There is no "Constitution Forum", so I am placing this comment here. From "the Economist Explains": How Americas courts can keep the government in check Excerpt: Shall we add Trump to that list of three names? As a constitutional wrecking-ball I cannot imagine a more willing or able PotUS. Besides, who would question him? He thinks he walks on water ...
Like Marbury v. Madison, yours is but an opinion, but an opinion with distinction. Marshall was at least elegant and logical for the most part in an exquisite writing, your opinion neither elegant nor logical. As a source you use a publication for economist, paramount to a gypsy with a crystal ball, at least based on the same lack of science. By the way, try and read that decision sometime, it contains some outstanding dicta but the decision was negative for Marbury as Marshall wrote the court had no jurisdiction to issue the Writ of Mandamus. As to those liberal butt holes in the 9th Circuit, they ignored law and pretended there were gods. But the question I would have, especially to Europeans, is when your own house is in shambles, does it give you great pleasure to somehow insinuate you would be a better judge of that which you know little?
I see no shambles here as regards election. Not one country employs the idiocy of an Electoral College. Imagine, it's a "college"! One of the most anti-democratic mechanisms on earth is called a "college". Hyperbole at its best. (The word college has two definitions, and the one intended here is the second - long since lost in the mists of time. The electoral college is an anachronism. It was invented at a time when nobody trusted state populations to elect and, most importantly, report a bonafide electoral vote [- so they named some adult "supervisors" to authenticate the process. As I said, its an anachronism - obsolete and unnecessary in any rational modern "democracy" ...
Idiocy a word that you should be well versed to use but even there you have no clue as to meaning. Seems this current election has confirmed all that the founding fathers feared, tyranny by the masses but as it was supposed to work, Hitlerly lost. And this country is not a democracy as all those progressive liberals would like to believe, it's a republic. Democracy is but a step along the slide to collectivism whether it be fascism or communism, the result is the same, it is but the vernacular that changes. And as to the history of France, I would say you should clean up your own act before trying to instill that same disgrace upon another.
Frankly I'm lol'ing over this strange new respect lefties suddenly have for the separation of powers!
I can't see any instance where Trump has acted outside of his constitutional powers. Unless his press secretary not calling on legacy media reps at White House pressers is what people are calling a constitutional crisis now.
I don't think they have respect for anything including themselves, especially themselves. They are crying in their beer, not over anything to do with separation of powers but because everything their little hero has done will be completely disassembled by March. His destiny into oblivion will be well documented instead of rumors.
Not that I'm a great fan of King Donald but I do admire his business savvy. When his full staff is on board, this country will be open for business and not as a door mat. But unless he destroys the fed, it will all be for naught. If he does destroy the fed, then there will be assassination attempts. But he knows that and will be prepared. These could be interesting times to be alive, very interesting.
Law school 101 is Marbury v Madison; however, no law professor you talk to can tell you by what authority the Supreme Court can unilaterally claim such a power. Trump has backed down from them already and no administration has ever challenged the Court's claims NOR have they challenged the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. It's going to be an interesting few years.
Law school is just one big indoctrination and no law professor will ever tell the truth, even if they know it. However, as to Marbury v. Madison, is was a negative decision wherein the court declared it did not have the jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Mandamus. All the rest is just pure dicta. However if you follow the opinion all the way through, it was a outstanding piece of writing detailing each and every matter right up to the end. It was on page 177 of the opinion that the lie came forward: This one little statement is where all the little sheep get all wrapped up. One must always remember that the best lies contain at least 99% truth. No Trump did not back down, he made a very wise move. If he were to take this to those now eight mystical being in black robes would result in a tie, making the lower courts decision gold. That would be stupid and while King Donald may be many things, stupid is not one of them.
I agree that right now most Trump agenda moves are a tie in the Court. I had to vote Trump on the SCOTUS issue alone. Hillary would have nominated that Judicial Activist.
Trump has more lawyers behind than Carter has liver pills. What he has signed to date is all in accordance with the legal system (almost said law and that would not be true). He not only knows the problem with the 9th and other districts but has verbalized it which has upset all those good little old BAR members. But King Donald did not get where he is today by not picking his battles. When he is prepared, he is going after them with Sessions as his hammer.
He will been replace by Johnson election night 2020. Then Johnson after NAFTA against Cruz. This are my willings today.
the court doesn't claim the power. Article 3 section 2 is perfectly clear. courts are not capable of legislating. they are only capable of making judgment as to the constitutionality of existing legislation.
The three branches of government are supposed to act as equals with separate powers. Yet, the Supreme Court DOES legislate from the bench by interpreting the law and then reversing the meaning of the same law after they tell you what it supposedly means.
it is not possible for a court to legislate. They quite literally can not write laws. They simply judge a law as constitutional or not. This only applies to existing legislation. all 3 branches are equal. The court is no more powerful than the other 2.
The court did claim the power at page 177 of Marbury v. Madison. Article 3 section 2 is about as clear as mud, hence a huge segment of the dicta in Marbury v. Madison. The courts have been legislating from the bench since 1803, Marbury v. Madison and most recently with the 9th Circuit opinion against Trump's executive order. You may not want this to be so but that does not change reality.
You are trying to instill a fantasy land, not reality. Just how many ways have those nine mystical beings in black robes legislated from the bench, just in this one opinion! Also try reading yeah, the infamous Obumbocare opinion, all because of Marshall.
no, the court didn't. Article 3 section 2 is perfectly clear. They quite literally are not capable of legislating. They only rule on the constitutionality of existing law. It demonstrably is not so. - - - Updated - - - ok? None of that is a court writing legislation. The court is not capable of writing legislation. The court rules whether existing legislation violates the constitution. that is all
rahl, Where do I begin? I'll try for brevity since you didn't understand it the first time. Now, watch carefully: The first time a gun control law was over-turned on Second Amendment grounds, the court ruled: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree... Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) A short time later another court took up the issue. Here is how they ruled: "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859) The United States Supreme Court weighed in: 'The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1875 ) Here, the court in the most explicit language, acknowledges that the Right exists; it is not dependent upon the government as the government does not grant the Right - it merely guarantees an existing Right. Now, watch very carefully, rahl: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200 You and I both know I could cite 500 statements from the founding fathers, Supreme Court Justices, the Federalist Papers, previous cases, statements from the debates, etc., etc., etc. and the earliest Courts all ruled consistently. THEN, the Supreme Court changes standing precedent. How is that NOT legislating from the bench? In clear cut language, throughout our entire history, the Supreme Court never had jurisdiction over this issue and then... all of a sudden... NEW LAW. [A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity. George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights "The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356. The absolute Right mentioned in Cockrum was standing precedent in all COURTS - including the United States Supreme Court. They had no de jure authority in Heller to reverse what was already decided. They manufactured new law - they literally legislated from the bench.
I'm no Trump fan, but if you're worried about attacks on the US Constitution, keep in mind that before Trump ran for office, our elected officials brought serious and effective attacks on the Constitution. Under Bush & Anthrax, our elected officials nullified the Fourth Amendment by way of the USA Patriot Act. They also brought us the Military Commissions Act, hostile to the constitution. Under Obama & Congress, we had the principle of Habeas Corpus rendered Null & Void. Donald is no hero of mine, but the damage began long before he took office.
