The Supreme Court

[Anarchist420]

Why hasn't the court ever had any justices who always ruled in favor of individuals over the Federal govt, in favor of States over the Federal govt, and in favor of States over individuals?

What does that say about the Supreme Court? What has the Supreme Court been trying to say about the Constitution? Why have they been trying to say what they're saying about the Constitution?

Why don't Supreme Court Justices like the Compact theory?

I personally think that there shouldn't be a perpetual supreme court; rather, Federal Courts should only exist when Congress deems it necessary to establish any.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Well there has to be someone to give a final say. Who would we petition for grievances against the federal government? Congress?

That being said I'm starting to realize that even when the Supreme Court rules on something its hardly applicable to your case unless the judge in lower courts "allows" it. In other words the laws or opinions of them, are at the mercy of whoever happens to be the magistrate that day. If he doesn't like your "interpretation" of whatever case you're citing it will be dismissed and they'll just move on as if you never said a word.

 

[Anarchist420]

Well there has to be someone to give a final say. Who would we petition for grievances against the federal government? Congress?

The supreme court is a branch of the federal govt plus it legislates from the bench, so there really isn't a branch that anyone can turn to to petition for grievances against the federal govt.

we should have a Constitution that isn't so vague and centralist

 

[Murloc]

The point of having a federation is that the federal law has the ultimate say imho. This solves disputes between states in a way that confederations can't. In bicameral systems both states and people are represented so it's not like the fed gov just grabs power like that if the states don't let them to.

 

[Thump553]

The job of Supreme Court justices is to interpret the Constitution logically and consistently, not to pick sides and skew their decisions accordingly. What OP is asking is exactly what a horrible justice would be.

 

[Socio]

The job of Supreme Court justices is to interpret the Constitution logically and consistently, not to pick sides and skew their decisions accordingly. What OP is asking is exactly what a horrible justice would be.

True however the problem is many of the justices are not constitutionalists they are really anti-constitutional judicial activists. So interpreting the Constitution logically and consistently, not picking sides and skewing their decisions is off the table.

fyi; Obama will likely get to appoint 2 more activist judges before he leaves office stacking the deck against the constitution.

Now take Fienstein's AWP ban legislation for example, she said pass it and let the supreme court decide if it is constitutional.

If that is the way Congress wants to pass laws then all supreme court justices should only be constitutionalists judges, it is the only way the constitution can be interpreted logically and consistently no picking of sides and no skewing. It is also the only way to have proper checks and balances within the government.

Otherwise they will be passing laws they know are not constitutional with a stacked deck in the supreme court waiting to wave them through.

You know, like Democrats will do if they win the House in 2014 and Obama gets his new appointees in place.

 

[LightPattern]

both states and people are represented so it's not like the fed gov just grabs power like that if the states don't let them.

What choice do the States have when the Federal government oversteps its bounds? The governors or other officials could write an angry letter.. :hmm:

Getting a constitutional amendment passed which clearly strips the feds of a power that the courts have interpreted into existence would be the only real way of stopping activist judges.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Why hasn't the court ever had any justices who always ruled in favor of individuals over the Federal govt, in favor of States over the Federal govt, and in favor of States over individuals?

It's a simple conflict of interests problem. Supreme Court justices are compensated by the federal government, which gets its money by stealing from U.S. taxpayers. It's in their best interests to rule in favor of the authority of the U.S. government the majority of the time. If they habitually ruled in favor of the individual and individual freedom, they'd eventually be out of a job.

Simple as that.

 

[Juror No. 8]

If the local Sicilian Mafia compensated a group of "judges" to settle disputes between them and the peasants they extort, who do you think those judges would rule in favor of the majority of the time?

 

[DominionSeraph]

It's a simple conflict of interests problem. Supreme Court justices are compensated by the federal government, which gets its money by stealing from U.S. taxpayers. It's in their best interests to rule in favor of the authority of the U.S. government the majority of the time. If they habitually ruled in favor of the individual and individual freedom, they'd eventually be out of a job.

Simple as that.

Riight, because a Constitutionally instituted government position isn't instituted by anything external like, say, the Constitution.

Juror No. 8 returns; instantly pwned by DominionSeraph. No surprises there.
Bored now.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Riight, because a Constitutionally instituted government position isn't instituted by anything external like, say, the Constitution.

Juror No. 8 returns; instantly pwned by DominionSeraph. No surprises there.

And what is the Constitution? Is it anything more than a piece of paper written up by a bunch of wealthy old men giving themselves the authority to rob and lord over a bunch of other people? What makes the Constitution legitimate?

"But, but, but... the CONSTITUTION says so!"

LOL.

 

[Juror No. 8]

The U.S. Constitution = I'm Allowed to Rob You!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

 

[DominionSeraph]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA-ziDSjAq4

 

[Juror No. 8]

And out come the anime cartoons! LOL! That didn't take long.

Juror 1
Pony Boy 0

 

[DominionSeraph]

Bored now.

Juror 0 entertainment
Pony Boy 0 entertained

Yeah, with Planetes and Ergo Proxy not holding my interest, I'm idling right now trying to think of something to do. Picking up something new means opening yourself up to the possibility of disappointment, and I can't seem to push myself over that minor hump right now.
Maybe I'll try an American series after working out. The Walking Dead, perhaps? That show seems to have some buzz about it.
Most anything is going to be more stimulating than what anybody here can work up.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Yeah, uh huh, that's great.

Now what were you saying about the Constitution? What or where does its legitimacy stem from? What makes a piece of paper written up by a bunch of old men, giving themselves the authority to lord and rob over millions of complete and total strangers, legitimate, specifically?

Go ahead, give it the old college try.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Hmmm... interesting ideas can come to you while working out. Gonna take some time off to devote myself to some projects. See you guys in... say, six months.

Conservatives, do me a favor. After you hit that "Submit Reply" button, when the screen flashes in refresh, I want you to whisper to yourself, "Conservatards gonna 'tard."

"Conservatards gonna 'tard."

 

[NoStateofMind]

Yeah, uh huh, that's great.

Now what were you saying about the Constitution? What or where does its legitimacy stem from? What makes a piece of paper written up by a bunch of old men, giving themselves the authority to lord and rob over millions of complete and total strangers, legitimate, specifically?

Go ahead, give it the old college try.

It only carries the legitimacy we give it. It's contractual agreement to institute a government to protect rights. I am not saying that's what we have now but it's intention was exactly that. There's a ton of conflicts of interests these days. Most easily recognized in traffic and tax court "proceedings".

 

[Juror No. 8]

It only carries the legitimacy we give it. It's contractual agreement to institute a government to protect rights. I am not saying that's what we have now but it's intention was exactly that. There's a ton of conflicts of interests these days. Most easily recognized in traffic and tax court "proceedings".

Did you sign it? I certainly didn't. Therefore it's not a legitimate contract. And it certainly does nothing to create a government capable of protecting rights, since any government it creates can't exist without first violating rights. After all, the Constitution basically says, "we're allowed to rob you". One group of people giving themselves the legal authority to rob another group of people isn't called "protecting rights", it's called "institutionalized exploitation", or "slavery" if you prefer.

So why would anybody give it a measure of legitimacy when it has none to begin with?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Did you sign it? I certainly didn't. Therefore it's not a legitimate contract. And it certainly does nothing to create a government capable of protecting rights, since any government it creates can't exist without first violating rights. After all, the Constitution basically says, "we're allowed to rob you". One group of people giving themselves the legal authority to rob another group of people isn't called "protecting rights", it's called "institutionalized exploitation", or "slavery" if you prefer.

So why would anybody give it a measure of legitimacy when it has none to begin with?

What rights were violated at its conception? Are you going to argue against the original intent with what it has become? I'd disagree in part with the "we can rob you" portion. That didn't happen until after the 14th amendment IMO. Can you show otherwise?

 

[Juror No. 8]

What rights were violated at its conception? Are you going to argue against the original intent with what it has become? I'd disagree in part with the "we can rob you" portion. That didn't happen until after the 14th amendment IMO. Can you show otherwise?

The 14th Amendment? You're confused.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."

Roughly translated:

"We are allowed to rob you!"

Robbery was the original intent right from the beginning. Our corrupt, criminal government of today is the way it is because the founding document hammered out by the Founding Dads allowed it to be so. This really shouldn't be surprising or objectionable to you, since many of the Founding Dads were unapologetic slave owners. They believed that some human beings existed to serve other human beings and must be compelled - by force - to do so.

You can disagree with the "we can rob you" portion all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the government doesn't ask for permission. The government simply takes. If the government's victims attempt to resist this theft, the government will either kidnap and imprison them or execute them on the spot. It's plain old armed robbery on an institutionalized scale.

There is no legitimate contract between the U.S. government and the American people. All there is is exploitation.

 

[Anarchist420]

It's a simple conflict of interests problem. Supreme Court justices are compensated by the federal government, which gets its money by stealing from U.S. taxpayers. It's in their best interests to rule in favor of the authority of the U.S. government the majority of the time. If they habitually ruled in favor of the individual and individual freedom, they'd eventually be out of a job. Simple as that.

Bingo.

 

[Juddog]

Why hasn't the court ever had any justices who always ruled in favor of individuals over the Federal govt, in favor of States over the Federal govt, and in favor of States over individuals?

What does that say about the Supreme Court? What has the Supreme Court been trying to say about the Constitution? Why have they been trying to say what they're saying about the Constitution?

Why don't Supreme Court Justices like the Compact theory?

I personally think that there shouldn't be a perpetual supreme court; rather, Federal Courts should only exist when Congress deems it necessary to establish any.

If you hate America that much, why don't you just move to another nation where it's every man for himself? I'm sure they would love to have you in the Congo.

 

[NoStateofMind]

The 14th Amendment? You're confused.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."

Roughly translated:

"We are allowed to rob you!"

Am I? Or are we not aware of the intention of those taxes? They weren't meant to be direct taxes, that came about after the 14th amendment (specifically the 16th) as I stated before. Unless, of course, you are making the claim that any tax is equated to robbery.

Robbery was the original intent right from the beginning. Our corrupt, criminal government of today is the way it is because the founding document hammered out by the Founding Dads allowed it to be so. This really shouldn't be surprising or objectionable to you, since many of the Founding Dads were unapologetic slave owners. They believed that some human beings existed to serve other human beings and must be compelled - by force - to do so.

Actually the Constitution was meant to limit governmental powers. Not only was it intended to limit government but also protect against encroachment of inalienable rights by anyone or any state. Obviously we are way beyond its original intention and I wouldn't argue this point in modern day America.

You can disagree with the "we can rob you" portion all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the government doesn't ask for permission. The government simply takes. If the government's victims attempt to resist this theft, the government will either kidnap and imprison them or execute them on the spot. It's plain old armed robbery on an institutionalized scale.

Oh I get it and it is as you describe today. I'd like to see an example of this barbaric behavior within ~20yrs of the signing of the constitution though.

There is no legitimate contract between the U.S. government and the American people. All there is is exploitation.

The contract is inferred by the willingness of the people. Is there a mass uprising against this evil document? No. People are for the most part in agreement with it. Thats why its still here and why its still relevant.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Am I? Or are we not aware of the intention of those taxes? They weren't meant to be direct taxes, that came about after the 14th amendment (specifically the 16th) as I stated before. Unless, of course, you are making the claim that any tax is equated to robbery.

How can taxation be anything other than robbery? If I demand a cut of everything you either own, buy, sell, produce, create, or use, and my demand is backed by the threat of armed force, how is that not robbery?

Actually the Constitution was meant to limit governmental powers. Not only was it intended to limit government but also protect against encroachment of inalienable rights by anyone or any state. Obviously we are way beyond its original intention and I wouldn't argue this point in modern day America.

I see no real evidence that the Constitution was truly meant to limit anything, and not too coincidentally, it hasn't.

Oh I get it and it is as you describe today. I'd like to see an example of this barbaric behavior within ~20yrs of the signing of the constitution though.

Easy. The Whiskey Act, along with the Alien and Sedition Acts.

It took only about 10 years for the former colonists to realize they had traded one set of distant tyrants (the Crown) for a much closer and dangerous set of tyrants (Washington).

The contract is inferred by the willingness of the people. Is there a mass uprising against this evil document? No. People are for the most part in agreement with it. Thats why its still here and why its still relevant.

Are there mass uprisings in neighborhoods controlled by Mafia extortion rackets? No. I guess that must mean there's an "inferred" extortion contract between the Mafia and its victims, right? After all, the people are willing to be extorted, otherwise they would rebel against the Mafia crime syndicates which extort them.

As you can see, your reasoning is deeply flawed. The people are "willing" to pay taxes to the government because they fear the consequences of not doing so. They know if they don't pay, government thugs might bust down their door and haul them away in the dead of night. So they comply, because they have little other choice. They are compelled to do so.

No contract is legitimate that is signed or agreed to under duress.