The Founding Fathers Warned Us About the Powers of the Supreme Court
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
When a decision like this comes down in the highest court it usually spells the end
of the conversation and the old laws are rendered obsolete life goes on the court
determines what is just and the law makers are subject to looking after the affairs
of all citizens. Justice branch is a safeguard against injustice and it appears it did
work.
of the conversation and the old laws are rendered obsolete life goes on the court
determines what is just and the law makers are subject to looking after the affairs
of all citizens. Justice branch is a safeguard against injustice and it appears it did
work.
up to just a few months ago the right wingers heaped tons of praise on the Supreme Court - all of a sudden, they have changed their minds
Supreme court decisions are not a majority of one either.
Anyway the point that I was making about juries was the ability for the average citizen to put aside their personal beliefs and make a decision based on the evidence before them. A system which I have heard lauded in many circles as actually working quite well. Yet your position seems to be that Justices, professionals within the law, are incapable of doing that same thing?
That's fine, I get that. But the system is still built upon it. The bones are still there.
Also, from what I'm reading your position is that you don't think banning SSM (although you personally think it should not be banned) but you don't think banning it is unconstitutional. Is that right?
No, it is not. The Supreme Court decision can be overturned by the Supreme Court itself, by a Constitutional Amendment or if they overturned a law in Congress, Congress can amend the law..
So, how do we "rein in an out-of-control Supreme Court?"
1. Impeachment (Justice Chase in 1805).
2. Simple refusal to enforce the Court's rulings (Andrew Jackson and the Tsa-La-Gi).
3. "Packing the court," or threatening to do so, as FDR did. The Constitution is silent as to the number of justices, so there's no reason FDR (or Obama) couldn't appoint half a dozen more. This, of course, would be subject to Senate confirmation.
Some ways that might work, but haven't been tried:
1. Defund the Court. That lies within the power of Congress. The Constitution requires the justices' compensation to not be reduced during their terms in office, but Congress could take away their budget for clerks, offices, electricity, &c.
2. Have the Court expel an unacceptable justice. The Constitution only says that justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." It doesn't define "good Behaviour." The Court has ruled that it is a co-equal branch of government, and neither the Congress nor the President can tell it what to do, and that it has the power to make its own rules. But what rules? What happens if a justice goes ga-ga (perhaps with Alzheimer's) and refuses to step down? Can the Court unseat him, or must he be impeached? If impeached, does going nuts constitute "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?"
1. Impeachment (Justice Chase in 1805).
2. Simple refusal to enforce the Court's rulings (Andrew Jackson and the Tsa-La-Gi).
3. "Packing the court," or threatening to do so, as FDR did. The Constitution is silent as to the number of justices, so there's no reason FDR (or Obama) couldn't appoint half a dozen more. This, of course, would be subject to Senate confirmation.
Some ways that might work, but haven't been tried:
1. Defund the Court. That lies within the power of Congress. The Constitution requires the justices' compensation to not be reduced during their terms in office, but Congress could take away their budget for clerks, offices, electricity, &c.
2. Have the Court expel an unacceptable justice. The Constitution only says that justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." It doesn't define "good Behaviour." The Court has ruled that it is a co-equal branch of government, and neither the Congress nor the President can tell it what to do, and that it has the power to make its own rules. But what rules? What happens if a justice goes ga-ga (perhaps with Alzheimer's) and refuses to step down? Can the Court unseat him, or must he be impeached? If impeached, does going nuts constitute "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?"
You're pretty much saying the same thing. Eagle meant "final as to the current dispute," and he's correct. You are correct in the ways the will of the Court can be thwarted. I've listed a few others, too.
Ban, prohibition, choose whichever word you want. Brass tacks, the state (or some of them) enacted legislation that disallowed or prohibited a specific set of circumstances (marriage between persons of the same gender) from being recognized under the law. If your position is that doing so is not unconstitutional, then I guess the question I have is, how is this constitutional?
To be fair, I am no where near as familiar with the US Bill of Rights and Constitution as the Canadian Charter. But for the most part I work on the assumption that the spirit and intent is not all that different, in a nutshell it is to ensure that laws passed are equitable and fair. On that basis, laws enacted specifically outlawing SSM that are challenged (and everyone has the right to challenge laws, that's what the court system is for), the litmus test has to be the supreme law of the land, which is the constitution.
It's a simple question to put before the courts (does this law meet the standards set out within the constitution) but of course it can be incredibly complex to provide an answer.
You've stumbled on one of the burning philosphical divides in the U.S. Many people believe that the Constitution is a document of limitation: the Federal government can only do or forbid that which it is specifically authorized to do or forbid by the text of the Constitution. For such people, and even for most who take a more expansive view of the Constitution, the answer to your question would be "Anything not explicitly forbidden or required by the Constitution is Constitutional by default."
The antis have several valid arguments. Probably the most pertinent is that marriage, and the qualifications therefor, have always been a state issue. So much so that the Federal government does not marry people, but only recognizes marriages performed by other jurisdictions.
Okay, well, people can have whatever belief they want to but what has history shown it to be?
But doesn't it specifically state that no law at either State or Federal level can be passed that contravenes the constitution?
A mixed bag. For example, the Constitution limits the Federal government's involvement in commerce to interstate and international commerce only. Many argue that commerce that is entirely within a state is beyond the power of the Federal government to regulate. In Garcia v. the San Antonio Metropolitian Transit Authority (SAMTA), however, the Supreme Court ruled that the hiring practices of SAMTA, which did not reach beyond Texas (it's hundreds of kilometers from San Antonio to the nearest state border) affected employment beyond the borders of Texas, and therefore could be Federally regulated. Similarly, the Court ruled that marijuana planted, grown, harvested, processed, packaged, sold, bought, and used completely within the borders of California are subject to Federal laws on the sole grounds that such commerce affects the black-market price of marijuana outside California, thus making it interstate. Interestingly, the same justice who wrote that opinion (Scalia) held in another case that the Federal "no-guns-within-1000-feet-of-a-school law was unConstitutional because it did not affect interstate or international commerce.
Go figure.
Yes, in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. However, the Constitution by its own terms limits the subject matter upon which the Federal government can legislate. Further, there is a judicial rule of construction that says that courts are to interpret state laws and Federal laws so that they do not conflict, if possible.
The Constitution is a very, VERY general document. And it was written in 1787, and clearly didn't anticipate things like telecommunications, air travel, and suchlike. Interpreting its application to modern laws and regulations is quite a challenge. I personally think the current Court is excessively politicized, and the last justice who truly applied law and logic regardless of the outcome was David Souter. But such is the nature of the beast. Get three people together and they'll be politicking in one way or another within five minutes.
In my one law class in college that I took the Professor (a judge) told us something that I thought interesting.
A case can be brought to the Supreme Court but that does not mean the justices will rule on it. They can deny to hear it and the lower court ruling stands. However each justice has a staff and at times they are told to search for a case that has been sent to the Supreme Court that the justice would like the whole SJC to give a ruling on. An oral argument is given and then the justices vote on if it will go before them for a ruling.
That is the best I could remember on it but it is close enough for our forum.
A case can be brought to the Supreme Court but that does not mean the justices will rule on it. They can deny to hear it and the lower court ruling stands. However each justice has a staff and at times they are told to search for a case that has been sent to the Supreme Court that the justice would like the whole SJC to give a ruling on. An oral argument is given and then the justices vote on if it will go before them for a ruling.
That is the best I could remember on it but it is close enough for our forum.
It seems to me because the justices are appointed by the politicians they all have a ideological bent depending on which party appoints them. The ideal world 9 completely independent unbiased people would interpret the laws and constitution and determine if the law had merit or not and would likely come up with 9-0 votes one way or the other. But these people are human and ideologues so that doesn't happen.
But in this case, I find it hard to believe that the constitution would explicitly forbid gays from marrying. While it might not have been even thought of in 1776, the spirit of it would seem to have allowed it.
This was a 5-4 decision (majority of 1). Jury would have required unanimity. But if they could not reach a verdict, a mistrial is declared and a new jury is selected. Would this work with the Supreme Court? I think it would turn into a political circus very quickly.
That's correct. The Supreme Court receives about 7000 petitions for certiorari per year, and hears about 80 cases, deciding another 50 without hearing.
Essentially correct. Each justice brings a list of the cases she wants to hear, and the Court basically votes on which ones they'll hear.However each justice has a staff and at times they are told to search for a case that has been sent to the Supreme Court that the justice would like the whole SJC to give a ruling on. An oral argument is given and then the justices vote on if it will go before them for a ruling.
That is the best I could remember on it but it is close enough for our forum.
It is the only Federal court that can pick and choose.
I don't think you could find nine "completely independent unbiased people." And the justices are nominated by the President, but must be confirmed by the Senate, so you will generally only get a partisan justice when the same party holds the Presidency and a majority in the Senate.
It doesn't explicitly prohibit gay marriage. The Constitutional provision in question was the Fourteenth Amendment, which states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The argument was that marriage is such a "privilege" and is part of the "protection of the laws," and therefore cannot be denied to people based on homosexuality.
The Supreme Court is an appellate court. It does not hear or decide evidence, it rules on matters of the law only. It's a different system from trial courts. Juries decide facts, judges decide the law.
Last edited:
In my one law class in college that I took the Professor (a judge) told us something that I thought interesting.
A case can be brought to the Supreme Court but that does not mean the justices will rule on it. They can deny to hear it and the lower court ruling stands. However each justice has a staff and at times they are told to search for a case that has been sent to the Supreme Court that the justice would like the whole SJC to give a ruling on. An oral argument is given and then the justices vote on if it will go before them for a ruling.
That is the best I could remember on it but it is close enough for our forum.
Does that necessarily make it less authentically a constitutional issue though, just because they do that? I get that politics influences and maybe I'm just really good at compartmentalizing or something, but I just don't see why people trained to perform a task to certain standard aren't able to do so simply because it's a big or controversial issue.
Because the GAY AGENDA forced them to. They've been playing the long game, slowing chipping away all social order and tradition. It all began when Anne Boleyn wanted to marry her toaster. She seduced Henry VIII so that he would begin the process of destroying the sanctity of marriage. The GAY AGENDA grew from there and during the writing of the US constitution, manipulated the founding fathers to create the Supreme Court knowing some day it would result in the further erosion of marriage. Same-sex marriage isn't the end. We still can't marry toasters. You just wait and see how the GAY AGENDA unfolds. Anne Boleyn's dream will be reality. HAIL SATAN.
http://www.thefix.com/content/who-were-drunkest-founding-fathers-july-4th7789
Contrary to those familiar subdued oil paintings that depict the signing of the Constitution, the birth of our country was far from a sober affair. In fact, records reveal, in the days before the Founding Fathers signed the document in 1787, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention found themselves at a Philadelphia tavern—where, for lack of a better phrase, they partied their asses off. The bar tab included: "54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, eight of whiskey, 22 of porter, eight of hard cider, 12 of beer and seven bowls of alcoholic punch."
best heard by drunk people I think:
Contrary to those familiar subdued oil paintings that depict the signing of the Constitution, the birth of our country was far from a sober affair. In fact, records reveal, in the days before the Founding Fathers signed the document in 1787, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention found themselves at a Philadelphia tavern—where, for lack of a better phrase, they partied their asses off. The bar tab included: "54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, eight of whiskey, 22 of porter, eight of hard cider, 12 of beer and seven bowls of alcoholic punch."
best heard by drunk people I think: