Did our Founding Fathers intend for the Fed to be this powerful ?

you would think you would have learned by now that moronic blogs don't somehow trump the US constitution, or 200+ years of judicial precedent.

 

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_did_Thomas_Jefferson_say_about_judicial_review

- - - Updated - - -

Show me where it mentions congress or the President . Judicial precedent is how the laws get changed by judges without a new law being written and mistakes perpetuated. Its judicial activism once a mistake is made.

 

this is the same political spectrum that came up with "tax cuts pay for themselves" so what do you expect?

 

The power of the original SCOTUS was very limited because there were only 6 Justices and could not rule with a simple majority.

Beyond that the entire existing federal court structure, other than the SCOTUS, is optional. The other federal courts could be eliminated by Congress.

 

Congress could make it one judge or 20

 

show me where I said it did. It gives the judiciary the power to review all cases brought before it, including constitutional questions.

 

Interesting quotes.

This is from Anti-Federalist Robert Yates of New York:

"The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void."

 

So you cant because its not there.

 

Plain English. lol

 

Yes, they could. I think 6 was perfect.

 

He is pointing out why not to give them this power there just as Jefferson stated.

- - - Updated - - -

You cant find congress or the president mentioned there. They get this power from Marbury vs Madison. Any 1st year law student will tell you this. It is an inferred power

 

The FF would have immediately seen the danger of the Fed.

Trump is right, we need to audit The Fed

100 reasons

#55 The Federal Reserve has allowed an absolutely gigantic derivatives bubble to inflate which could destroy our financial system at any moment. Right now, four of the “too big to fail” banks each have total exposure to derivatives that is well in excess of 40 trillion dollars.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...ber-of-u-s-banks-falls-to-all-time-record-low

#56 The total exposure that Goldman Sachs has to derivatives contracts is more than 381 times greater than their total assets.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...ber-of-u-s-banks-falls-to-all-time-record-low

#57 Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has a track record of failure that would make the Chicago Cubs look good.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...id-that-you-wont-know-whether-to-laugh-or-cry

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...100-reasons-why-we-need-audit-federal-reserve

 

Didn't read whole thread.

To answer the OP question, no they absolutely did not, but thanks to the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) Hamilton and a few other power grubbers, together with a complicit court in McCulloch v Maryland, the intent of the FF was subverted right out of the gate. They all knew this would happen, and happen fast. Never in human history has political power been in flux for more than a short period before being grabbed by the opportunistically perverted and corrupted... and today we have how many? different armed and militarized federal police forces?

The devil's greatest trick and one of the greatest canards of our govschools? Convincing the prole masses that the real danger lies in voluntary transactions between citizens in commerce who profit from free will as opposed to fiat transactions conducted at the end of a govt gun barrel.

This list, and not the made up, empty term "gun violence," is what should terrify citizens, most of whom are utterly ignorant of how many "armies" of police we as citizens are subject to:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/03/robert-farago/full-list-of-armed-federal-agencies/

 

I respect your opinion, penrod, but you haven't answered my question. To whom would you delegate the authority in interpreting the Constitution? Someone has to do it, and if not the SC, who?

 

Well it can't only be the USSC because:

The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.

— Thomas Jefferson

The Supreme Court would become despotic.

 

And here is some plain english for you, from the Father of the Constitution:

Nothing has yet been offered to invalidate the doctrine that the meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority.

— James Madison

 

It was intended that the America be 50 separate countries that speak as one voice in matters of defense, foreign policy, diplomacy, foreign trade and commerce.

The attempt by the Left to convert the US into one giant nation led by an all powerful central government will result in the destruction of the US.

 

Okay, but what would you suggest? Any group or individual could become despotic, so whom do we trust?

 

That is why we have separation of powers so the Branches can check each other and contain despotic tendencies. The Supreme Court is Supreme over the Appellate Court system, not over the entire Federal Government.

 

Yes, "if you can keep it".

We keep it by using our EXCLUSIVE right, frequently, very well. The right to define constitutional intent with the 9th amendment and control our states with it.

When we agree that the states should agree with the federal position, THEN they agree, whereas supremacy has to do with unalienable rights. Those are ours, we decide when they are violated. Otherwise states do not need to adhere to the federal position unless it is commerce, but even then, not so far as to deny or disparage unalienable rights of states citizens, sovereigns supreme.

I propose we begin defining the most prime rights now, since it is our right and manifests our sovereignty, peacefully through law.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

 

Agreed, but this doesn't answer my question. Whom do we entrust to interpret the Constitution? Someone has to do it. What does "cruel and unusual" mean? Who gets to decide? I see a lot of complaining, some of which is valid, but I haven't seen anyone propose a solution.

 

which I have never claimed was there.

the court in Marbury got it from the quoted article in the constitution which is written in plain English.

 

It is one reason we need to repeal the 17th Amendment.

 

This ! This is exactly how I viewed the intentions of our Founding Fathers. The US is bigger than Europe, and each state bigger than most of Europe's countries. It seems highly unsustainable for a single Federal government to oversee such a large group of people who live in such varied cultures, beliefs, and practices.

The word state has historically meant nation. We need to return to this model; and that would help to see what type of culture/policy is truly best.

 

ok? The constitution is the controlling legal document, not a quote from a politician. The constitution specifically gives the judiciary the power of judicial review.