I had a conversation with someone the other day about the state of judicial tyranny in America, largely thanks to the very unconstitutional concept of Judicial Review, and I thought you might like to see what we had to say on the subject:
Norm: I've got a question. How do you interpret this from Madisons Notes " Mr. MADISON 2ded. the motion. He observed that the great difficulty in rendering the Executive competent to its own defence arose from the nature of Republican Govt. which could not give to an individual citizen that settled pre-eminence in the eyes of the rest, that weight of property, that personal interest agst. betraying the national interest, which appertain to an hereditary magistrate. In a Republic personal merit alone could be the ground of political exaltation, but it would rarely happen that this merit would be so pre-eminent as to produce universal acquiescence. The Executive Magistrate would be envied & assailed by disappointed competitors: His firmness therefore wd. need support. He would not possess those great emoluments from his station, nor that permanent stake in the public interest which wd. place him out of the reach of foreign corruption: He would stand in need therefore of being controuled as well as supported. An association of the Judges in his revisionary function wd. both double the advantage and diminish the danger. It wd. also enable the Judiciary Department the better to defend itself agst. Legislative encroachments. Two objections had been made 1st. that the Judges ought not to be subject to the bias which a participation in the making of laws might give in the exposition of them. 2dly. that the Judiciary Departmt. ought to be separate & distinct from the other great Departments."
It sounds like James Madison is saying the judges don't have the ability to make or rule a law.
Doug: He was saying that judges could apply the law, but not rule on the law. They were expected to rule on their cases, but not on the law associated with the case. Their opinion of if the law was or was not a just law was just that: an opinion. To this day the dockets begin with the words, It is in the opinion of the court.
Norm: exactly, and I tell people this, but they're so ingrained with how we accept judges opinions as rulings
I can't seem to convince them that article 3 doesn't suggest "rulings".
Doug: This is nothing new. When you read some of the letters of that era you learn how upset John Jay was as the first Chief Justice that the judicial branch was the weakest of the branches and the judges went into immediate action to change that, resulting in John Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison that created Judicial Review.
Norm: I debated a guy who said a few founding fathers supported Marbury vs. Madison. I said, it doesn't matter what they supported, the fact is that authority is not stipulated in article 3
Doug: Exactly. Judicial opinion can't change the Constitution, only amendments can.
Norm: this is why it so important that ppl like you help to educate others.
Doug: Thanks
Norm: I've found a huge percentage of ppl will fight us on this, but they don't read madisons notes
they don't read the original language. they don't invest in researching any of this.
Hell, I think I taught a ron paul support a couple things yesterday
He thought Cruz was a joke. I said Cruz speaks up for the ppl, that he supports the constitution.
I said Obamacare has no constitutional authority, that nowhere in article 3 NOR madisons notes is that power explained. That judges "are only called upon to offer an OPINION".
Doug: Judicial Review is usually supported by conservatives, especially academics and lawyers. Then when I tell them it is the federal government deciding for themselves what their own authorities are, they usually stop to scratch their heads. As for Cruz, they don't understand why someone would do such a thing without having personal and hidden motives - they say he was showboating when in reality it was defense of his principles.
Norm: Yeah, I don't understand how they can not understand the feds are giving themselves the authority. I'll keep pressing back on these ppl though. Anyways, have a good day, doug
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment