Title: Pound Sand, Your Honor! More Americans Want States to Ignore Federal Courts Source:
[None] URL Source:http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew ... tates-to-ignore-federal-courts Published:Jul 4, 2015 Author:Selwyn Duke Post Date:2015-07-04 12:25:10 by HAPPY2BME-4UM Keywords:supreme court, constitution, homosexual, first amendment Views:375 Comments:46
While dissenting from the recent Supreme Court decision rubber-stamping same-sex “marriage,” Justice Antonin Scalia warned his colleagues that with “each decision ... unabashedly based not on law” the Court moves “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence.” And a new poll shows that another such step has in fact been taken, with more Americans supporting the idea that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings. Writes Rasmussen Reports, “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials [dis]agree with them. That’s up nine points from 24% when we first asked this question in February.Just over half (52%) disagree, down from 58% in the earlier survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.”
This shift is clearly influenced not just by Obergefell v. Hodges (the marriage ruling), but also a late June ObamaCare decision so contrary to the “Affordable Care Act’s” text that Justice Scalia lamented to the Court, “Words no longer have meaning.” Not surprisingly, there was an ideological divide among poll respondents. As Rasmussen also tells us, “Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups. Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.”
Also not surprisingly, this pattern basically reverses itself when voters are asked if Barack Obama should be able to ignore the courts when he wants to. As Rasmussenwrote in February after surveying voters on that question, “43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.”
As to the recent poll, Rasmussen writes that Republicans and conservatives being most likely to support state defiance of federal courts is perhaps “disturbing” because those groups “traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers.” But the reality is that these responses — conservatives advocating defiance of liberal courts, liberals advocating defiance for a liberal man, and Rasmussen indicating that the judiciary should have ultimate-arbiter power — reflect emotional reactions more than constitutional analysis.
First note that this gratuitous judicial-review power — where courts’ rulings on law are considered to constrain all three branches of government — is not found in the Constitution. Rather, it was unilaterallydeclared by the Court itself in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision. In other words, Rasmussen’s supposition about the courts’ role does not align with constitutionalism.
But critics would say that this is putting it lightly. Justice Scalia wrote in his Obergefell dissent that the Court has actually become “a threat to American democracy.” And this just reflects what founder Thomas Jefferson warned when he said that if the Court was not reminded of its impotence, if it comes to be viewed as having ultimate-arbiter (judicial review) power, our Constitution will have become “a suicide pact.” As I wrote just last week:
Jefferson explained the problem with judicial review, writing, “For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this [judicial review] opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.... The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.”
Jefferson also pointed out, correctly, that “Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.” …Judicial review is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed,” Jefferson warned in 1820, “and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
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.
Thus, the 50 percent of GOP voters polled this week are right — although perhaps without realizing that their position is constitutionally sound. 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.
Of course, this balance of power ensures a tug of war and some gridlock in government, but that’s how the state is kept small and freedoms big. If we want issues settled cleanly and quickly with the stroke of a pen, we can appoint a dictator.
Or an oligarchy — sort of like the Supreme Court has become.
If the Court is not frequently reminded of its impotence, the people will ever be reminded of theirs.
“With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group." -Alex Kurtagic
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Pound Sand, Your Honor! More Americans Want States to Ignore Federal Courts
You know, I didn't read the article, but shit like this really pisses me off.
It sums up our culture perfectly!
We want all the bennies and "freebie" goodies with the fed's hooks in the states, but then when people have finally had enough then and only then do people make a damn stink about it.
You know, if you're too stupid to see this coming over the decades, and the tidal wave of other bullshit legislation and the rest that have pushed us to this point, sorry, but then the masses are too f'ing stupid to be crying foul now.
In other news, the Zio Christians support the obliteration of perfectly civilized and docile populations, all in the name of Christ as they see it, but then this gets passed and they cry foul.
I'm sorry, if humanity is that damn stupid then what we have today is what it deserves.
I rolled through two stop signs on the way to and from the grocery store this afternoon. Happy 4th to me....
“With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group." -Alex Kurtagic
note that this gratuitous judicial-review power — where courts’ rulings on law are considered to constrain all three branches of government — is not found in the Constitution. Rather, it was unilaterally declared by the Court itself in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision. In other words, [Rasmussen Report]’s supposition about the courts’ role does not align with constitutionalism.
tenthamendmentcenter.com articles on Marbury v. Madison:
Virtually nobody, particularly in the legal community, question the idea that the Court serves as the final decision maker when it comes to the Constitution. This view is nonsense.
[Supreme Court Chief Justice] John Marshall’s 1803 opinion in Marbury v. Madison serves as the cornerstone of this doctrine.
a little known fact: Marshall had a major conflict of interest and should have recused himself from the case.
The conflict of interest was so great he could not possibly claim impartiality, a quality essential for those who judge.
Marshall essentially created a legal construction out of thin air.
But the central question remains: did Marshall intend the court to stand as the sole and final authority of all things constitutional?
A majority of five Justices lacks both the legitimacy and the competence to claim an exclusive voice. Justice Byron White put the matter crisply in 1970 when he said that “this Court is not alone in being obliged to construe the Constitution in the course of its work; nor does it even approach having a monopoly on the wisdom and insight appropriate to the task.”
The common understanding of the famous Marbury v. Madison case is that it established the authority of the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution says. From there, it’s held that the Court gets to determine the limitations placed on the federal government as well as the states. In short, the rest of the federal government, and the states, are bound by what the Supreme Court decides.
But is that the truth? A paper from Northwestern University School of Law Constitutional Theory Colloquium Series seeks to clear up the myths associated with the Marbury decision. In the first sentence of his 2004 paper, “The Irrepressible Myth of Marbury,” Michael Stokes Paulsen sets the mood for the rest: Nearly all of American constitutional law today rests on a myth.
“A long, long time ago — 1803, if the storyteller is trying to be precise — in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of ‘judicial review.’ Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of the Constitution and to strike down laws that the Court finds unconstitutional.”
This myth, he continues, allows the Supreme Court to dictate what the Constitution means via “opinions,” i.e. ex cathedra pronouncements.
nowhere in the Constitution is the court given supreme authority over the other two branches. The Constitution itself, instead, was declared to be supreme, not the will of individuals holding federal office tasked with enforcing it.
what Marshall and other justices were arguing in Marbury v. Madison wasn’t the idea of judicial supremacy, that the Supreme Court was the highest authority in the government. Their argument was that the judicial branch of the federal government derived its authority to interpret and apply the provisions within the Constitution from the Constitution itself. It did not derive its powers from the other two branches, but from the same document from which they received theirs.
Marshall states that the Supremacy Clause “confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument” (emphasis added).
“The logic of Marbury implies not, as it is so widely assumed today, judicial supremacy, but constitutional supremacy — the supremacy of the document itself over misapplications of its dictates by any and all subordinate agencies created by it,” Correctly read, Marbury stands for constitutional supremacy rather than judicial supremacy,” Paulsen states. “And constitutional supremacy implies strict textualism as a controlling method of constitutional interpretation, not free-wheeling judicial discretion” (emphasis added).
While Paulsen’s critique of the Marbury Myth is insightful and refreshing, it also indirectly demonstrates a fatal flaw in the federalist system without the power of the states to check unconstitutional authority via nullification: What if the Supreme Court, or any branch of the federal government, go beyond their constitutional authority and simply issue rulings based on their own beliefs and consider them binding on the whole nation? What if all three do so simultaneously or fail to check the others?
Fortunately, Jefferson and Madison foresaw this problem arising, as well.
they crafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. In those resolutions, they declared that the states, which had created the federal government, were “duty-bound” to resist unconstitutional acts no matter which branch they originated from. As Jefferson stated in the Kentucky Resolution:
the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers. (emphasis added)
If the judiciary failed to defend the Constitution, Jefferson wrote, nullification was the “rightful remedy,” and the Myth of Marbury, which Paulsen’s paper attacks, is a perfect example of why.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
If the judiciary failed to defend the Constitution, Jefferson wrote, nullification was the “rightful remedy,” and the Myth of Marbury, which Paulsen’s paper attacks, is a perfect example of why.
None who framed the US Constitution supported Jefferson's notion of nullification (not even Madison). In fact, several rebuked him.
Jefferson, btw, was not a Framer of the USCON but was a follower at a distance.
I know that Jefferson wasn't a framer of the U.S. Constitution but some readers might not have known until you pointed it out, so thanks for doing that. However, vaguely stating tbat several framers rebuked him over his Nullification views comparatively reads about the same as plenty of them didn't.
South Carolina's legislature assembled a convention to nullify the 1828 and 1832 tariffs. There was a political split in Washington D.C. over the issue -- even between President Jackson and his Vice President. A tariff compromise was reached. In contrast, I suspect your views regarding various Nullification policies at the State level of the Constitution's Fugitive Slave Clause would be more Jeffersonian-like (supportive of that as a rightful remedy) than Jacksonianish (Nullification opposed).
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I believe that the USCON makes it quite clear that nullification is not an option:
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.
I suspect your views regarding various Nullification policies at the State level of the Constitution's Fugitive Slave Clause would be more Jeffersonian-like (supportive of that as a rightful remedy) than Jacksonianish (Nullification opposed).
State laws didn't *nullify*, per se, fugitive slave laws but through conferring state *citizenship* to escaped slaves, tried to make them near impossible to enforce.
From a Constitutional standpoint, Dred Scott was decided correctly...there was nothing in the USCON or Federal law which conferred US citizenship on those born in to servitude...
#17. To: war, GreyLmist, any interested party (#15)
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.
Answer me this; what does the Constitution (the SUPREME LAW of the LAND) say about money ? Can one section of the Constitution be ignored while other sections are upheld ?
Actually, arguing about the Consti-stupid at this point in history is a frivolous activity only providing the simple minded with something to debate. Gold and silver coin were mandated by the Constitution because these were "of the land" and supported the law of the land.
When the FEDS (and FED RESERVE) finally eradicated REAL money for all practical purposes and substituted their own internal "notes" (and fiat/credit) that were adopted by the people at large, the country was transformed into a commercial entity under commercial law and subservient to its new owner - THE FED RESERVE BANK - provider of internal Federal Reserve notes/currency.
Whether or not anyone chooses to face reality is their own decision. Living in the past and relying upon the mountain of lies that people like "war" brag about propagating is another game played by the mentally retarded and brainwashed. [--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...]
It would serve little purpose to list the voluminous violations of so-called Constitutional rights exacted upon Americans. More to the point, the banker owned government has truly demoralized the culture and imposed immorality, depravity, and material enslavement through their "phoney monetary system".
All one needs to do these days is simply observe the intentional and complete destruction of the country. It's time to live in the now. We need to stop worshiping at the altar of the central banks. These modern day slave drivers have somehow convinced the entire world that the people inhabiting the earth are all bankrupt and owe an impossible debt to them. This, after having been bailed out and now demanding a "bail in" !
The public at large has entered into a compact with the devil (bankers). They have forfeited their birth rights for a bowl of pottage (FRNs/Bank Credit). We have lost our moral compass and are adrift in a sea of shit.
This compact has killed millions around the world. Little innocent children are murdered every minute of the day to the laughter of the banking/industrial/corporate elites.
And I want to conclude by saying shit eating fags like "war" that are so proud of their ability to perfectly obscure things are the lowest form of scum on the planet that lick the balls of their paymasters by acting as shills.
GreyLmist, I would be most content to live the remainder of my life having my rights protected by the Constitution, but that will never occur until we get off of the Central Bank plantation. And as an afterthought, I would mention that the colonists likely were provided with empty promises of rights even under the king, just as we are today by D.C.
"Honest, April 15th is the real April Fool's Day".
Answer me this; what does the Constitution (the SUPREME LAW of the LAND) say about money ?
Article I Sec 8:
To borrow money on the credit of the US
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures...
Section 10:
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts...
Gold and silver coin were mandated by the Constitution because these were "of the land" and supported the law of the land.
And I want to conclude by saying shit eating fags like "war" that (sic) are so proud of their ability to perfectly obscure things are the lowest form of scum on the planet that lick the balls of their paymasters by acting as shills.
Usually when one *concludes* they don't do so in a paragraph that precedes another.
As for my diet and sexual orientation...I do not nor have I ever eaten shit nor do I have or have had sex with males...
As for my tagline...I am referring to my own obscurity, doofus...take an un- angry moment once in a while...you might laugh...you might smile...
No state shall .... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts
Today, STATEs make fiat FRNs (commercial instruments owned by the bank, not money) a tender for debt. These STATEs are not the original several states, they are imitations that are actually subsidiary entities of the FED RESERVE BANK.
"Honest, April 15th is the real April Fool's Day".
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.
Ha ha ha ha HA!
What planet has this guy been living on since 1861?
I'll check him out. I agree the country experienced massive change after the war between the states. Lincoln didn't free anyone - he attempted to enslave everyone through the 14th Amendment which was ostensibly purposed with providing a form of citizenship for the newly freed slaves that though they were now free were not citizens. White (state) Citizenship existed long before the 14th Amendment, which became law under fraud as the southern state reps were shills (like "war").
I am of the opinion that while the country and especially the southern states were mishandled through "executive" orders from the time of Lincoln, the Constitution became absolutely irrelevant once LBJ removed us completely from a solid honest money system. The introduction of the Socialist Security Insurance Scheme introduced most of America to the new socialism where rights were reduced to privileges of membership. Of course it was fraud but over time the nation became addicted to socialism to the degree we see today.
The great society, wars without congressional approval, welfare for the rich. welfare for foreigners and on and on have become "legal" at an exceedingly rapid rate since 1964 and in our lifetimes.
Now we're reduced to acceptance of the queer agenda, forced inoculations, licenses to take a shit and etc., to the extent we're expected to be taxed to support these abominable things. Not me !
In my view the problem is commercial rather than political. While everyone continues to prattle on and on about elections and voting for the lesser of two evils that NEVER serves to change matters ... boycotting the banks and their credit system as much as is possible even to the point of some inconvenience, the refusal to pay FEDERAL (reserve bank) TAXES or Socialist Security Tax en mass would shake the filthy banker/murderers to their core. Actually there should be a national rejection of paying any and all alleged debts to any bank or government agency. This is a war and that means there will be casualties.
"Honest, April 15th is the real April Fool's Day".
LBJue was definitely a massive blow to the RAPublic. I used to pooh-pooh the idea that his hit on JFK changed anything that much, but with everybody today knowing the Establishment offed a President and got away with it, it is indeed a totally different country. In addition to LBJue's overt assaults on amerika in his official capacity, as you mention!
It's also in this sense that 9/11 really did change everything. System position: it changed everything because amerika is now known to be hated by ayrabs who want to kill every amerikan and have the power to do it. Real position: amerika sees again that its own politicians and operatives can stage a false flag of mammoth proportions on us and walk = total tyranny, lawlessness, fraudulence at the topmost levels of what was thought to be the best, government in the world.
Gold and silver were not impervious to manipulation that resulted in economic displacement.
IF you and I agree on a *value* of one *thing*, e.g. a widget, versus another *thing*, e.g. specie, then nothing in that transaction is *fiat*...
But, that said, Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power to *regulate* the value of currency and since Congress' can exercise its power only through legislation, which is, effectively, a legal declaration, isn't that *fiat*?
Since 1789...the USCON makes the Supreme Court the arbitrator of what is and what is not constitutional...it is an EXPRESS power found in Article III.
That's a good point, war. And it's another reason why the States were foolish to ratify the US constitution in the first place.
Interestingly, the US supreme court finds time to rule on anti-feticide laws, marriage laws, anti-sodomy laws, freedom of association, etc. but its ruling regarding Lincoln's war against the South was reportedly something like, "That question is being decided on the battlefield".
Theoretically, according to Article III, congress could limit the supreme court's jurisdiction if they wanted to, but they never do and never will.
...a case or controversy arising under the laws of the US? What if Congress passed a law demanding that we pray every day at noon and took the courts out of the equation?
More Americans Want States to Ignore Federal Courts
Recall exactly just what started the Civil War, or the War Between the States?
It was State's Rights. Slavery was not an issue until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and that only freed the slaves in the rebellious states. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
