, the Constitution would not be a very short framework, it would be a very lengthy legal code. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority...." The judicial power is given to the Courts, not the Executive or Legislature. As explicitly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1792, “by the Constitution, neither the Secretary at War nor any other Executive officer, nor even the legislature, is authorized to sit as a court of errors on the judicial acts or opinions of this court.” Hayburn’s Case, 2 US 409, 414 (1792)
You assume this is absurd but run and hide from citing the source of your absurdities? When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority...." But the judicial power is not absolute. It too is tempered by the checks and balances that apply to the legislative and executive powers.. -- The only supreme power is the constitution itself: ---
You're repeating yourself, poor thing. -- I suggest you regain control, and consider telling us why you were honest about the issue at post #52, and are now claiming everyone else is absurd. Your quote above, from #52, is not absurd, and I certainly never said it was.. This discussion is getting bizarro, imho.. You seem to be taking personal affront at any criticism of your opinions about SCOTUS opinions. -- Why?
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken. Are you saying this is incorrect, or just blathering?
Your previous blather includes, http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=68#C68 tpaine posted on 2015-07-05 2:42:43 ET Is this now not erroneous? Your latest invention is: This discussion is getting bizarro, imho.. It is especially bizarro when you claim it is a quote from my #52. Just how did you cut and paste that from #52? You are attempting to respond to #91. That particular phrasing made its initial appearance at #91. Not only is it not absurd, it is not erroneous. It is 100% correct and you know it. When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
nolu chan erroneously claims: -- Chan responded at #52: --- Seems to me that you addressed this issue honestly back at #52, Chan.. --- Can you explain why we are all 'absurd' now? Here is your reply, at #91: --- Which I mistakenly thought was made at #52, seeing that it says 'virtually' the same thing. Your qualifiers at both #52 and at #91 make your opinion constitutionally acceptable. Your original opinion is not..
Yeah, well I said it so slightly different from the Supreme Court you couldn't tell the difference. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=68#C68 tpaine posted on 2015-07-05 2:42:43 ET Try the U.S. Supreme Court in 1792: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/409/case.html Hayburn’s Case, 2 US 409, 414 (1792) Or this at the U.S. Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx U.S. Supreme Court website: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation Or this at the UMKC School of Law: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/supremecourtintro.html University of Missouri, Kansas City School of Law website: Or this at the South Carolina Bar Association: http://www.scbar.org/Teachers-Students/All-Programs/Teachers-and-the-Courts/Chapters/Federal-Courts South Carolina Bar Association website: Or this at the World Encyclopedia of Law: http://lawin.org/united-states-supreme-court/ World Encyclopedia of Law - - - - - What is erroneous? The legislature cannot overrule SCOTUS when it rules on a constitutional issue. "When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court." That rules out a legislative action.
"When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court." That rules out a legislative action. Your opinion, and that of the court, is erroneous.. The key word that makes those opinions erroneous is 'VIRTUALLY'.. --- That opinion is NOT enumerated in the Constitution, thus the Court does not have that power. Whereas the legislature may indeed have that power as Art III, Sec 2, Paragraph 2 notes.
The court and all the law books are wrong and you are right, but you can't cite one damned legal source that supports your fantasy. The Court opinion prevails, even when tpaine deems it erroneous. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=72#C72 It's absurd to you, granted. But you can't refute the fact of the supremacy clause. You should learn what the Supremacy Clause is about. You are obviously completely lost. Neither Congress nor the Court can invalidate a constitutional amendment. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/409/case.html Hayburn’s Case, 2 US 409, 414 (1792) - - - - - Ibid. at 210 - - - - - http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/358/1.html Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1, 18 (1958) - - - - - From the opinion of the Court in the National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350, 386-8 (1920) 6. The first section of the amendment — the one embodying the prohibition — is operative throughout the entire territorial limits of the United States, binds all legislative bodies, courts, public officers and individuals within those limits, and of its own force invalidates every legislative act, whether by Congress, by a state Legislature, or by a territorial assembly, which authorizes or sanctions what the section prohibits. - - - - - Ableman v Booth, 62 US, 21 How. 506, 517-21 (1858) But the supremacy thus conferred on this Government could not peacefully be maintained unless it was clothed with judicial power equally paramount in authority to carry it into execution, for if left to the courts of justice of the several States, conflicting decisions would unavoidably take place, and the local tribunals could hardly be expected to be always free [518] from the local influences of which we have spoken. And the Constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, and the powers granted to the Federal Government, would soon receive different interpretations in different States, and the Government of the United States would soon become one thing in one State and another thing in another. It was essential, therefore, to its very existence as a Government that it should have the power of establishing courts of justice, altogether independent of State power, to carry into effect its own laws, and that a tribunal should be established in which all cases which might arise under the Constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, whether in a State court or a court of the United States, should be finally and conclusively decided. Without such a tribunal, it is obvious that there would be no uniformity of judicial decision, and that the supremacy, (which is but another name for independence) so carefully provided in the clause of the Constitution above referred to could not possibly be maintained peacefully unless it was associated with this paramount judicial authority. Accordingly, it was conferred on the General Government in clear, precise, and comprehensive terms. It is declared that its judicial power shall (among other subjects enumerated) extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that, in such cases, as well as the others there enumerated, this court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make. The appellate power, it will be observed, is conferred on this court in all cases or suits in which such a question shall arise. It is not confined to suits in the inferior courts of the United States, but extends to all cases where such a question arises, whether it be in a judicial tribunal of a State or of the United States. And it is manifest that this ultimate appellate power in a tribunal created by the Constitution itself was deemed essential to secure the independence and supremacy of the General Government in the sphere of action assigned to it, to make the Constitution and laws of the United States uniform, and the same in every State, and to guard against evils which would [519] inevitably arise from conflicting opinions between the courts of a State and of the United States, if there was no common arbiter authorized to decide between them. The importance which the framers of the Constitution attached to such a tribunal, for the purpose of preserving internal tranquillity, is strikingly manifested by the clause which gives this court jurisdiction over the sovereign States which compose this Union when a controversy arises between them. Instead of reserving the right to seek redress for injustice from another State by their sovereign powers, they have bound themselves to submit to the decision of this court, and to abide by its judgment. And it is not out of place to say here that experience has demonstrated that this power was not unwisely surrendered by the States, for, in the time that has already elapsed since this Government came into existence, several irritating and angry controversies have taken place between adjoining States in relation to their respective boundaries, and which have sometimes threatened to end in force and violence but for the power vested in this court to hear them and decide between them. The same purposes are clearly indicated by the different language employed when conferring supremacy upon the laws of the United States, and jurisdiction upon its courts. In the first case, it provides that “this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and obligatory upon the judges in every State.” The words in italics show the precision and foresight which marks every clause in the instrument. The sovereignty to be created was to be limited in its powers of legislation, and if it passed a law not authorized by its enumerated powers, it was not to be regarded as the supreme law of the land, nor were the State judges bound to carry it into execution. And as the courts of a State, and the courts of the United States, might, and indeed certainly would, often differ as to the extent of the powers conferred by the General Government, it was manifest that serious controversies would arise between the authorities of the United States and of the States, which must be settled by force of arms unless some [520] tribunal was created to decide between them finally and with out appeal. The Constitution has accordingly provided, as far as human foresight could provide, against this danger. And, in conferring judicial power upon the Federal Government, it declares that the jurisdiction of its courts shall extend to all cases arising under “this Constitution” and the laws of the United States—leaving out the words of restriction contained in the grant of legislative power which we have above noticed. The judicial power covers every legislative act of Congress, whether it be made within the limits of its delegated powers or be an assumption of power beyond the grants in the Constitution. This judicial power was justly regarded as indispensable not merely to maintain the supremacy of the laws of the United States, but also to guard the States from any encroachment upon their reserved rights by the General Government. And as the Constitution is the fundamental and supreme law, if it appears that an act of Congress is not pursuant to and within the limits of the power assigned to the Federal Government, it is the duty of the courts of the United States to declare it unconstitutional and void. The grant of judicial power is not confined to the administration of laws passed in pursuance to the provisions of the Constitution, nor confined to the interpretation of such laws, but, by the very terms of the grant, the Constitution is under their view when any act of Congress is brought before them, and it is their duty to declare the law void, and refuse to execute it, if it is not pursuant to the legislative powers conferred upon Congress. And as the final appellate power in all such questions is given to this court, controversies as to the respective powers of the United States and the States, instead of being determined by military and physical force, are heard, investigated, and finally settled with the calmness and deliberation of judicial inquiry. And no one can fail to see that, if such an arbiter had not been provided in our complicated system of government, internal tranquillity could not have been preserved, and if such controversies were left to arbitrament of physical force, our Government, State and National, would soon cease to be Governments [521] of laws, and revolutions by force of arms would take the place of courts of justice and judicial decisions. In organizing such a tribunal, it is evident that every precaution was taken which human wisdom could devise to fit it for the high duty with which it was intrusted. It was not left to Congress to create it by law, for the States could hardly be expected to confide in the impartiality of a tribunal created exclusively by the General Government without any participation on their part. And as the performance of its duty would sometimes come in conflict with individual ambition or interests and powerful political combinations, an act of Congress establishing such a tribunal might be repealed in order to establish another more subservient to the predominant political influences or excited passions of the day. This tribunal, therefore, was erected, and the powers of which we have spoken conferred upon it, not by the Federal Government, but by the people of the States, who formed and adopted that Government and conferred upon it all the powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, which it now possesses. And in order to secure its independence and enable it faithfully and firmly to perform its duty, it engrafted it upon the Constitution itself, and declared that this court should have appellate power in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So long, therefore, as this Constitution shall endure, this tribunal must exist with it, deciding in the peaceful forms of judicial proceeding the angry and irritating controversies between sovereignties which, in other countries, have been determined by the arbitrament of force. - - - - - Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. The use of the term "shall" connotes the absence of discretion. The Congress was mandated to create a Supreme Court. The "supreme law of the land" includes the Constitution, laws and treaties. The Supreme Court is given judicial power over all cases arising under the the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Treaties and Federal laws are equal and each is subordinate to the Constitution. - - - - - - - - - - Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies, 2 Ed., Erwin Chemerinsky, 2002 - - - - - Ibid. 376 - - - - - Ibid. at 275-6. - - - - - The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, declared this statutory increase in presidential power unconstitutional. Justice Stevens explained that the president, by exercising the line-item veto, was changing a law adopted by Congress; the final version of the law is diffferent after the veto than what Congress passed. The Court concluded that the Constitution does not allow such presidential authority. Justice Stevens wrote: "In both legal and practical effect, the President has amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each. '[R]epeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with Art. I.' There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes." The Court emphasized that the procedures for enacting and vetoing laws contained in the Constitution must be strictly adhered to and that any changes must come from a constitutional amendment, not legislative action. Ibid. at 336-7 - - - - - * * * Treaties, however, cannot violate the Constitution. In Reid v. Covert, the Court held that American civilian dependents of military personnel in a foreign country must be accorded a trial that meets the dictates of the Constitution. Justice Black explained that "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." Ibid. at 361 - - - - - Constitutional Law, 6 Ed., Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, 68 - - - - - Ibid. at 156 - - - - - Yet the Court found that it could not grant the remedy in an original action because it was not within the jurisdiction fixed for the Court by Article III. The opinion interpreted a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as placing this action within its jurisdiction but found that this law conflicted with the Constitution. Marshall concluded by holding that the Supreme Court had the power to declare such a law to be invalid as a violation of the Constitution. Constitutional Law, 4 Ed., John E. Nowak and Ronald D. Rotunda, West Publishing Co., 1991, p. 2 - - - - - That the treaty power of the United States extends to all proper subjects of negotiation between our government and the governments of other nations, is clear.... The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments.... It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the states, or a cession or any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.... Ibid. at 210 - - - - - American Constitutional Law, 3 ed., Vol. I, West Publishing Co., Laurence H. Tribe, p. 647 - - - - - Ibid. at 647 - - - - -
The Supreme Court upholds national prohibition, 1920 A primary source by Wayne B. Wheeler The Supreme Court Decision on National Prohibition, by Wayne B. Wheeler, advocate for the Anti-Saloon League, explaining the Supreme Court's decision in the National Prohibition Cases, 1920. (Library of Congress Printed Ephemera Collection) After more than a century of activism, the temperance movement achieved its signal victory with the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment to the US Constitution in 1919. The amendment abolished “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors,” and provided for “concurrent” federal and state authority to enforce the ban. It was controversial from its inception: it did not define “intoxicating liquors,” it did not specifically forbid the purchase of alcohol, it established “concurrent” state and federal enforcement but did not provide any means for enforcement, and its constitutionality was in question. To provide for enforcement of the amendment, a powerful lobbying group called the Anti-Saloon League, led by its top lawyer, Wayne B. Wheeler, devised the National Prohibition Act, also known as the Volstead Act. Though the law’s wording was confusing, it defined intoxicating liquors as anything over 0.5% alcohol by volume. It also laid the groundwork for federal and state responsibility to prosecute violators. President Woodrow Wilson’s veto of the law was swiftly overridden by Congress in October 1919. The constitutionality of the new law and the amendment itself were challenged in a series of legal cases that were brought before the US Supreme Court as the National Prohibition Cases (1920). In this document, Wheeler reviewed the meaning of the Court’s decision to uphold the law: The decision will go down in history as one of the great judicial landmarks in the progress of our civilization. There will be an effort in Congress and in the State Legislatures to nullify the law, and we will meet the practical problem of law enforcement for years to come, but this decision will be the judicial foundation upon which prohibition will rest through the ages. Thirteen years later, the Twenty-first Amendment was ratified, overturning the Eighteenth Amendment and ending national prohibition in 1933.
No they would only need a line or two if that was the intention. Something like this. There shall be a Supreme Court. It shall be the final arbitrator of the meaning of the constituon when disputes arise. Cases shall be tried in lower courts first that are set up by the congress. Then someone smarter then me a few more words. That's it. It isn't there. But thanks for admitting that it isn't there (indirectly). I think even if you don't agree you should understand why some people disagree with you on this. For that reason that that power isn't directly mentioned in the constitution.
The challenge was rejected. You might mention that part. Citing a failed desperate grope argument of counsel, thumpingly rejected by the court, is not quite like citing legal precedent, or an approving recognized legal text. In this case, a brewery owner was desperate to stop prohibition from going into effect. In Feigenspan, the lead National Prohibition case, District Judge Rellstab whote in his opinion, which was upheld by SCOTUS: Plaintiff alleges it is invalid. First, because of its subject-matter. At the outset let us keep clearly in mind that the issue here relates solely to power—the power to amend the United States Constitution. In discussing the challenges of the plaintiffs articulated under this head, that fact must not be forgotten. The other attacks upon the amendment, to be considered under separate heads, relate to the use made of the power, if it be found to exist. If the plaintiff, is right in its contention of lack of power to insert the Eighteenth Amendment into the United States Constitution because of its subject-matter, it follows that there is no way to incorporate it and others of like character, into the National organic law, except through revolution. This, the plaintiff concedes, is the inevitable conclusion of its contention. This is so startling a proposition that the judicial mind may be pardoned for not readily cceding to it, and for insisting that only the most convincing reasons will justify its acceptance. [...] The Eighteenth Amendment but carries forward into the national Constitution what had already been inserted into the organic law of the greater number of States, and if the reasons herein expressed are sound there is no limitation in the United States Constitution, express or implied, that forbids its incorporation therein by action pursuant to Art. V thereof. - - - - - Live and learn. Another amendment works. It is the only thing that repeals an amendment to the Constitution. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/409/case.html Hayburn’s Case, 2 US 409, 414 (1792) http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx U.S. Supreme Court website: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation The Federalist No. 81 May 28, 1788 [excerpt] These considerations teach us to applaud the wisdom of those States who have committed the judicial power, in the last resort, not to a part of the legislature, but to distinct and independent bodies of men. Contrary to the supposition of those who have represented the plan of the convention, in this respect, as novel and unprecedented, it is but a copy of the constitutions of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia; and the preference which has been given to those models is highly to be commended. It is not true, in the second place, that the Parliament of Great Britain, or the legislatures of the particular States, can rectify the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts, in any other sense than might be done by a future legislature of the United States. The theory, neither of the British, nor the State constitutions, authorizes the revisal of a judicial sentence by a legislative act. Nor is there any thing in the proposed Constitution, more than in either of them, by which it is forbidden. In the former, as well as in the latter, the impropriety of the thing, on the general principles of law and reason, is the sole obstacle. A legislature, without exceeding its province, cannot reverse a determination once made in a particular case; though it may prescribe a new rule for future cases. This is the principle, and it applies in all its consequences, exactly in the same manner and extent, to the State governments, as to the national government now under consideration. Not the least difference can be pointed out in any view of the subject.
To repeat, the above is the point of contention. It is a fact. The Constitution need not address every absurd idea of the human imagination in order to be applicable. While it does not directly express the absurdity of a judiciary, by the express soveign will of the people created to serve the people, striking down the express sovereign will of the people — it is not necessary to do so. The Court created by the sovereign, was granted limited power by the sovereign. The expressed sovereign will of the people is not subservient to the government they created. It can never have a case, under the Constitution, to abolish a part of the Constitution. So, you may claim all you want that the court can strike down part of the Constitution, but it has never been done, and the Court has never claimed the power to do so. It was argued almost a century ago against the 18th amendment, and failed resoundingly. From the instant an amendment is declared ratified, it binds all courts and legislative bodies. It is the organic, paramount law, and prevails over all other laws. It is an expression of the sovereign will of the people and can be changed only by another expression of the sovereign will of the people. Only the people can do that, not the government. As the Supreme Court held, the "Amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and given effect the same as other provisions of that instrument. Would you believe that SCOTUS could strike down the Bill of Rights? https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/253/350/case.html National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920) [...] Syllabus The adoption by both houses of Congress, each by a two-thirds vote, of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution sufficiently shows that the proposal was deemed necessary by all who voted for it. An express declaration that they regarded it as necessary is not essential. P. 253 U. S. 386. The two-thirds vote in each house which is required in proposing an amendment is a vote of two-thirds of the members present -- assuming the presence of a quorum -- and not a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership, present and absent. Id. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U. S. 276. The referendum provisions of state constitutions and statutes cannot be applied, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, in the ratification or rejection of amendments to it. Id. Hawke v. Smith, ante, 253 U. S. 221. The prohibition of the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, as embodied in the Eighteenth Amendment, is within the power to amend reserved by Article V of the Constitution. Id. That Amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and given effect the same as other provisions of that instrument. Id. The first section of the Amendment -- the one embodying the prohibition -- is operative throughout the entire territorial limits of the United States, binds all legislative bodies, courts, public officers, and individuals within those limits, and, of its own force, invalidates every legislative act -- whether by Congress, by a state legislature, or by a territorial assembly -- which authorizes or sanctions what the section prohibits. Id. The second section of the Amendment -- the one declaring "[t]he Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" -- does not enable Congress or the several states to defeat or thwart the prohibition, but only to enforce it by appropriate means. P. 253 U. S. 387.
The quote below proves that the SCOTUS heard and considered the constitutionality of the new amendment.. -- Your opinion is wrong... I didn't need to, as I knew you would, in your attempt to gloss over the fact that the case was heard, proving you wrong. Yada, yada. -- You're the one who's sounding desperate.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.... It can never have a case, under the Constitution, to abolish a part of the Constitution. --- chan Nevertheless, the case was heard, making the scotus of the day 'absurd', according to Chan...
I am not the one citing the losing argument of attorney in a futile legal case as authority. The argument that you forgot to read is, indeed, absurd. Charles Evans Hughes demonstrated that it was absurd. Root for plaintiff argued that the ratified amendment was a piece of ordinary legislation and did not fall under the authority granted by Article V. Root's absurdity was nicely covered in the Yale Law Journal in 1921 which I have shown you before but which beares repeating if you are to make believe that the massacred argument of Elihu Root makes your babble any less absurd. As noted in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, Vl XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 322. If a millionaire was willing to pay to get an argument presented, a lawyer was willing to take his money. Mr. Elihu Root for the plaintiff argued, with a straight face, the 18th amendment was an ordinary piece of legislation, and therefore not within the power granted by the 5th Amendment. While a noted lawyer, Root's problem was a meritless argument combined with facing the legal legend. Charles Evans Hughes on the other side. Feigenspan v. Bodine, et al., (U. S. Dist. Court, Dist. of New Jersey, March 9, 1920). W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, V1 XXX, No. 4, February 1921, pp. 332-334. The point under contention is made perhaps even clearer by another statement in this brief: “In this respect a constitutional amendment granting to the government power to prohibit intoxicants would be quite different from an 34 At p. 16. [333] attempted amendment itself directly declaring the prohibition of intoxicants. The former would merely add to the powers of government and would, therefore, in this regard at least, be a proper form of constitutional amendment; while the latter in its essence neither would add nor withdraw powers of government, but would be direct legislation. The Eighteenth Amendment is, therefore, in substance and effect a statute, not a constitutional provision akin to any in the federal Constitution.” It is sought to bolster up this argument by the provision of the Constitution vesting all legislative power in Congress; and to sustain it further by the purely political argument that legislation thus embodied in the Constitution becomes permanent and beyond the control of the majority, because of the fact that change may be prevented by fourteen states containing only a very small minority of the population of the country.35 A similar argument will be found in an article which recently appeared in the Harvard Law Review.36 This argument might be termed somewhat ridiculous, had it not appeared under the distinguished name of Mr. Elihu Root. The Solicitor General’s brief in the Feigenspan Case reviews a number of provisions of the original Constitution and of amendments thereto before the Eighteenth Amendment, and properly says: “That the provisions referred to are acts of legislation in the sense that they establish rules of law can not be doubted. They and other provisions constitute a body of laws which the framers of the. Constitution deemed of such importance that they should be enacted and placed beyond the control of any branch of the government.”37 Mr. Hughes’ brief in the Kentucky Distilleries Case presents the situation even more vigorously: “And what is ‘legislation’ which is thus said to lie outside the scope of the amending power according to the theory presented? Is it that the amendment must not be self-executing? But the obvious answer is that the Thirteenth Amendment is self-executing and it has been so adjudged by this court.... “Is it that the amendment must not directly affect the rights of persons without the intervention of legislation? The Thirteenth Amendment did that, for it made free men out of slaves. “Is it that the amendment must not directly disturb without further legislation vested rights of property? But the Thirteenth Amendment destroyed property in slaves. “The attempt is made to explain in some way that the Thirteenth 35 pp. 11, 14 et seq., 48. 36 William L. Marbury, The Limitations upon the Amending Power (1919) 33 Harv. L. Rev. 223. See a reply to this article by William L. Frierson, Amending the Constitution of the United States: A Reply to Mr. Marbury (1920) 33 Harv. L. Rev. 659. Mr. Frierson’s name will also be found signed to the brief for the appellees in the case of Feigenspan v. Bodine. 37 At p. 37. [334] Amendment, which did all these things, was not legislation. It is impossible then to understand in what sense the term “legislation” is used. For that which establishes a rule of law which, being self-executing, determines without further legislation the rights and status of persons and rights of property manifestly has the direct operation and effect of legislation.”38 38 At pp. 51-52.
No. It is unfortunate that you do not read or understand the court decisions you spout about. The Court did not hear an argument about whether the Amendment was constitutional. It heard an argument about whether the Amendment was a piece of ordinary legislation and not an Amendment under the amendment making power conferred by Amendment 5. You are one of the few who argues the absurd losing argument make their own argument less absurd, and without bothering to read and absurd the losing argument. See Coleman which I've shown you before. You can make believe as much as you want. You will just get to read it again. Or perhaps read it for the first time. Citing Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), Laurence H. Tribe wrote in American Constitutional Law, Third Edition, Volume 1, at 105, that "Coleman can be regarded today as imposing an absolute bar on judicial review of the amendment process. The Court's instinct that most questions regarding the amendment process should be nonjusticiable is on target: constitutional amendment is a political, not legal, process, and judicial supervision of that process threatens to undermine the independence of Article V from normal legal processes—and poses particular problems when the amendment at issue is one proposed in response to judicial decisions." Coleman at 440. Once the Secretary of State declares that the Amendment has been ratified and become part of the Constitution, his declaration is conclusive upon the courts. As for the absurdity of the argument for plaintiff in your cited losing case, the Yale Law Journal covered it nicely in 1921. Read it as many times as needed. W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, V1 XXX, No. 4, February 1921, pp. 332-334. The point under contention is made perhaps even clearer by another statement in this brief: “In this respect a constitutional amendment granting to the government power to prohibit intoxicants would be quite different from an 34 At p. 16. [333] attempted amendment itself directly declaring the prohibition of intoxicants. The former would merely add to the powers of government and would, therefore, in this regard at least, be a proper form of constitutional amendment; while the latter in its essence neither would add nor withdraw powers of government, but would be direct legislation. The Eighteenth Amendment is, therefore, in substance and effect a statute, not a constitutional provision akin to any in the federal Constitution.” It is sought to bolster up this argument by the provision of the Constitution vesting all legislative power in Congress; and to sustain it further by the purely political argument that legislation thus embodied in the Constitution becomes permanent and beyond the control of the majority, because of the fact that change may be prevented by fourteen states containing only a very small minority of the population of the country.35 A similar argument will be found in an article which recently appeared in the Harvard Law Review.36 This argument might be termed somewhat ridiculous, had it not appeared under the distinguished name of Mr. Elihu Root. The Solicitor General’s brief in the Feigenspan Case reviews a number of provisions of the original Constitution and of amendments thereto before the Eighteenth Amendment, and properly says: “That the provisions referred to are acts of legislation in the sense that they establish rules of law can not be doubted. They and other provisions constitute a body of laws which the framers of the. Constitution deemed of such importance that they should be enacted and placed beyond the control of any branch of the government.”37 Mr. Hughes’ brief in the Kentucky Distilleries Case presents the situation even more vigorously: “And what is ‘legislation’ which is thus said to lie outside the scope of the amending power according to the theory presented? Is it that the amendment must not be self-executing? But the obvious answer is that the Thirteenth Amendment is self-executing and it has been so adjudged by this court.... “Is it that the amendment must not directly affect the rights of persons without the intervention of legislation? The Thirteenth Amendment did that, for it made free men out of slaves. “Is it that the amendment must not directly disturb without further legislation vested rights of property? But the Thirteenth Amendment destroyed property in slaves. “The attempt is made to explain in some way that the Thirteenth 35 pp. 11, 14 et seq., 48. 36 William L. Marbury, The Limitations upon the Amending Power (1919) 33 Harv. L. Rev. 223. See a reply to this article by William L. Frierson, Amending the Constitution of the United States: A Reply to Mr. Marbury (1920) 33 Harv. L. Rev. 659. Mr. Frierson’s name will also be found signed to the brief for the appellees in the case of Feigenspan v. Bodine. 37 At p. 37. [334] Amendment, which did all these things, was not legislation. It is impossible then to understand in what sense the term “legislation” is used. For that which establishes a rule of law which, being self-executing, determines without further legislation the rights and status of persons and rights of property manifestly has the direct operation and effect of legislation.”38 38 At pp. 51-52.
Nevertheless, the case was heard, making the scotus of the day 'absurd', according to Chan... The quote above proves that the SCOTUS heard and considered the constitutionality of the new amendment.. -- Your opinion is wrong... Root made an argument before the SCOTUS that, among others, the prohibition amendment was unconstitutional because, in effect, it is absurd to contend that people can amend away their, or others, inalienable rights to buy, make, or drink alcohol. Why you are defending this insane concept is beyond comprehension. Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? Thanks once again in giving us your opinion about 'absurdity'.
I've only caught bits and pieces. I would think that if an amendment is lawully passed. It can't be ruled unconstitutional.
That's because of Chan's posting 'style'; --- he posts lengthy opinions that are vaguely on topic, hoping to impress everyone with his ability to access what, - nexus? If that's the case, our bill of rights could be infringed upon or repealed by a Article V convention, after ratification by a tyranny of the majority, making our constitutional principles a joke...
I would think that if an amendment is lawully passed. It can't be ruled unconstitutional. Catch this part. iting Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), Laurence H. Tribe wrote in American Constitutional Law, Third Edition, Volume 1, at 105, that "Coleman can be regarded today as imposing an absolute bar on judicial review of the amendment process. The Court's instinct that most questions regarding the amendment process should be nonjusticiable is on target: constitutional amendment is a political, not legal, process, and judicial supervision of that process threatens to undermine the independence of Article V from normal legal processes—and poses particular problems when the amendment at issue is one proposed in response to judicial decisions." Coleman at 440.
I am not the one citing the losing argument of attorney in a futile legal case as authority. The argument that you forgot to read is, indeed, absurd. Charles Evans Hughes demonstrated that it was absurd. Root for plaintiff argued that the ratified amendment was a piece of ordinary legislation and did not fall under the authority granted by Article V. Root's absurdity was nicely covered in the Yale Law Journal in 1921 which I have shown you before but which beares repeating if you are to make believe that the massacred argument of Elihu Root makes your babble any less absurd. As noted in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, Vl XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 322. If a millionaire was willing to pay to get an argument presented, a lawyer was willing to take his money. Mr. Elihu Root for the plaintiff argued, with a straight face, the 18th amendment was an ordinary piece of legislation, and therefore not within the power granted by the 5th Amendment. While a noted lawyer, Root's problem was a meritless argument combined with facing the legal legend. Charles Evans Hughes on the other side. Feigenspan v. Bodine, et al., (U. S. Dist. Court, Dist. of New Jersey, March 9, 1920). W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, V1 XXX, No. 4, February 1921, pp. 332-334. The point under contention is made perhaps even clearer by another statement in this brief: “In this respect a constitutional amendment granting to the government power to prohibit intoxicants would be quite different from an 34 At p. 16. [333] attempted amendment itself directly declaring the prohibition of intoxicants. The former would merely add to the powers of government and would, therefore, in this regard at least, be a proper form of constitutional amendment; while the latter in its essence neither would add nor withdraw powers of government, but would be direct legislation. The Eighteenth Amendment is, therefore, in substance and effect a statute, not a constitutional provision akin to any in the federal Constitution.” It is sought to bolster up this argument by the provision of the Constitution vesting all legislative power in Congress; and to sustain it further by the purely political argument that legislation thus embodied in the Constitution becomes permanent and beyond the control of the majority, because of the fact that change may be prevented by fourteen states containing only a very small minority of the population of the country.35 A similar argument will be found in an article which recently appeared in the Harvard Law Review.36 This argument might be termed somewhat ridiculous, had it not appeared under the distinguished name of Mr. Elihu Root. The Solicitor General’s brief in the Feigenspan Case reviews a number of provisions of the original Constitution and of amendments thereto before the Eighteenth Amendment, and properly says: “That the provisions referred to are acts of legislation in the sense that they establish rules of law can not be doubted. They and other provisions constitute a body of laws which the framers of the. Constitution deemed of such importance that they should be enacted and placed beyond the control of any branch of the government.”37 Mr. Hughes’ brief in the Kentucky Distilleries Case presents the situation even more vigorously: “And what is ‘legislation’ which is thus said to lie outside the scope of the amending power according to the theory presented? Is it that the amendment must not be self-executing? But the obvious answer is that the Thirteenth Amendment is self-executing and it has been so adjudged by this court.... “Is it that the amendment must not directly affect the rights of persons without the intervention of legislation? The Thirteenth Amendment did that, for it made free men out of slaves. “Is it that the amendment must not directly disturb without further legislation vested rights of property? But the Thirteenth Amendment destroyed property in slaves. “The attempt is made to explain in some way that the Thirteenth 35 pp. 11, 14 et seq., 48. 36 William L. Marbury, The Limitations upon the Amending Power (1919) 33 Harv. L. Rev. 223. See a reply to this article by William L. Frierson, Amending the Constitution of the United States: A Reply to Mr. Marbury (1920) 33 Harv. L. Rev. 659. Mr. Frierson’s name will also be found signed to the brief for the appellees in the case of Feigenspan v. Bodine. 37 At p. 37. [334] Amendment, which did all these things, was not legislation. It is impossible then to understand in what sense the term “legislation” is used. For that which establishes a rule of law which, being self-executing, determines without further legislation the rights and status of persons and rights of property manifestly has the direct operation and effect of legislation.”38 38 At pp. 51-52.
Root made an argument before the SCOTUS that, among others, the prohibition amendment was unconstitutional because, in effect, it is absurd to contend that people can amend away their, or others, inalienable rights to buy, make, or drink alcohol.. Your tiresome repetitions of your opinions, and those of others, prove nothing. Why you are defending this insane concept is beyond comprehension. Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?
L-O-S-T. It was found to have no merit. Like your nonsense.
In wingnut world, wingnuttery rules. In the real world, saying the court is erroneous does not change the fact that their holding is the law. No power of the government can deem any part of the Constitution to be null and void. The matter of ratification is a political question and the courts have no jurisdiction over political questions. Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 440 (1939) The Supreme Court said it — "the official notice to the Secretary of State, duly authenticated … was conclusive upon the courts." LaVergne v Bryson, Secretary of Commerce, 3rd Cir 12-1171 (20 Sep 2012) And in tpaine's court of the imagination, "amendments to the constitution can be deemed unconstitutional." All you need to do is believe that when the court held Jane Roe has a constitutional right to an abortion, it only applied to Jane Roe. And when the court held that Obergefell had a constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex, it only applied to Obergefell. In wingnutworld, the legislature and the executive can give the holdings due consideration and choose whether to ignore them or not. Asserting the Supremacy Clause somehow supports the absurd claim that constitutional amendments can be deemed unconstitutional: Demonstrating a delusion about what the Supremacy Clause does, and explaining why his legal logic is so dicked up. The Supremacy Clause at Article 6, states, tpaine labors under the delusion that this clause sets the Constitution at equivalency with ordinary legislated laws and United States treaties. As legislation can be struck down by the court as unconstitutional, this brain fart entices him to imagine that the Constititution can be struck down by the court, or that amendments may be deemed unconstitutional, or that amendments pronounced ratified may be struck down by the courts — this only works if laws made by the legislature are equal to the Constitution, and that is so only in some imaginary world. Ignoring the holding in Coleman, (1939), not to mention the recitation of precedents in LaVergne v. Bryson (2012). What the Supremacy Clause actually states is that any form of Federal law takes precedence over any form of State law, whether the State law be statutory or constitutional. Note that the clause in the 6th Amendment only applied to "judges in every state." Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 3rd Ed., Vol. 1 (2000), pg. 255. In tpaine's court of the imagination, the court and Laurence Tribe are erroneous, along with anyone that does not adopt the absurd notions that flow from his imagination. Everyone in America knows that laws are struck down by the court when they are found to conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution is the paramount law and takes precedence over all other American law. Treaties and federal statutes are equal (but below the Constitution), with the most recently adopted controlling. * * * Treaties, however, cannot violate the Constitution. Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies, 2 Ed., Erwin Chemerinsky, 2002 at 361 This particular idiocy relates to the National Prohibition Cases in 1920, which was several prohibition cases heard together at the SCOTUS level. The question was not before the court to determine the constitutionality of the 18th Amendment. An amendment cannot be unconstitutional. Counsel did not argue the the amendment was unconstitutional, he argued that, due to its content, it was ordinary legislation and not an amendment at all. And, as ordinary legislation, the court had the authority to strike it down, according to this creative argument. Trust tpaine to bloviate endlessly about crap he has not seen or read. On brief: The briefs were ridiculed in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, Vl XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 322. This is the Yale Law Journal, not tpaine's court of the imagination. The argument was characterized in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, V1 XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 333. [...] Mr. Hughes’ brief in the Kentucky Distilleries Case presents the situation even more vigorously: “And what is ‘legislation’ which is thus said to lie outside the scope of the amending power according to the theory presented? Is it that the amendment must not be self-executing? But the obvious answer is that the Thirteenth Amendment is self-executing and it has been so adjudged by this court.... “Is it that the amendment must not directly affect the rights of persons without the intervention of legislation? The Thirteenth Amendment did that, for it made free men out of slaves. “Is it that the amendment must not directly disturb without further legislation vested rights of property? But the Thirteenth Amendment destroyed property in slaves. “The attempt is made to explain in some way that the Thirteenth Amendment, which did all these things, was not legislation. It is impossible then to understand in what sense the term “legislation” is used. For that which establishes a rule of law which, being self-executing, determines without further legislation the rights and status of persons and rights of property manifestly has the direct operation and effect of legislation.” The 18th Amendment was an amendment, not common legislation.
Root made an argument before the SCOTUS that, among others, the prohibition amendment was unconstitutional because, in effect, it is absurd to contend that people can amend away their, or others, inalienable rights to buy, make, or drink alcohol.. The point is that the SCOTUS heard the argument. You claim they can't, and you're wrong. Inevitably, when you can't address my arguments (as above, about our inalienable rights), -- you call them nonsense or absurd. -- You're making yourself look very unprofessional. -- I assume you've had legal training, and are at least a wannabe lawyer. -- How about acting like a pro, and controlling yourself? Your tiresome repetitions of your opinions, and citing lengthy parts of others, prove nothing. Why you are defending this insane concept is beyond comprehension. Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? Answer please. -- Second request...
In wingnut world, wingnuttery rules. In the real world, saying the court is erroneous does not change the fact that their holding is the law. No power of the government can deem any part of the Constitution to be null and void. The matter of ratification is a political question and the courts have no jurisdiction over political questions. Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 440 (1939) The Supreme Court said it — "the official notice to the Secretary of State, duly authenticated … was conclusive upon the courts." LaVergne v Bryson, Secretary of Commerce, 3rd Cir 12-1171 (20 Sep 2012) And in tpaine's court of the imagination, "amendments to the constitution can be deemed unconstitutional." All you need to do is believe that when the court held Jane Roe has a constitutional right to an abortion, it only applied to Jane Roe. And when the court held that Obergefell had a constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex, it only applied to Obergefell. In wingnutworld, the legislature and the executive can give the holdings due consideration and choose whether to ignore them or not. Asserting the Supremacy Clause somehow supports the absurd claim that constitutional amendments can be deemed unconstitutional: Demonstrating a delusion about what the Supremacy Clause does, and explaining why his legal logic is so dicked up. The Supremacy Clause at Article 6, states, tpaine labors under the delusion that this clause sets the Constitution at equivalency with ordinary legislated laws and United States treaties. As legislation can be struck down by the court as unconstitutional, this brain fart entices him to imagine that the Constititution can be struck down by the court, or that amendments may be deemed unconstitutional, or that amendments pronounced ratified may be struck down by the courts — this only works if laws made by the legislature are equal to the Constitution, and that is so only in some imaginary world. Ignoring the holding in Coleman, (1939), not to mention the recitation of precedents in LaVergne v. Bryson (2012). What the Supremacy Clause actually states is that any form of Federal law takes precedence over any form of State law, whether the State law be statutory or constitutional. Note that the clause in the 6th Amendment only applied to "judges in every state." Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 3rd Ed., Vol. 1 (2000), pg. 255. In tpaine's court of the imagination, the court and Laurence Tribe are erroneous, along with anyone that does not adopt the absurd notions that flow from his imagination. Everyone in America knows that laws are struck down by the court when they are found to conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution is the paramount law and takes precedence over all other American law. Treaties and federal statutes are equal (but below the Constitution), with the most recently adopted controlling. * * * Treaties, however, cannot violate the Constitution. Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies, 2 Ed., Erwin Chemerinsky, 2002 at 361 This particular idiocy relates to the National Prohibition Cases in 1920, which was several prohibition cases heard together at the SCOTUS level. The question was not before the court to determine the constitutionality of the 18th Amendment. An amendment cannot be unconstitutional. Counsel did not argue the the amendment was unconstitutional, he argued that, due to its content, it was ordinary legislation and not an amendment at all. And, as ordinary legislation, the court had the authority to strike it down, according to this creative argument. Trust tpaine to bloviate endlessly about crap he has not seen or read. On brief: The briefs were ridiculed in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, Vl XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 322. This is the Yale Law Journal, not tpaine's court of the imagination. The argument was characterized in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, V1 XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 333. [...] Mr. Hughes’ brief in the Kentucky Distilleries Case presents the situation even more vigorously: “And what is ‘legislation’ which is thus said to lie outside the scope of the amending power according to the theory presented? Is it that the amendment must not be self-executing? But the obvious answer is that the Thirteenth Amendment is self-executing and it has been so adjudged by this court.... “Is it that the amendment must not directly affect the rights of persons without the intervention of legislation? The Thirteenth Amendment did that, for it made free men out of slaves. “Is it that the amendment must not directly disturb without further legislation vested rights of property? But the Thirteenth Amendment destroyed property in slaves. “The attempt is made to explain in some way that the Thirteenth Amendment, which did all these things, was not legislation. It is impossible then to understand in what sense the term “legislation” is used. For that which establishes a rule of law which, being self-executing, determines without further legislation the rights and status of persons and rights of property manifestly has the direct operation and effect of legislation.” The 18th Amendment was an amendment, not common legislation.
The new, revised and better Declaration of Independence.
I disagree. They shouldn't be stopped at all unless there is PC. We used to be a land where we gave up our lives to protect our freedom. Now we give up our freedom to protect our lives.
You can't. Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can. The Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. I can. Simply with the text of the 4th amendment. I know I don't have to post it for you but I will. I know that you know what it says. It's states in very plain language that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Blanket warrants are unconstitutional and that is exactly what a checkpoint is. I don't care what the SCOTUS says. And the irony here is that you know that I'm right, whether you argue differently or not. We used to be a land where we gave up our lives to protect our freedom. Now we give up our freedom to protect our lives.
The Supreme Court publishes its opinions. They do not make rulings. They are a co-equal branch of the federal government, not the supreme branch. We used to be a land where we gave up our lives to protect our freedom. Now we give up our freedom to protect our lives.
Speaking of knowing that I'm right, where is Yukon these days? We used to be a land where we gave up our lives to protect our freedom. Now we give up our freedom to protect our lives.
Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? Now we're getting somewhere! -- Thanks for your ridicule.. It tells me a lot about your true political agenda.
The same place as harrowup... In 'gatlins' basement with his other cast of characters.
Rent free he lives in your puny mind. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Does this mean that your revised Declaration of Independence has been declared the law of the land by the people of the United States?
He's still lurking he just can't help himself, assholes are that way you know. He probably thinks his neighbor is shooting blue death rays at him (even though he's over a mile away) so he doesn't go out unless it's an emergency, like he's run out of Sterno!! “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
The Supreme Court publishes its opinions. They do not make rulings. Okay, The Supreme Court has "published an opinion" that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. And DUI checkpoints are being run throughout the country....right?
The same place as harrowup... In 'gatlins' basement with his other cast of characters
Hondo:
tater, your obnoxious behaviour is not excusable within this fine publick venue. Moderator X, do your banishment!
Pointing out a REALISTIC physical contortion is not obnoxious behavior....it's a community service, well performed and enlightening.
It is indefensible with your tongue hanging out over your own ass. The publick need not see these sorts of contortionist shenanigans that yukon taught you.
The new, revised and better Declaration of Independence. An amendment to the constitution, made by the people in their sovereign capacity, with the permission and approval of tpaine, to delegate to the government the power to regulate the newfound inalienable right to buy, make, or use guns, may be enacted only in accordance with the new, revised and better Article 5, as enacted by the tpaine court of the imagination. The new, revised and better Article 5: The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment in tpaineworld. Section 1. The second article of amendment is hereby repealed. Section 2. The individual right to keep and bear, buy, make, and use arms is limited to .22 caliber handguns only. Section 3. All non-conforming guns must be surrendered to government authorities or destroyed within 30 days of ratification of this amendment. Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Other than soiling yourself and bleating about it, what is to be done in tpaineworld? Does the Congress pass contrary legislation, telling the people that they have abused their sovereign right to amend their constitution? Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional? Does the Deemer of tpaineworld deem this part of the Constitution null and void? Does the tpaine court of the imagination tell the people that they can't infringe the right to buy, make, and use arms; deemed an unalienable right by the tpaine imaginary revised, new and improved Declaration of Independence.
With a tongue like that he puts Gene Simmons to shame. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I asked you if this means you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? Your last post indicates you think this would be possible, and you even outline such an amendment: --- AMENDMENT 28. Section 1. The second article of amendment is hereby repealed. Section 2. The individual right to keep and bear, buy, make, and use arms is limited to .22 caliber handguns only. Section 3. All non-conforming guns must be surrendered to government authorities or destroyed within 30 days of ratification of this amendment. Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Congress has the power to refuse to fund any efforts to implement the unconstitutional amendment, and to tell the people why. It has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment is unconstitutional.. Dream on that in Nolu Chan's world such an amendment could be valid. It would violate every principle inherent in our constitution, and thus would be null and void from its enactment.
And would be so deemed by the Deemer of tpaine's court of the imagination.
Whatever.
Rent free he lives in your puny mind. lol Awwwww, somewhere along the line I have hurt your feelings. I do apologize. Truth is, I miss the old crank. We used to be a land where we gave up our lives to protect our freedom. Now we give up our freedom to protect our lives.
You didn't hurt nothing of mine. I don't take stuff posted by some here personal. lol I was just making a point, it seems a little odd that some here are still talking about Yukon. He left his mark well. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
He's still lurking he just can't help himself, assholes are that way you know. He probably thinks his neighbor is shooting blue death rays at him (even though he's over a mile away) so he doesn't go out unless it's an emergency, like he's run out of Sterno!! Bwaahaa!! Gotta laugh outta that... ...as I notice WTP's cameo.
"Police Celebrate 4th Of July With Nationwide No Refusal Checkpoints and Forced Blood Draws"
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
Under the pretense of catching drunk drivers, police will be patrolling the streets and setting up checkpoints all over the country this weekend.
#3. To: Fred Mertz (#2)
I thought they were going to be saving/protecting us from terrorists and sharks this weekend.
#4. To: GrandIsland, Fred Mertz (#3)
(Edited)
Unlike your one trick pony, libtard anarchy routine, LE can actually multitask.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
Police Celebrate 4th Of July With Nationwide No Refusal Checkpoints and Forced Blood Draws
#6. To: Gatlin (#5)
#7. To: Gatlin (#5)
#8. To: Deckard (#4)
Cop Kills Man with Patrol Car While Speeding & Looking at Laptop, – No Charges
#9. To: A K A Stone (#7)
Forced blood draws are abhorrent.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#7)
Forced blood draws are abhorrent.
a mother and daughter
is far more horrifically abhorrent:
#11. To: Fred Mertz (#6)
Research shows that for every dollar invested in checkpoints, communities save between $6 and $23 in costs from alcohol-related crashes.
#12. To: Gatlin (#11)
What do you think, Fred?
#13. To: GrandIsland (#8)
Break that down... He:
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#14. To: Fred Mertz (#12)
#15. To: Fred Mertz, Gatlin, misterwhite, GrandIsland (#12)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#16. To: GrandIsland, A K A Stone (#9)
Most states (if not all) require a vehicular fatality or an injury that most likely will result in a fatality to "force" a blood draw... and before the person is held down and a needle is "forced" in his arm, a WARRANT is signed by a judge.
#17. To: Deckard, Fred Mertz, misterwhite, GrandIsland (#15)
#18. To: Deckard (#13)
And you defend this murdering POS cop.
#19. To: Deckard (#13)
(Edited)
#20. To: Gatlin (#16)
Forced blood draws can only be done in felony DUI cases with a search warrant. Forced blood draws are done in only a very small number of cases.
#21. To: GrandIsland (#3)
I thought they were going to be saving/protecting us from terrorists and sharks this weekend.
#22. To: nativist nationalist (#21)
We can feed the terrorists to the sharks. That would be some excellent multitasking.
#23. To: nativist nationalist, GrandIsland (#21)
We can feed the terrorists to the sharks. That would be some excellent multitasking.
#24. To: Liberator (#23)
I'm surprised at you two. A bone could get stuck in the throat of a shark....and they could choke!! #Animal Cruelty
#25. To: Liberator (#23)
I'm surprised at you two. A bone could get stuck in the throat of a shark....and they could choke!! #Animal Cruelty
#26. To: nativist nationalist (#24)
Well, maybe we can borrow Saddam's wood-chipper first. Feet first!
#27. To: GrandIsland (#25)
The only good shark is a dead shark.
#28. To: GrandIsland, Deckard (#18)
More YELLA propaganda…
Meanwhile, in police state USA, it is business as usual.
Punk Rock Libertarians
No way Jose!!!
#29. To: Gatlin (#28)
Only thing in the news are the routine checkpoints conducted each 4th of July. The locations and times of those are published in the local media….always have been.
#30. To: GrandIsland (#29)
How terrible... a police state where the police tell you IN ADVANCE where they will have a check point. lol
#31. To: A K A Stone (#30)
(Edited)
Maybe you honestly think that is the right thing to do. But you can' honestly say it squares with the requirements laid out in the constitution.
#32. To: Gatlin, organized, routine scheduled crime, OK? (#28)
Only thing in the news are the routine checkpoints conducted each 4th of July.
#33. To: hondo68 (#32)
(Edited)
"Checkpoints" are a 4th amendment violation.
#34. To: hondo68 (#32)
Crimes by government officials are no less of a crime either.
#35. To: Gatlin, routine lawlessness, A K A Stone (#33)
PROVE THAT!
#36. To: Gatlin (#33)
(Edited)
Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can.
#37. To: Gatlin, hondo68, A K A Stone (#33)
Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#36)
would really like to know where in the constitution the Supreme Court gets these powers.
#39. To: hondo68 (#35)
PROVE THAT!
Quoting the Fourth Amendment does not prove: "Checkpoints are a 4th amendment violation."
Stone already proved it by quoting the 4th in post #30. Wake UP!
#40. To: A K A Stone (#36)
Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can.
The Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.
I would really like to know where in the constitution the Supreme Court gets these powers. Could you quote it for me? Please?
I'll marry a fag if you can find it for me in the constitution.
Ok I won't marry a fag but you can't because it isn't there.
#41. To: CZ82, nolu chan (#37)
Holding
Police may not conduct roadblocks "whose primary purpose is to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing." Such roadblocks must have a specific primary purpose, such as keeping roadways safe from impaired drivers, or enforcing border security.
#42. To: Gatlin (#39)
(Edited)
It is the Supreme Court’s ruling that is final on the matter.
#43. To: hondo68 (#42)
They've overruled themselves before, and presidents have also openly defied and refused to enforce their rulings.
#44. To: Gatlin (#40)
If SCOTUS doesn’t decide….then who does?
#45. To: hondo68, CZ82 (#41)
President Adams famously said "Mr Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it"
Marshall lived another nine years, during which time he won over Jefferson's political successor, the states' rights partisan Andrew Jackson. Marshall had initially opposed Jackson's election to the presidency, and in the Cherokee Indians case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), Marshall infuriated Jackson by insisting that Georgia laws that purported to seize Cherokee lands on which gold had been found violated federal treaties. Jackson is famous for having responded: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Although the comment is probably apocryphal, both Georgia and Jackson simply ignored the decision.
#46. To: nolu chan (#45)
apocryphal
#47. To: A K A Stone (#44)
If SCOTUS doesn’t decide….then who does?
The constitution and a dictionary.
I know it would require honest people. So all liberals would be disqualified.
Is that what you are saying?
I hope not, because we know who will always win that argument.
#48. To: GrandIsland (#43)
All a president needs is a pen and an Obama phone, eh?
The People of Athens Tennessee clean up their corrupt police department and government The "McMinn County War"
Many of the protesters broke in to the National Guard Armory and obtained arms. A gun battle lasting several hours ensued and finally the door to the jail was dynamited and breached. The deputies surrendered themselves and the ballot boxes.
#49. To: hondo68 (#42)
#50. To: hondo68 (#41)
he supremes gave themselves the power to determine constitutionality of legislation in Marbury v Madison.
#51. To: nolu chan (#45)
The correct president was Andrew Jackson
#52. To: hondo68, Gatlin (#42)
Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final.
#53. To: hondo68 (#51)
SCOTUS rulings are not necessarily "the law".
#54. To: hondo68 (#48)
Many of the protesters broke in to the National Guard Armory and obtained arms. A gun battle lasting several hours ensued and finally the door to the jail was dynamited and breached. The deputies surrendered themselves and the ballot boxes.
The new government encountered challenges including at least eleven resignations of county administrators. On January 4, 1947, four of the five leaders of the GI Non-Partisan League declared in an open letter: "We abolished one machine only to replace it with another and more powerful one in the making." The League failed to establish itself permanently and traditional political parties soon returned to power.
#55. To: A K A Stone (#46)
apocryphal
I had to look in the dictionary for that one.
#56. To: hondo68 (#48)
(Edited)
#57. To: hondo68 (#42)
Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final.
#58. To: Gatlin, needs Acorn update memo (#57)
And when they interpret a statute, then new legislative action can be taken.
#59. To: hondo68 (#58)
(Edited)
#60. To: Gatlin (#59)
Do you know of another way?
#61. To: Gatlin, hondo68 (#57)
Their decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court.
#62. To: hondo68, Gatlin (#58)
The legislature does not require any sort of court action to do their job, which is to legislate.
#63. To: nolu chan (#62)
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#63)
I disagree.
U.S. Supreme Court
#65. To: hondo68 (#60)
(Edited)
When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is nullified and becomes unenforceable. Sometimes Congress quickly rewrites the law to bring it into compliance with the Constitution.
#66. To: nolu chan, hondo68 (#62)
When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is nullified and becomes unenforceable. Sometimes Congress quickly rewrites the law to bring it into compliance with the Constitution.
#67. To: hondo68 (#60)
(Edited)
Direct Action (Cliven Bundy).
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, whose states-rights battle with the government to graze his cattle on public lands thrust him into the national spotlight, will be held accountable for the armed standoff his fight triggered with federal officials, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell says.
#68. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#63)
(Edited)
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...gi?ArtNum=40617&Disp=2#C2
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
#69. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#68)
Stone correctly disagrees. -
#70. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#69)
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
In nolu chans defense. I believe him to be stating the way it is actually working right now. Not what we wish or the way we think it should be. --- A K A Stone
#71. To: tpaine (#68)
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
#72. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#71)
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
In the case of a Constitutional Amendment, it "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress."
Fro the instant an Amendment is declared ratified, it is an integral part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts. The notion that Congress can legislate or SCOTUS can rule any part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional is absurd.
When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says.
The Judicial Branch is not some superfluous body which issues irrelevant opinions for all to ignore
#73. To: tpaine (#72)
Fro[m] the instant an Amendment is declared ratified, it is an integral part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts. The notion that Congress can legislate or SCOTUS can rule any part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional is absurd.
It's absurd to you, granted. But you can't refute the fact of the supremacy clause.
The clause of Art. VI of the U.S. Constitution which declares that all laws made in pursuance of the Constitution and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the "supreme law of the land" and shall enjoy legal superiority over any conflicting provision of a State constitution or law.
SUPREMACY CLAUSE popular title for Article VI, Section [2] of the United States Constitution, which is the main foundation of the federal government's power over the states, providing in effect that the "acts of the Federal Government are operative as supreme law throughout the Union. They are self-executing, since they prescribe rules enforceable in all courts of the land. The states have no power to impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of the laws enacted by the Government of the nation. . . . [T]he full import of the Supremacy Clause was made clear after John Marshall became Chief Justice. In the Marshall interpretation, the clause meant essentially two things: (1) the states may not interfere in any manner with the functioning of the Federal Government; and (2) federal action (whether in the form of a statute, a treaty, a court decision, or an administrative act), if itself constitutional, must prevail over state action inconsistent therewith." Schwarz, Constitutional Law 48 (2d ed. 1979).
The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
#74. To: nolu chan, y'all (#73)
When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says.
#75. To: nolu chan (#73)
#76. To: tpaine (#74)
Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself.
#77. To: tpaine (#74)
ot true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself.
#78. To: A K A Stone (#76)
Mr Chan I believe you should concede that point.
#79. To: A K A Stone (#76)
I'm sure Tpaine also thinks that there should be some check.
#80. To: nolu chan (#77)
When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says.
You can not and never have cited any legal authority that the judiciary can strike down a constitutional amendment or any other part of the Constitution.
Your position continues to be absurd.
#81. To: A K A Stone, tpaine, nolu chan, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#76)
#82. To: tpaine (#80)
When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says.
#83. To: hondo68, A K A Stone, tpaine (#81)
Congress can impeach and remove supreme justices, and also the president.
#84. To: nolu chan (#79)
There is always a check. If the people think the court has erred in constitutional interpretation, they can amend the Constitution to overturn the holding of the Court.
#85. To: nolu chan (#78)
unsupportable legal absurdity.
#86. To: nolu chan (#78)
Mr Chan I believe you should concede that point. No. T
#87. To: nolu chan, hondo68, Y'ALL (#82)
Chan -- When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says.
hondo68 posted at (#42): --- Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final.
This seems to be an argument about terminology. --- Court opinions are considered final when there is no further possibility of judicial proceedings upon the case in the issuing court unless it is reversed or set aside by a higher court. SCOTUS opinions cannot be appealed to a higher court. They are considered final. ---- The holding can always be overturned by a ruling in a subsequent case or by a change in the law it relied upon. ----- That does not change the final opinion in a prior case, but changes the court's interpretation of a legal point, and sets a new precedent. The 13th Amendment did not change the final opinion in Dred Scott but changed the law, invalidating Scott as binding precedent based upon a law that no longer exists. ----- The SCOTUS opinion is final, but the legal issue may be revisited and a new opinion may set a new precedent. The opinion is final but the holding may be challenged in subsequent cases.
#88. To: tpaine, A K A Stone (#87)
Chan -- When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says.
Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself.
#89. To: nolu chan (#88)
Your opinion is supported by nothing at all. Repeating an absurdity over and over makes it no less absurd.
Cite the case where a constitutional amendment has ever been struck down by SCOTUS. Cite the case where SCOTUS has ever claimed such authority.
Cite the case where a SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution has been overturned by congressional legislation.
Cite any recognized legal authority to support your imaginary concept that SCOTUS has struck down a constitutional amendment or claimed the authority to strike down a constitutional amendment. --- Is your source nonexistent or so embarrassing that you refuse to identify it? --- Don't be bashful, cite any recognized legal authority, preferably one that is a lawyer and not a wingnut with a blog.
#90. To: A K A Stone (#86)
Then you should be able to quote from the constitution to make your point.
#91. To: tpaine (#89)
Unable to answer a reasonable question, you repeat your "absurd" allegations, and resume your barracks type lawyer leading questions: --
#92. To: nolu chan, aka stone, Y'ALL (#90)
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
#93. To: nolu chan (#91)
You assume this is absurd but run and hide from citing the source of your absurdities?
(From #52) --- When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
#94. To: tpaine (#92)
#95. To: tpaine (#93)
nolu chan erroneously claims: --
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
(From #52) --- When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
Your quote above, from #52, is not absurd, and I certainly never said it was..
#96. To: nolu chan (#95)
(Edited)
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
hondo68 posted at (#42): --- Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final.
This seems to be an argument about terminology. --- Court opinions are considered final when there is no further possibility of judicial proceedings upon the case in the issuing court unless it is reversed or set aside by a higher court. SCOTUS opinions cannot be appealed to a higher court. They are considered final. ---- The holding can always be overturned by a ruling in a subsequent case or by a change in the law it relied upon. ----- That does not change the final opinion in a prior case, but changes the court's interpretation of a legal point, and sets a new precedent. The 13th Amendment did not change the final opinion in Dred Scott but changed the law, invalidating Scott as binding precedent based upon a law that no longer exists. ----- The SCOTUS opinion is final, but the legal issue may be revisited and a new opinion may set a new precedent. The opinion is final but the holding may be challenged in subsequent cases.
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
#97. To: tpaine (#96)
Which I mistakenly thought was made at #52, seeing that it says 'virtually' the same thing.
nolu chan erroneously claims: --
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
“That the duties assigned to the circuit courts by this act are not of that description, and that the act itself does not appear to contemplate them as such, inasmuch as it subjects the decisions of these courts, made pursuant to those duties, first to the consideration and suspension of the Secretary at War and then to the revision of the legislature, whereas by the Constitution, neither the Secretary at War nor any other Executive officer, nor even the legislature, is authorized to sit as a court of errors on the judicial acts or opinions of this court.”
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions are only rarely altered by constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court.
#98. To: nolu chan (#97)
What is erroneous? The legislature cannot overrule SCOTUS when it rules on a constitutional issue.
#99. To: tpaine (#98)
[tpaine #98] Your opinion, and that of the court, is erroneous.
[nc] Fro[m] the instant an Amendment is declared ratified, it is an integral part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts. The notion that Congress can legislate or SCOTUS can rule any part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional is absurd.
“That the duties assigned to the circuit courts by this act are not of that description, and that the act itself does not appear to contemplate them as such, inasmuch as it subjects the decisions of these courts, made pursuant to those duties, first to the consideration and suspension of the Secretary at War and then to the revision of the legislature, whereas by the Constitution, neither the Secretary at War nor any other Executive officer, nor even the legislature, is authorized to sit as a court of errors on the judicial acts or opinions of this court.”
"[A]ll those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
Quoting from Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. at 177. Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.
5. That amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and given effect the same as other provisions of that instrument.
The language of the Constitution by which this power is granted is too plain to admit of doubt or to need comment. It declares that “this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be passed in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
ARTICLE 3
ARTICLE 6
U.S. Const. Art. 6, Sec. 2 One other provision that expressly relates to federalism is the Supremacy Clause found in Article VI of the Constitution. It declares that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This provision sets up a clearly hierarchical relationship between the federal government and the states. Practically, the effect is that state and local laws are deemed preempted if they conflict with federal law."
As the Supreme Court declared: "[U]nder the Supremacy Clause, from which our pre-emption doctrine is derived, 'any state law, however clearly within a State's acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.'"
The Constitution gives the president the authority, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." These treaties are the law of the land and prevail over all conflicting state laws. If there is a conflict between a treaty and a federal statute, the one adopted last in time controls. The Court has explained that when a statute and a treaty "relate to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either; but if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other."
[Underline added] A related issue is the extent to which Congress, by statute, may increase presidential powers beyond what are found in the Constitution. In Clinton v. City of New York, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a federal statute which created authority for a presidential line-item veto. The statute empowered the president to veto (or more precisely to "cancel") particular parts of appropriation bills while allowing the rest to go into effect. Congress could overturn such a veto by a majority vote of both houses.
Treaties, agreements between the United States and a foreign country that are negotiated by the president and ratified by the Senate, are permitted unless they violate the Constitution. It is firmly established that if there is a conflict between a treaty and a federal statute, the one adopted last in time controls.
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court held § 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The Act was read by Justice Marshall, perhaps erroneously, to enlarge the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the limits defined in Art. III of the Constitution. Since the constitution prescribes the powers delegated by the people to the national govenrment, a congressional act contrary to the Constitution is invalid. The Constitution is supreme over ordinary federal or state law under the Supremacy Clause of Art. VI.
Art. VI provides that all treaties which are made "under the authority of the United States" are the supreme law of the land. They prevail, as do Executive Agreements, over inconsistent state law. Treaties and Executive Agreements are subject to constitutional limitations. Reid v. Covert (1957). Treaties and Acts of Congress are on a par, i.e., the last in time controls. The Chinese Exclusion Case (1889).
On February 24, 1803, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. In the opinion the court held that Marbury had a right to his judicial commission. In so doing the Court found that the executive was subject to certain legal and constitutional restraints that could be enforced by the judiciary.
This clause [The Supremacy Clause] at one time had been interpreted by legal authorities to suggest that treaties were equal to the Constitution. As a consequence the theory developed that said that treaties were not subject to any constitutional limitations.....
Quoting Mr. Justice Field of the Supreme Court in De Geofroy v. Riggs. If there were any remaining doubt on the issue whether there is any outer limit to the treaty-making power, that question was closed resoundingly in Reid v. Covert, where a plurality of the Supreme Court, in holding American civilian dependents of overseas military personnel entitled to civilian trial, stated that neither a treaty nor an executive agreement "can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of government, which is free fom the restraints of the Constitution."
Footnote 18
See also The Cherokee tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 616, 620-21 (1871)(dictum) ("a treaty cannot change the constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument").
#100. To: nolu chan (#99)
(Edited)
[nc] Fro[m] the instant an Amendment is declared ratified, it is an integral part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts. The notion that Congress can legislate or SCOTUS can rule any part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional is absurd.
#101. To: nolu chan (#90)
If that were true, the Constitution would not be a very short framework, it would be a very lengthy legal code.
#102. To: tpaine (#100)
The constitutionality of the new law and the amendment itself were challenged in a series of legal cases that were brought before the US Supreme Court as the National Prohibition Cases (1920).
Section 1 of the Eighteenth Amendment (which alone concerns us at present) it will be noted, is not a delegation of power to be exercised, but a mandate operative by its own terms. If valid, the incorporation of it into the United States Constitution, prohibits the manufacture of, and all dealings in, intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes throughout the United States and all the territory subject to its jurisdiction. For brevity, the transactions thereby prohibited will be hereinafter referred to as the "liquor traffic" or "trafficking in liquors." The prohibition covers both intrastate and interstate business in such beverages.
Thirteen years later, the Twenty-first Amendment was ratified, overturning the Eighteenth Amendment and ending national prohibition in 1933.
“That the duties assigned to the circuit courts by this act are not of that description, and that the act itself does not appear to contemplate them as such, inasmuch as it subjects the decisions of these courts, made pursuant to those duties, first to the consideration and suspension of the Secretary at War and then to the revision of the legislature, whereas by the Constitution, neither the Secretary at War nor any other Executive officer, nor even the legislature, is authorized to sit as a court of errors on the judicial acts or opinions of this court.”
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
Publius
[Alexander Hamilton] But perhaps the force of the objection may be thought to consist in the particular organization of the Supreme Court; in its being composed of a distinct body of magistrates, instead of being one of the branches of the legislature, as in the government of Great Britain and that of the State. To insist upon this point, the authors of the objection must renounce the meaning they have labored to annex to the celebrated maxim, requiring a separation of the departments of power. It shall, nevertheless, be conceded to them, agreeably to the interpretation given to that maxim in the course of these papers, that it is not violated by vesting the ultimate power of judging in a PART of the legislative body. But though this be not an absolute violation of that excellent rule, yet it verges so nearly upon it, as on this account alone to be less eligible than the mode preferred by the convention. From a body which had even a partial agency in passing bad laws, we could rarely expect a disposition to temper and moderate them in the application. The same spirit which had operated in making them, would be too apt in interpreting them; still less could it be expected that men who had infringed the Constitution in the character of legislators, would be disposed to repair the breach in the character of judges. Nor is this all. Every reason which recommends the tenure of good behavior for judicial offices, militates against placing the judiciary power, in the last resort, in a body composed of men chosen for a limited period. There is an absurdity in referring the determination of causes, in the first instance, to judges of permanent standing; in the last, to those of a temporary and mutable constitution. And there is a still greater absurdity in subjecting the decisions of men, selected for their knowledge of the laws, acquired by long and laborious study, to the revision and control of men who, for want of the same advantage, cannot but be deficient in that knowledge. The members of the legislature will rarely be chosen with a view to those qualifications which fit men for the stations of judges; and as, on this account, there will be great reason to apprehend all the ill consequences of defective information, so, on account of the natural propensity of such bodies to party divisions, there will be no less reason to fear that the pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice. The habit of being continually marshalled on opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity.
#103. To: A K A Stone (#101)
[nc #78] The assertion that a constitutional amendment, or any part of the Constitution, can be struck down by the judiciary, or that anyone is free to legally ignore any part of the Constitution, continues to be an unsupportable legal absurdity.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority....
U.S. Supreme Court
#104. To: nolu chan (#102)
nc] Fro[m] the instant an Amendment is declared ratified, it is an integral part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts. The notion that Congress can legislate or SCOTUS can rule any part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional is absurd.
The constitutionality of the new law and the amendment itself were challenged in a series of legal cases that were brought before the US Supreme Court as the National Prohibition Cases (1920).
The challenge was rejected. You might mention that part.
Citing a failed desperate grope argument of counsel, thumpingly rejected by the court, is not quite like citing legal precedent, or an approving recognized legal text. In this case, a brewery owner was desperate to stop prohibition from going into effect.
#105. To: nolu chan, aka stone, Y'ALL (#103)
The constitutionality of the new law and the amendment itself were challenged in a series of legal cases that were brought before the US Supreme Court as the National Prohibition Cases (1920).
#106. To: tpaine (#105)
Nevertheless, the case was heard, making the scotus of the day 'absurd', according to Chan...
The briefs presented against the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment are addressed more to what the opposing interests thought ought to be, than to any issues which may properly be termed legal in character. When read, these briefs in many cases seem to be arguments of counsel who were employed to find arguments, and must, therefore, do so, even though they knew the arguments to be untenable. The most effective statements presented to the Court were those submitted in behalf of a number of states as amici curiae, in the cases of Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Co. v. Gregory and Rhode Island v. Palmer. These briefs bear the name of Mr. Charles E. Hughes.
By the Thirteenth Amendment the right of an individual to buy, sell, possess, transport and use another human being was absolutely prohibited. By substituting “slavery” of the Thirteenth Amendment, for “intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes” of the Eighteenth Amendment, we have in legal effect the same kind of mandatory prohibition. Every argument advanced here to deny the power to incorporate the Eighteenth Amendment into the Constitution could be applied equally against the power to ordain the Thirteenth Amendment.
Another argument based upon the word "amendment" is that presented by the appellant's brief in the Feigenspan Case. Here counsel argued that the Eighteenth Amendment is in effect legislation, in that it lays down a rule operative upon the states and upon individuals without the necessity for congressional legislation, and that such an amendment, being legislation, is not within the express power conferred upon Congress by Article 5 of the Constitution. It will be well to quote the language of the brief, which bears Mr. Root's name:
“Our contention is not for a further exception to the power granted; it is that the grant itself does not include the power of ordinary legislation. This is no more affected by the fact that there are express exceptions to the power which was granted than would be the proposition that the grant of the Fifth Article does not include the judicial power or power to command the army and navy.”34
#107. To: tpaine (#104)
[nc] Fro[m] the instant an Amendment is declared ratified, it is an integral part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts. The notion that Congress can legislate or SCOTUS can rule any part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional is absurd.
The quote below proves that the SCOTUS heard and considered the constitutionality of the new amendment.. -- Your opinion is wrong...
holding that the official notice to the Secretary of State, duly authenticated, of the action of the legislatures of the States, whose alleged ratifications were assailed, was conclusive upon the Secretary of State, and that his proclamation accordingly of ratification was conclusive upon the courts, we affirmed the judgment of the state court.
Another argument based upon the word "amendment" is that presented by the appellant's brief in the Feigenspan Case. Here counsel argued that the Eighteenth Amendment is in effect legislation, in that it lays down a rule operative upon the states and upon individuals without the necessity for congressional legislation, and that such an amendment, being legislation, is not within the express power conferred upon Congress by Article 5 of the Constitution. It will be well to quote the language of the brief, which bears Mr. Root's name:
“Our contention is not for a further exception to the power granted; it is that the grant itself does not include the power of ordinary legislation. This is no more affected by the fact that there are express exceptions to the power which was granted than would be the proposition that the grant of the Fifth Article does not include the judicial power or power to command the army and navy.”34
#108. To: nolu chan (#107)
It (SCOTUS) can never have a case, under the Constitution, to abolish a part of the Constitution. --- chan
The constitutionality of the new law and the amendment itself were challenged in a series of legal cases that were brought before the US Supreme Court as the National Prohibition Cases (1920).
No. It is unfortunate that you do not read or understand the court decisions you spout about. --- The Court did not hear an argument about whether the Amendment was constitutional. It heard an argument about whether the Amendment was a piece of ordinary legislation and not an Amendment under the amendment making power conferred by Amendment 5.
You are one of the few who argues the absurd losing argument make their own argument less absurd, and without bothering to read and absurd the losing argument.
#109. To: tpaine (#108)
#110. To: A K A Stone (#109)
I've only caught bits and pieces.
I would think that if an amendment is lawully passed. It can't be ruled unconstitutional.
#111. To: A K A Stone, tpaine (#109)
I've only caught bits and pieces.
holding that the official notice to the Secretary of State, duly authenticated, of the action of the legislatures of the States, whose alleged ratifications were assailed, was conclusive upon the Secretary of State, and that his proclamation accordingly of ratification was conclusive upon the courts, we affirmed the judgment of the state court.
#112. To: tpaine, A K A Stone (#108)
Nevertheless, the case was heard, making the scotus of the day 'absurd', according to Chan...
The briefs presented against the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment are addressed more to what the opposing interests thought ought to be, than to any issues which may properly be termed legal in character. When read, these briefs in many cases seem to be arguments of counsel who were employed to find arguments, and must, therefore, do so, even though they knew the arguments to be untenable. The most effective statements presented to the Court were those submitted in behalf of a number of states as amici curiae, in the cases of Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Co. v. Gregory and Rhode Island v. Palmer. These briefs bear the name of Mr. Charles E. Hughes.
By the Thirteenth Amendment the right of an individual to buy, sell, possess, transport and use another human being was absolutely prohibited. By substituting “slavery” of the Thirteenth Amendment, for “intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes” of the Eighteenth Amendment, we have in legal effect the same kind of mandatory prohibition. Every argument advanced here to deny the power to incorporate the Eighteenth Amendment into the Constitution could be applied equally against the power to ordain the Thirteenth Amendment.
Another argument based upon the word "amendment" is that presented by the appellant's brief in the Feigenspan Case. Here counsel argued that the Eighteenth Amendment is in effect legislation, in that it lays down a rule operative upon the states and upon individuals without the necessity for congressional legislation, and that such an amendment, being legislation, is not within the express power conferred upon Congress by Article 5 of the Constitution. It will be well to quote the language of the brief, which bears Mr. Root's name:
“Our contention is not for a further exception to the power granted; it is that the grant itself does not include the power of ordinary legislation. This is no more affected by the fact that there are express exceptions to the power which was granted than would be the proposition that the grant of the Fifth Article does not include the judicial power or power to command the army and navy.”34
#113. To: nolu chan (#112)
I am not the one citing the losing argument of attorney in a futile legal case as authority. The argument that you forgot to read is, indeed, absurd. Charles Evans Hughes demonstrated that it was absurd. Root for plaintiff argued that the ratified amendment was a piece of ordinary legislation and did not fall under the authority granted by Article V. Root's absurdity was nicely covered in the Yale Law Journal in 1921 which I have shown you before but which beares repeating if you are to make believe that the massacred argument of Elihu Root makes your babble any less absurd.
#114. To: tpaine (#113)
Root made an argument before the SCOTUS that,
#115. To: tpaine (#113)
Your opinion, and that of the court, is erroneous.
amendments to the constitution can be deemed unconstitutional.
holding that the official notice to the Secretary of State, duly authenticated, of the action of the legislatures of the States, whose alleged ratifications were assailed, was conclusive upon the Secretary of State, and that his proclamation accordingly of ratification was conclusive upon the courts, we affirmed the judgment of the state court.
LaVergne’s claims also fail on other grounds, including lack of justiciability. LaVergne’s constitutional challenge to § 2a is primarily based on his argument that the apportionment method violates Article the First. He alleges that this proposed constitutional amendment was ratified by the states in November 1791 or June 1792. Putting aside the considerable factual and historical problems with his argument, “[t]he issue of whether a constitutional amendment has been properly ratified is a political question.” United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146, 1990 WL 186103 (table), at *3 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (citing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 450 (1939)). In Coleman, the Supreme Court held that “the question of the efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures . . . should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment.” 307 U.S. at 450. See also Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 39 (1849) (holding that “the political department has always determined whether the proposed constitution or amendment was ratified or not by the people of the State, and the judicial power has followed its decision”); United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 463 n.6 (7th Cir. 1986) (holding that the issue of “the validity of an amendment’s ratification [is] a non-justiciable political question” and citing, among other cases, Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922), and Coleman, 307 U.S. at 450).
SCOTUS opinions apply to the case at hand and are given due consideration by the other branches of govt, and by the people.
But you can't refute the fact of the supremacy clause.
Legislation (or amendments) passed contrary to the constitution, are null and void.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Read narrowly, the Supremacy Clause binds only state judges. But other provisions of the Constitution, most notably the Fourteenth Amendment, directly constrain the action of all state officials, often without regard to whether state courts have ruled on the validity of those officials' acts; moreover, Article VI declares that "the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers . . . of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. ... " Accordingly, the Court has not limited to state judges its demand for compliance with the federal Constitution. In Cooper v. Aaron, a school desegregation case decided against the background of Governor Faubus's resistance to the desegregation of public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Supreme Court asserted what is probably its broadest definition of its own power: "Marbury v. Madison ... declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land.... Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath ... 'to support this Constitution.'"
Treaties, agreements between the United States and a foreign country that are negotiated by the president and ratified by the Senate, are permitted unless they violate the Constitution. It is firmly established that if there is a conflict between a treaty and a federal statute, the one adopted last in time controls.
The quote below proves that the SCOTUS heard and considered the constitutionality of the new amendment.. -- Your opinion is wrong...
In this respect a constitutional amendment granting to the government power to prohibit intoxicants would be quite different from an attempted amendment itself directly declaring the prohibition of intoxicants. The former would merely add to the powers of government and would, therefore, in this regard at least, be a proper form of constitutional amendment; while the latter in its essence neither would add nor withdraw powers of government, but would be direct legislation. The Eighteenth Amendment is, therefore, in substance and effect a statute, not a constitutional provision akin to any in the federal Constitution.
The briefs presented against the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment are addressed more to what the opposing interests thought ought to be, than to any issues which may properly be termed legal in character. When read, these briefs in many cases seem to be arguments of counsel who were employed to find arguments, and must, therefore, do so, even though they knew the arguments to be untenable. The most effective statements presented to the Court were those submitted in behalf of a number of states as amici curiae, in the cases of Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Co. v. Gregory and Rhode Island v. Palmer. These briefs bear the name of Mr. Charles E. Hughes.
This argument might be termed somewhat ridiculous, had it not appeared under the distinguished name of Mr. Elihu Root.
#116. To: nolu chan (#114)
Root made an argument before the SCOTUS that, L-O-S-T.
It was found to have no merit. Like your nonsense.
I am not the one citing the losing argument of attorney in a futile legal case as authority. The argument that you forgot to read is, indeed, absurd. Charles Evans Hughes demonstrated that it was absurd. Root for plaintiff argued that the ratified amendment was a piece of ordinary legislation and did not fall under the authority granted by Article V. Root's absurdity was nicely covered in the Yale Law Journal in 1921 which I have shown you before but which beares repeating if you are to make believe that the massacred argument of Elihu Root makes your babble any less absurd.
#117. To: tpaine (#116)
Root made an argument before the SCOTUS that, among others, the prohibition amendment was unconstitutional because, in effect, it is absurd to contend that people can amend away their, or others, inalienable rights to buy, make, or drink alcohol..
Your opinion, and that of the court, is erroneous.
amendments to the constitution can be deemed unconstitutional.
holding that the official notice to the Secretary of State, duly authenticated, of the action of the legislatures of the States, whose alleged ratifications were assailed, was conclusive upon the Secretary of State, and that his proclamation accordingly of ratification was conclusive upon the courts, we affirmed the judgment of the state court.
LaVergne’s claims also fail on other grounds, including lack of justiciability. LaVergne’s constitutional challenge to § 2a is primarily based on his argument that the apportionment method violates Article the First. He alleges that this proposed constitutional amendment was ratified by the states in November 1791 or June 1792. Putting aside the considerable factual and historical problems with his argument, “[t]he issue of whether a constitutional amendment has been properly ratified is a political question.” United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146, 1990 WL 186103 (table), at *3 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (citing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 450 (1939)). In Coleman, the Supreme Court held that “the question of the efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures . . . should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment.” 307 U.S. at 450. See also Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 39 (1849) (holding that “the political department has always determined whether the proposed constitution or amendment was ratified or not by the people of the State, and the judicial power has followed its decision”); United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 463 n.6 (7th Cir. 1986) (holding that the issue of “the validity of an amendment’s ratification [is] a non-justiciable political question” and citing, among other cases, Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922), and Coleman, 307 U.S. at 450).
SCOTUS opinions apply to the case at hand and are given due consideration by the other branches of govt, and by the people.
But you can't refute the fact of the supremacy clause.
Legislation (or amendments) passed contrary to the constitution, are null and void.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Read narrowly, the Supremacy Clause binds only state judges. But other provisions of the Constitution, most notably the Fourteenth Amendment, directly constrain the action of all state officials, often without regard to whether state courts have ruled on the validity of those officials' acts; moreover, Article VI declares that "the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers . . . of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. ... " Accordingly, the Court has not limited to state judges its demand for compliance with the federal Constitution. In Cooper v. Aaron, a school desegregation case decided against the background of Governor Faubus's resistance to the desegregation of public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Supreme Court asserted what is probably its broadest definition of its own power: "Marbury v. Madison ... declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land.... Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath ... 'to support this Constitution.'"
Treaties, agreements between the United States and a foreign country that are negotiated by the president and ratified by the Senate, are permitted unless they violate the Constitution. It is firmly established that if there is a conflict between a treaty and a federal statute, the one adopted last in time controls.
The quote below proves that the SCOTUS heard and considered the constitutionality of the new amendment.. -- Your opinion is wrong...
In this respect a constitutional amendment granting to the government power to prohibit intoxicants would be quite different from an attempted amendment itself directly declaring the prohibition of intoxicants. The former would merely add to the powers of government and would, therefore, in this regard at least, be a proper form of constitutional amendment; while the latter in its essence neither would add nor withdraw powers of government, but would be direct legislation. The Eighteenth Amendment is, therefore, in substance and effect a statute, not a constitutional provision akin to any in the federal Constitution.
The briefs presented against the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment are addressed more to what the opposing interests thought ought to be, than to any issues which may properly be termed legal in character. When read, these briefs in many cases seem to be arguments of counsel who were employed to find arguments, and must, therefore, do so, even though they knew the arguments to be untenable. The most effective statements presented to the Court were those submitted in behalf of a number of states as amici curiae, in the cases of Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Co. v. Gregory and Rhode Island v. Palmer. These briefs bear the name of Mr. Charles E. Hughes.
This argument might be termed somewhat ridiculous, had it not appeared under the distinguished name of Mr. Elihu Root.
#118. To: tpaine (#113)
Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and to buy, make, or use guns.
#119. To: GrandIsland (#31)
I don't believe stopping for 3 seconds on a public funded roadway and then driving though is unreasonable. They are only stopped longer and more intrusive if there is PC they are committing a crime.
#120. To: Gatlin (#33)
(Edited)
To: hondo68 "Checkpoints" are a 4th amendment violation. PROVE THAT!
#121. To: Gatlin (#33)
(Edited)
The Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.
#122. To: Gatlin (#33)
And the irony here is that you know that I'm right, whether you argue differently or not.
#123. To: nolu chan, -- ridicules our right to keep and bear arms (#118)
The new, revised and better Declaration of Independence. ---- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and to buy, make, or use guns.
#124. To: We The People, gatlin, Y'ALL (#122)
--- where is Yukon these days?
#125. To: We The People (#122)
where is Yukon these days?
#126. To: tpaine (#123)
Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?
#127. To: We The People, Liberator, Gay Canary Posse (#122)
Speaking of knowing that I'm right, where is Yukon these days?
#128. To: We The People (#121)
(Edited)
The Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.
#129. To: tpaine, CZ82, We The People, tater, gatlin, FireIsland, yukon, Percy Muslimtoad, scoflaw cops, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#124)
#130. To: hondo68 (#129)
#131. To: Gatlin, Moderator X (#130)
#132. To: buckeroo, Moderator X (#131)
(Edited)
tater, your obnoxious behaviour
#133. To: Gatlin, Moderator X (#132)
#134. To: tpaine (#123)
Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and to buy, make, or use guns.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that the amendment may be considered common legislation; and provided further that tpaine approves the content; and provided further that the amendment may be deemed unconstitutional; and provided further that the courts may strike down the amendment; and provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
AMENDMENT 28.
#135. To: buckeroo (#133)
It is indefensible with your tongue hanging out over your own ass.
#136. To: nolu chan, proposes an amendment to repeal the 2nd !! (#134)
The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment in Nolu Chan's world.
Other than soiling yourself and bleating about it, what is to be done in tpaineworld? --- Does the Congress pass contrary legislation, telling the people that they have abused their sovereign right to amend their constitution?
Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional?
Does the Deemer of tpaineworld deem this part of the Constitution null and void? ----- Does the tpaine court of the imagination tell the people that they can't infringe the right to buy, make, and use arms; deemed an unalienable right by the tpaine imaginary revised, new and improved Declaration of Independence.
#137. To: tpaine (#136)
It would violate every principle inherent in our constitution, and thus would be null and void from its enactment.
#138. To: nolu chan (#137)
#139. To: GrandIsland (#125)
where is Yukon these days?
#140. To: We The People (#139)
#141. To: CZ82, We The People, Gay Canary Posse (#127)
Speaking of knowing that I'm right, where is Yukon these days?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]