Supreme Court Power of Judicial Review - Unconstitutional

As much as I have ever been- in some way even more so.

- - - Updated - - -

See, I think Government has a responsibility to protect people over property.

 

The power to kill 3000 Americans on 9/11 and a million Iraqis? The power to kill 58,000 American soldiers in Vietnam and a million Vietnamese women and children for profit? "War Is A Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler USMC. Is Mass Murder the role of government?

 

That is very sad. My dad could buy dynamite from the hardware store in order to blast trees from his farm. We didn't even have to provide the airlines with an ID. You think you are free because you believe that a full body scan x-ray at an airport is legitimate? Sad, very sad that you have no idea what freedom even means.

 

our govt. didn't kill anyone on 9-11.

Al Qaeda did that.

 

American CIA built al Qaeda.

 

funny how you derail EVERY thread into your silly conspiracy theories.

 

What is really funny is how you can be so blind to the world in which you live. Total ignorance. Because ignornance is bliss.

 

Yet if he didn't, SCOTUS would have even more power then they have (Judiciary Act 1789, Sec. 13)

Marshall never took power that wasn't granted, he prevented Congress from granting to SCOTUS more power than what USC allows for. By your reasoning you would grant SCOTUS more power than they already limited themselves with.

 

All Taney did was state that the lower court erred in its judgment, Scott was not and never was a citizen of either the State of Missouri, nor of the US

Your animus would then be at Scott vs Emerson and Justice Gamble of the Missouri Supreme Court. Taney did exactly what was allowed of him under Art 3 Sec 2 of the USC.

 

I could never buy dynamite- so that has not been an issue. I have had to provide my identification for many things before and now- so still not a freedom issue.

How does that body scan impinge on my freedom?

Just because I don't believe in your nutty concepts of 'freedom' any more than I believe in your make believe courts doesn't mean I don't don't have a concept of freedom. I just have a rational concept of freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet his understanding is the same as 99.9% of the world in which we all live in. You happen to believe something that virtually no one else does.

You could possibly be right. Or you could be delusional.

 

I believe that this response to be at the heart of the OP. You don't even seem to understand what freedom is. When I was young almost every adult man in our neighborhood had their own airplane and could fly it. Anyone could shoot M-80s and fireworks displays on the fourth of July if they wanted. We could shoot guns, we could raise animals, or build buildings without asking for permission. We could go to the river, camp out, and build a campfire without asking or paying a fee. Licenses were not required to go into business or to contract to work. Freedom means that you don't have to ask permission, or pay a fee, to do things in your life. Along with freedom comes responsibility to not endanger others.

It is not a belief that the CIA started al Qaeda. It is a fact that anyone can learn simply by doing a little bit of research.

 

So what's that now? 18 states? Funny how the world and/or heterosexual marriage has yet to end. Maybe there's a threshold number, say 26 or so, before Jesus comes back and saves all the homophobes from having to know that two same-sex partners love each other.

 

It is not a Constitutional Convention. It is a convention of the states to propose amendments.

You long since lost your freedom. At the moment you are blissfully unaware.

 

This is nonsense of course. Let us agree to disagree. We can still fix what is wrong with the courts even if we disagree over how much power they have or how they came to it.

 

Did the people of those 18 states agree or did one judge (or possibly a very small number) overturn the will of the people?

Should we ever allow a few people decide how millions of us must live?

 

Really? So you're going to be forced to "gay" marry one of your buddies?

Please, unless you like dick, it's not going to affect you in the least.

 

And yet, it isn't. You have given no rational to show/prove that it is.

I agree.

Yes we can, Congress can simply make new/simply change existing law.

 

And you don't seem to understand what freedom is. Anarchy is not freedom. Traffic lights do not impede on my freedom- they provide me with some protection against other drivers. Likewise drivers licenses to keep completely unqualified drivers off of the road- requiring car insurance so that other driver is not 'free' to collide with me and leave me with the damages.

I was speaking of the whole Supreme Court fallacy that you are promoting when I said this

Yet his understanding is the same as 99.9% of the world in which we all live in. You happen to believe something that virtually no one else does.

You could possibly be right. Or you could be delusional.

- - - Updated - - -

I prefer my freedom to your obsession.

 

When were you a kid that flying an airplane didn't require a license? As for a business license or a permit to build something, that has to do more with taxation.

 

Licensing has nothing to do with ability. Licensing has to do with identification, control, and fees. I know how to drive and have been driving for 50 years. If I lost my license I still maintain the skills to drive. It works the same way in business. Real estate sales people have to have a license and pay the fees for control purposes. The same with contractor's license. Licensing is all about control and fees.

I was a kid when many of our neighbors had their own airplane. Some of our neighbors had their own runway. I was not old enough to know if a license was required in those days.

 

Lets talk about licensing- all of which you say has nothing to do with 'ability'

a) Medical license
b) Drivers license
c) Commercial pilots license
d) Commercial truck drivers license

There is a reason why Americans generally support licensing- because licensing provides some minimal protection to us all from unscrupulous people who would endanger us all by operating without sufficient qualifications.

I want my surgeon to be licensed. I want to know that the pilot of my plane is required to be currently licensed in order to fly.

You want anarchy- I am opposed to anarchy.

 

I am not an anarchist at all. Anarchists do not recognize the rule of law. I have made it very clear in this thread that I believe the Constitution should be obeyed strictly. That limited government based on the supreme law of the land brings order. Usurping the Constitution, as the Supreme Court has done, changes that order as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln warned.

I do not care if my doctor has a government issued license. I want my doctor to have the knowledge and skills to perform medical tasks. I do not trust the government to actually properly assess the quality of knowledge a doctor needs. Independent agencies can do a much better job. Underwriters Laboratory is an excellent example.

 

"Did the people of those 18 states agree or did one judge (or possibly a very small number) overturn the will of the people?
Should we ever allow a few people decide how millions of us must live?"

You should have just said, "No Misterveritis. The people did not decide. In several states the people voted overwhelmingly for only heterosexual marriage and a single federal judge overturned their will. This is grounds for revolt, Mistervertis. It is a good thing the people are not yet ready to begin killing activist judges."

Had you said that your post would have been an honest response to my reasonable questions.

 

The problems in Washington cannot and will not be fixed by activities in Washington. This will require that we win the Articl V fight and have a convention of states to propose amendments. So that is what we shall do.

 

The opposite of capital morals for a price.