Earlier this week, Newt Gingrich stated that he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with constitutional prerogatives of the executive office. This is nothing new. Past presidents and states have openly defied rulings by rogue courts. During the “Biddle’s Bank” controversy, SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Bank of United States, citing the “supremacy clause” in the landmark case: McColluch v. Maryland.The states ignored the ruling. Ohio imposed a $50,000-per-year-tax on each of the two branches in the state. The BUS refused to pay. Ohio sent its tax auditor to collect the money. The bank’s management wouldn’t comply, so the auditor leaped over the counter and helped himself. Needless to say, the BUS filed a federal lawsuit. The Ohio state legislature flipped the finger at the federal government with the following declaration:
We are aware of the doctrine, that the Federal courts are exclusively vested with jurisdiction to declare, in the last resort, the true interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. To this doctrine…we can never give our assent.
President Andrew Jackson also offered his opinion on the Supreme Court’s decision on BUS:
To this conclusion I cannon assent…Congress and the President as well as the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. It is as much of the duty of the House of the Representatives, of the Senate, and the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented…The opinion of the [Supreme Court] justices has no authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive…but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.
We have a long history of casting a suspect eye on centralized power. During the ratification process of the U.S. Constitution, the anti-federalist was suspicious of the unchecked powers of the Supreme Court. The pseudonymous author Brutus summed it up best:
They will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort. The legislature must be controuled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controulable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other.
The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: — I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.
That the judicial power of the United States, will lean strongly in favour of the general government, and will give such an explanation to the constitution, as will favour an extension of its jurisdiction, is very evident from a variety of considerations.
How prescient is that? Anytime I hear someone quote Hamilton’s federalist #78, I counter with Brutus’s anti-federalist #11.
Our Constitution was almost not ratified, because of concerns that an all-powerful federal government would subvert the self-governance of the states. That’s why our founding fathers ratified the Bill of Rights. And in the landmark case Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court reconfirmed that the first eight amendments applied only to the federal government and not the states.
The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Barron had no claim against the state under the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The Court asserted that the Constitution was created "by the people of the United States" to apply only to the government that the Constitution had created -- the federal government -- and "not for the government of the individual states." The separate states had drafted constitutions only to apply to themselves, limiting the actions of only state governments. Thus, "the Fifth Amendment must be understood as restricting the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states." The Court argued that the validity of this conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Constitution nowhere states that the Bill of Rights also limits the actions of state governments, Thus, the state of Maryland, through the actions of the city of Baltimore, did not infringe on the Constitution. With no federal claim, the Supreme Court thus lacked jurisdiction (or power) to hear Barron's case and dismissed it.
That all changed after the progressives bastardized the 14th Amendment. The amendment was designed to ensure that ex-slaves and their progeny were afforded equal protection and due process under individual STATE LAWS, not an all-encompassing federal government. This bastardization has resulted in a federal government tyranny; and its being perpetuated by a judicial oligarchy.
And I remind everyone, that the 10th Amendment has never been repealed.
I disagree with Newt Gingrich on summoning justices to Congress to answer for their decisions. If you want to take power away from federal judges and the general government, then we need to repeal the 14th Amendment.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-judges-20111217,0,1295899.story
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_barron.html
http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution---Americans/dp/0307382850/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324523222&sr=1-1
We have a long history of casting a suspect eye on centralized power. During the ratification process of the U.S. Constitution, the anti-federalist was suspicious of the unchecked powers of the Supreme Court. The pseudonymous author Brutus summed it up best:
They will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort. The legislature must be controuled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controulable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other.
The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: — I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.
That the judicial power of the United States, will lean strongly in favour of the general government, and will give such an explanation to the constitution, as will favour an extension of its jurisdiction, is very evident from a variety of considerations.
How prescient is that? Anytime I hear someone quote Hamilton’s federalist #78, I counter with Brutus’s anti-federalist #11.
Our Constitution was almost not ratified, because of concerns that an all-powerful federal government would subvert the self-governance of the states. That’s why our founding fathers ratified the Bill of Rights. And in the landmark case Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court reconfirmed that the first eight amendments applied only to the federal government and not the states.
The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Barron had no claim against the state under the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The Court asserted that the Constitution was created "by the people of the United States" to apply only to the government that the Constitution had created -- the federal government -- and "not for the government of the individual states." The separate states had drafted constitutions only to apply to themselves, limiting the actions of only state governments. Thus, "the Fifth Amendment must be understood as restricting the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states." The Court argued that the validity of this conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Constitution nowhere states that the Bill of Rights also limits the actions of state governments, Thus, the state of Maryland, through the actions of the city of Baltimore, did not infringe on the Constitution. With no federal claim, the Supreme Court thus lacked jurisdiction (or power) to hear Barron's case and dismissed it.
That all changed after the progressives bastardized the 14th Amendment. The amendment was designed to ensure that ex-slaves and their progeny were afforded equal protection and due process under individual STATE LAWS, not an all-encompassing federal government. This bastardization has resulted in a federal government tyranny; and its being perpetuated by a judicial oligarchy.
And I remind everyone, that the 10th Amendment has never been repealed.
I disagree with Newt Gingrich on summoning justices to Congress to answer for their decisions. If you want to take power away from federal judges and the general government, then we need to repeal the 14th Amendment.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-judges-20111217,0,1295899.story
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_barron.html
http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution---Americans/dp/0307382850/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324523222&sr=1-1
No comments:
Post a Comment