Poll: Do you own a firearm?

[TIDE-HSV]

Of course we have to live in the real world. If someone goes into a federal court and denies the court has jurisdiction over any power not enumerated in the Constitution is apt to get a judicial decision he does not like (or, alternatively, be committed to an insane asylum).

I guess my views are colored by readings of Thomas Jefferson, who said “The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric."

If the people in their constitution-making capacity say, Federal government, “You cannot do x,” (and I believe the people of the United States have said as much) and then their servant, the court, says, “No, I will not respect that limit. The Constitution says what I say it means.” That strikes me as an elitist view and is kind of an insult to the idea that a people can govern themselves.

Lincoln said, “the intention of the lawgiver is the law.” When it comes to adopting a constitution, the people of the states were the lawgivers. I am not sure what the people are supposed to do about that level of insubordination by the court (and it is insubordination, when the court says, screw you people. I’m going to do what I want to do because I am unelected and unaccountable). They could impeach/remove the violator and amend the Constitution, but that puts the burden on the people. And what is to say their servant, the court, will respect this new limit any more than it did the previous limit? Conlaw ≠ case law, despite how despite how conlaw is taught in law schools. Constitutional law predates the first federal case, and I believe education of lawyers and especially judges ought to include readings of the state conventions that ratified the Constitution, where (as Madison said), it “rec[eived] all the authority which it possesses.”

Or maybe, this is the equivalent of constitutional deism. Among the Founders, Deists believed that the Almighty created the universe, wound up the “celestial clock,” set it running, and walked away. Constitutional deists would argue that the Founders created the system, got it started, and then forever surrendered control to the federal authorities. As long as justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, then any decision they made is legitimate. Two problems exist with this view. First, there is no record of any Founder favoring unlimited submission to federal usurpation but, (second), on the contrary, made provisions for resistance, of which the 2nd amendment is part.

I just like to take every opportunity to remind federal judges that the people, in their constitution-making authority, already debated and decided against unenumerated federal powers. There are no legitimate “penumbras or emanations.” To argue for them is self-disqualifying. It demonstrates ipso facto that the speaker does not know what he is talking about.

I would add, that if there was to be unrestrained submission to federal authorities, the one branch the Founders were look to least would be the unelected, unaccountable judiciary.

My critique of the “law schools say the Constitution means what the court says it does” school is that the evidence and argumentation indicate the Founders clearly intended the federal government to be limited to the powers expressly enumerated. The judges, on the other hand, have “it says so because I want it to be so.”

In conclusion, it is possible that the court refused to overturn the state statute because they agreed, at least to some degree, with the concept of enumerated federal powers.

Nice words, but judicial supremacy was established very early in the republic and has been generally accepted ever since...

 

[crimsonaudio]

Nice words, but judicial supremacy was established very early in the republic and has been generally accepted ever since...

Yeah, there's a (sometimes massive) difference in 'how it was intended' and 'how it is accepted'.

Same thing as the 10A.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Yeah, there's a (sometimes massive) difference in 'how it was intended' and 'how it is accepted'.

Same thing as the 10A.

Yes, in my opinion, the 2nd has been willfully misinterpreted for decades; the background ignored, but there's Marbury v. Madison squarely in the way...

 

[twofbyc]

Yes, in my opinion, the 2nd has been willfully misinterpreted for decades; the background ignored, but there's Marbury v. Madison squarely in the way...

People refuse to accept the centuries-old acceptance of the understanding of the English language; if they did, they’d know the meaning of those words at the time they were written bear scant resemblance to what the majority of Americans think they mean now.
But, then again, “sale” is now widely accepted as a verb (as a substitute for “sell”), so I guess “defining your terms “ in regards to the English language (at least in this country) is something anyone not wanting to be misunderstood needs to do daily.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

People refuse to accept the centuries-old acceptance of the understanding of the English language; if they did, they’d know the meaning of those words at the time they were written bear scant resemblance to what the majority of Americans think they mean now.
But, then again, “sale” is now widely accepted as a verb (as a substitute for “sell”), so I guess “defining your terms “ in regards to the English language (at least in this country) is something anyone not wanting to be misunderstood needs to do daily.

I'm not aware of "sale's" being a verb, except perhaps among semi-illiterate. I would read that, roll my eyes and quit reading...

 

[Tidewater]

Nice words, but judicial supremacy was established very early in the republic and has been generally accepted ever since...

The Judiciary Act of 1789, art. 25, if I remember correctly.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

The Judiciary Act of 1789, art. 25, if I remember correctly.

Yes, and Justice Marshall's interpretation of it. It rendered forever your and my opinions of what the Constitution means moot. Of course, later, that turned out not to be quite true, but it's essentially the situation today. Apropos of nothing, Hitler was a lot smarter than Trump, despite the strong resemblances...

 

[Crimson1967]

I'm not aware of "sale's" being a verb, except perhaps among semi-illiterate. I would read that, roll my eyes and quit reading...

I haven’t either. But whenever I hear someone say they gifted something I want to jam icepicks in my ears.

 

[Tidewater]

I read a while back about the struggle between Jefferson and Marshall (What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States by James F. Simon). It might not surprise you to read I think Marshall was one of the great villains in American history. He was a genius, but an evil genius. He exercised his genius in aggrandizing the federal judiciary, and through it, the federal government, but when he was sitting in the Virginia convention as it debated the Constitution, he assured his compatriots the federal judiciary would not do what, as chief justice, he did in fact do. He was a liar. Maybe it is just 25 years in uniform, but I take a very dim view of insubordination.

I think my soap dish is smarter than Trump.