+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 - Supreme Court 1819

  1. Default McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 - Supreme Court 1819

    Kokomojojo law review;

    Who wants a piece of this action?

    These are cases that turned the course of government on its head by doing an impasse in the intent of the constitution taking us right back under english governance with an american twist.

    Wordsmith Marshal opining;

    McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 - Supreme Court 1819

    If, indeed, such be the mandate of the constitution, we have only to obey; but that instrument does not profess to enumerate the means by which the powers it confers may be executed; nor does it *409] prohibit the creation of a corporation, *if the existence of such a 201*201 being be essential, to the beneficial exercise of those powers. It is, then, the subject of fair inquiry, how far such means may be employed.

    Destroys the sovereignty of the people as a nations of consenting "contracting" Sovereigns reduced to democratic MOB under the corporate viel vesting unto its self [da gubafia] "beneficial" interest reserved to the people. Opens the door to the legality of gulags by the exercize of the means of powers as IT sees fit.

    No city was ever built, with the sole object of being incorporated, but is incorporated as affording the best means of being well governed. The power of creating a corporation is never used for its own sake, but for the purpose of effecting something else.

    It is the very means the colonists tried to escape!
    "I hope [that] we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength and [to] bid defiance to the laws of our country."
    {Issue #62} ~Jefferson

    But could this be the object for which it was inserted? A government is created by the people, having legislative, executive and judicial powers. Its legislative powers are vested in a congress, which is to consist of a senate and house of representatives. Each house may determine the rule of its proceedings; and it is declared, that every bill which shall have passed both houses, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the president of the United States. The 7th section describes the course of proceedings, by which a bill shall become a law; and, then, the 8th section enumerates the powers of congress. Could it be necessary to say, that a legislature should exercise legislative powers, in the shape of legislation? After allowing *413] each house to prescribe *its own course of proceeding, after describing the manner in which a bill should become a law, would it have entered into the mind of a single member of the convention, that an express power to make laws was necessary, to enable the legislature to make them? That a legislature, endowed with legislative powers, can legislate, is a proposition too self-evident to have been questioned.

    I do not hear people in there anywhere? Where do the people and due process come into his picture?

    It would have been an unwise attempt to provide, by immutable rules, for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided 204*204 for as they occur. To have declared, that the best means shall not be used, but those alone, without which the power given would be nugatory, would have been to deprive the legislature of the capacity to avail itself of experience, to exercise its reason, and to accommodate its legislation to circumstances. *416] *If we apply this principle of construction to any of the powers of the government, we shall find it so pernicious in its operation that we shall be compelled to discard it. The powers vested in congress may certainly be carried into execution, without prescribing an oath of office. The power to exact this security for the faithful performance of duty, is not given, nor is it indispensably necessary. The different departments may be established; taxes may be imposed and collected; armies and navies may be raised and maintained; and money may be borrowed, without requiring an oath of office. It might be argued, with as much plausibility as other incidental powers have been assailed, that the convention was not unmindful of this subject. The oath which might be exacted that of fidelity to the constitution is prescribed, and no other can be required. Yet, he would be charged with insanity, who should contend, that the legislature might not superadd, to the oath directed by the constitution, such other oath of office as its wisdom might suggest.

    Now the best means is presumes the "correct" means but for whos benefit? Expediency? Exercizing the reason of legislators not the reason of the people? He just cut the people out of the process and gave the legislature full fiat power to "superadd" without the scrutiny of the people.

    This clause, as construed by the state of Maryland, would abridge, and almost annihilate, this useful and necessary right of the legislature to select its means.

    Its not a right Mr. Marshal, its granted authority. Authgority is best defined as "ability", not a right or a privilege unless of course your legislature is working on its own direction and behalf.

    We think so for the following reasons: 1st. The clause is placed among the powers of congress, not among the limitations on those powers. *2d. Its terms purport to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested [*420 in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted.

    Yes it grants them powers however the people retain the ultimate and supreme presumption that these actions are strictly in accord with the constitution and not FIAT.

    The result of the most careful and attentive consideration bestowed upon this clause is, that if it does not enlarge, it cannot be construed to restrain the powers of congress, or to impair the right of the legislature to exercise its best judgment in the selection of measures to carry into execution the constitutional powers of the government.

    Again the people are cut out of the process. Hell with this Marshals logic we may as well have a dictatorship! Then we can do everything the easiest and fast most efficient way possible!

    We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended, But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people.

    Yep here we go with more fiat dictatorship talk!

    The time has passed away, when it can be necessary to enter into any discussion, in order to prove the importance of this instrument, as a means to effect the legitimate objects of the government.

    Legitimate "objects" of government evolve and are a function of the people. That means vote not legislative fiat!

    After the most deliberate consideration, it is the unanimous and decided opinion of this court, that the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the constitution, and is a part of the supreme law of the land.

    It being the opinion of the court, that the act incorporating the bank is constitutional; and that the power of establishing a branch in the state of Maryland might be properly exercised by the bank itself, we proceed to inquire

    This changes the nature of the constitution from the requirement of explicit enumerated power to that of "it does not say we cant so we can" fiat and a congressional blank check.

    NEO: Why do my eyes hurt?.......
    MORPHEUS: Its the first time you've used them.

    Yesterdays Tinfoil is Today's Reality!
    Explosives? Thermate? Molten Iron? "NIST" Couldnt Find Their Ass if Their Fingers Were Stuck in it!

    Those seen dancing were believed to be insane by those who could not hear the music. ~Friedrich Nietzsche

  2. Default

    The argument on the part of the state of Maryland, is, not that the states may directly resist a law of congress, but that they may exercise their *acknowledged powers upon it, and that the constitution leaves them, [*428 this right, in the confidence that they will not abuse it. Before we proceed to examine this argument, and to subject it to test of the constitution, we must be permitted to bestow a few considerations on the nature and extent of this original right of taxation, which is acknowledged to remain with the states. It is admitted, that the power of taxing the people and their property, is essential to the very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the government may choose to carry it. The only security against the abuse of this power, is found, in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.

    In a self governed society states have NO rights though the words are used interchangeably with grant of authority to exercize some purpose or ministerial duty of the people.

    The structure of government unto itself, the words not being said in his opinion.

    In the course of the argument, the Federalist has been quoted; and the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to 212*212 judge of their correctness must be retained; and to understand the argument, we must examine the proposition it maintains, and the objections against which it is directed. The subject of those numbers, from which passages have been cited, is the unlimited power of taxation which is vested in the general government. The objection to this unlimited power, which the argument seeks to remove, is stated with fulness and clearness. It is, "that an indefinite power of taxation in the latter (the government *434] *of the Union) might, and probably would, in time, deprive the former (the government of the states) of the means of providing for their own necessities; and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the national legislature. [ and the states have and continue to deprive the people of the state in the same manner! ] As the laws of the Union are to become the supreme law of the land; as it is to have power to pass all laws that may necessary for carrying into execution the authorities with which it is proposed to vest it; the national government might, at any time, abolish the taxes imposed for state objects, upon the pretence of an interference with its own. It might allege a necessity for doing this, in order to give efficacy to the national revenues; and thus, all the resources of taxation might, by degrees, become the subjects of federal monopoly, to the entire exclusion and destruction of the state governments."

    Seems to have forgotten about the farmers and the antifederalists as if their stand on these matters not required to be taken into consideration! More stacked deck opining from the bench!

    Since when did the people vest "unlimited" power of taxation in anything?

    More orwellian doublethink! The national government as the "Supreme Law" but not in this case.

    Look at the income tax where the federal government reaches across state lines and directly taxes individuals creating a federal money monopoly!

    How about our unending state of war? They have the power to declare war, what power does government have that has no been fully abused? When no wars are to be had lets declare a 100 year war on an undefined word in law called "terrorism", and we will figure out something to apply to it later.

    The people of all the states have created the general government, and have conferred upon it the general power of taxation. The people of all the states, and the states themselves, are represented in congress, and, by their representatives, exercise this power. When they tax the chartered institutions of the states, they tax their constituents; and these taxes must be uniform. But when a state taxes the operations of the government of the United States, it acts upon institutions created, not by their own constituents, but by people over whom they claim no control. It acts upon the measures of a government created by others as well as themselves, for the benefit of others in common with themselves. The difference is that 213*213 which always exists, and always must exist, between the action of the whole on a *part, and the action of a part on the whole — between the laws [*436 of a government declared to be supreme, and those of a government which, when in opposition to those laws, is not supreme.

    Now we are not! Since when do we vote on matters taken to congress? we dont! We dont even get to vote on it at a state level!

    The people did huh? Thats not what you say in barron v baltimore pal! Yeh we have attorneys who are doing their own thing in congress and have no need for the people what so ever thanks your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) ruling.

    What do the people have in common with an attorney elected to office who can manipulate the laws to serve their own interests NOT the 99%?

    Since when and how did a man or woman become a chartered instutition?

    Last edited by Kokomojojo; Feb 02 2012 at 10:01 AM.
    NEO: Why do my eyes hurt?.......
    MORPHEUS: Its the first time you've used them.

    Yesterdays Tinfoil is Today's Reality!
    Explosives? Thermate? Molten Iron? "NIST" Couldnt Find Their Ass if Their Fingers Were Stuck in it!

    Those seen dancing were believed to be insane by those who could not hear the music. ~Friedrich Nietzsche

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Obamacare to Supreme Court
    By Bluesguy in forum Current Events
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: Jun 29 2012, 06:45 AM
  2. when will the supreme court take on eligibility ??
    By washingtonamerica.com in forum Law & Justice
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Nov 30 2011, 09:17 AM

Tags for this Thread