Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Amendment to the Judicial Act of 1789

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 2:15:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

Or state senate if the state supreme court is too impractical.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 2:25:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:15:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

Or state senate if the state supreme court is too impractical.

Never. That would undermine the authority of the federal government, and place the word of the state at equals with the word of the national government. Congress has the power to approve and impeach justices, and that's enough.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 2:48:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:25:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:15:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

Or state senate if the state supreme court is too impractical.

Never. That would undermine the authority of the federal government, and place the word of the state at equals with the word of the national government. Congress has the power to approve and impeach justices, and that's enough.

Congress is part of the federal government though and that is his point. How is that much of a check if the power still lies with the federal government, albeit a different part?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 2:49:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

I'd be okay with that, but the feds would never give up power, no one that holds power and wants more, ever gives up some.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 3:07:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:49:17 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

I'd be okay with that, but the feds would never give up power, no one that holds power and wants more, ever gives up some.

That's not true at all. There are presidents like Hoover who went for smaller and less active governments, and there are people without a hunger for power like there are people with small capacity for addiction. The issue is certainly not that the federal government will never give up power, the issue is that the Constitution made it a point to assert the superiority of the federal government. I cannot see it within the interests of the founders or of the modern day American people to make the ruling of the nations highest court subject to nullification by a lower one.

This is the groundwork of secession and indefinite distinction between the power of the national and state governments. A gateway that we closed long ago after the civil war.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 6:13:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

That isn't changing the Judicial Act, that's changing the Supremacy Clause.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 7:03:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 6:13:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

That isn't changing the Judicial Act, that's changing the Supremacy Clause.

Ha! someone agrees
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 8:21:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 6:13:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

That isn't changing the Judicial Act, that's changing the Supremacy Clause.

Look up the Judiciary Act of 1789

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

I don't see anything about the Supreme Court in there
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 8:30:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:25:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:15:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

Or state senate if the state supreme court is too impractical.

Never. That would undermine the authority of the federal government, and place the word of the state at equals with the word of the national government. Congress has the power to approve and impeach justices, and that's enough.

Well the States and Federal Government are Equals; at best the States have more constitutional Authority than the Federal Government (10th Amendment)

Judicial Activism has become a massive issue, and the Judicial Act of 1789 needs to be amended to account for that issue.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 8:34:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 8:21:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/18/2011 6:13:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

That isn't changing the Judicial Act, that's changing the Supremacy Clause.

Look up the Judiciary Act of 1789


"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

I don't see anything about the Supreme Court in there

Actually, perhaps you should look up "U.S Constitution," yeah its a little document, perhaps you haven't heard of it. Go check out article 6 clause 2. Tell me what you see.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 8:53:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 8:34:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/18/2011 8:21:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/18/2011 6:13:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

That isn't changing the Judicial Act, that's changing the Supremacy Clause.

Look up the Judiciary Act of 1789


"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

I don't see anything about the Supreme Court in there

Actually, perhaps you should look up "U.S Constitution," yeah its a little document, perhaps you haven't heard of it. Go check out article 6 clause 2. Tell me what you see.

Again it reads;

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 9:22:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 8:21:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/18/2011 6:13:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

That isn't changing the Judicial Act, that's changing the Supremacy Clause.

Look up the Judiciary Act of 1789


"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

I don't see anything about the Supreme Court in there

Ware v. Hylton (1796), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Pennsylvania v Nelson.

Since the founding, the supremacy clause has been used to strike down state legislation and state supreme court decisions.

Article III, Section I of constitution: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The Judiciary act decided the make-up of the supreme court and the appointment.

If you were in the least familiar with Madison and other Federalists, you'd understand that the very reason to have a separate Federal judiciary is to create uniform laws throughout America. If state supreme courts could invalidate a federal supreme court decision, you would have federal law effectively invalidated whereever states pleased.

The Supreme Court is restricted to deciding cases within a certain jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act governs the ability of citizens to remove a case from state courts to federal ones. If you want to amend the judiciary act, that's what you should be focusing on.

Read Federalists 33 and 44. The Supremacy clause exists to create a uniform system of laws which are followed by the states. The whole point of a Supreme Court is to stop states from going back to the relationship from the articles of confederation.

When the supreme court makes a ruling, it is the interpretation of federal law. If a state supreme court can then nullify the ruling, the states would be able to break federal law.

"The Judicial Power of the United States will be invested in a Supreme Court with INFERIOR courts."

Just like the legislative power lies in congress and executive power lies in the executive branch.

Go look up "inferior."

Your target is the Constitution, not the Judiciary Act. The Supremacy Clause creates the legimitacy of the constitution, and the Judiciary section of the constitution vests that power in the supreme court.
mauricio2
Posts: 129
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 9:36:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

If it results in overturning Roe v. Wade in some states, I couldn't support it.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 10:04:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:13:35 PM, DanT wrote:
I think that there should be an amendment to the judicial Act, which would allow for State Supreme Courts to override the Supreme Court, for their State.

This way the Supreme Court rulings are checked by the states.

Yeah, you and Ronald Reagan, George Wallace, Jefferson Davis, etc., i.e. every code-talking proponent of turning back the clock to pre-civil rights days. Well, you're advocacy of reducing or removing the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court over that of state courts either comes from the same rightist-racist doctrinarianism as the abovementioned ilk, or would unwittingly play right into their insidious ideological agenda. Assuming that you're an individual of good faith, I would advise you to give your point of view considerable more reflection.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 10:06:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sloppy typo correction: "you're advocacy" was of course supposed to be "your advocacy".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 11:12:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have a huge problem with the Supreme Court in general. You have nine Justices chosen by Presidents as their predecessors either died or retired, leaving a nearly random panel of people somewhat reflecting an offshoot of what a rough majority of the people of the United States wanted. Then, when a controversial case (for a case must be controversial to reach the Supreme Court) comes along, they usually vote either 5-4 or 6-3 to implement what is sometimes a radical new policy that overwrites much of what was done in the past on their own whims, even though had a past Justice retired or died at a different time, the entire thing could have easily gone in the exact opposite direction.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 5:38:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 11:12:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
I have a huge problem with the Supreme Court in general. You have nine Justices chosen by Presidents as their predecessors either died or retired, leaving a nearly random panel of people somewhat reflecting an offshoot of what a rough majority of the people of the United States wanted. Then, when a controversial case (for a case must be controversial to reach the Supreme Court) comes along, they usually vote either 5-4 or 6-3 to implement what is sometimes a radical new policy that overwrites much of what was done in the past on their own whims, even though had a past Justice retired or died at a different time, the entire thing could have easily gone in the exact opposite direction.

The purpose of the court is not to do as the nation wishes. The purpose is to protect and enforce the Constitution. Of course you will find many situations when the court did not uphold the Constitution, often weighted by racist bias, but for the most part that is what they do. They are the interpreters and defenders of the Constitution, and to annul the rule of the Court is a direct attack on the political foundation of this nation. This idea must not ever see the light of day.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 6:42:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Court has contradicted both the intent of the Founders in writing the Constitution and themselves so many times that to say that they're "defending" the Constitution would be giving them way too much benefit. They interpret it however they like; therein lies the problem.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 3:38:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 6:42:54 AM, mongeese wrote:
The Court has contradicted both the intent of the Founders in writing the Constitution and themselves so many times that to say that they're "defending" the Constitution would be giving them way too much benefit. They interpret it however they like; therein lies the problem.

lol that was the purpose of the Supreme Court, to interpret it how they like. Essentially, you could embellish this point with a complicated and seemingly different focus of the court, but when you get down to it, this is in deed their duty, to interpret it how they like, to interpret the Constitution as they see it to be.

The court is imperfect, as ALL things in are. That does not justify diminishing its authority in this highly unconstitutional manner.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 5:53:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 9:22:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
Article III, Section I of constitution: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.


United States means Federal Government. thats why State Courts are not created by the Federal Congress.

Article III, Section I of constitution: The judicial Power of the Federal Government, shall be vested in one supreme Courtand in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The Judiciary act decided the make-up of the supreme court and the appointment.

Did more than that, read it;
http://www.constitution.org...

Common Law for example, was given by Sec 34 of the Judicary act;

"SEC. 34. And be it further enacted, That the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply."

When the supreme court makes a ruling, it is the interpretation of federal law. If a state supreme court can then nullify the ruling, the states would be able to break federal law.

reinterpret law, not break law. I said nothing of States nullifying the Legislative branch.

"The Judicial Power of the United States will be invested in a Supreme Court with INFERIOR courts."

The Judiciary powers of the Federal government will be invested in a supreme court with inferior courts.... So you arguement is what?


Just like the legislative power lies in congress and executive power lies in the executive branch.

Hey same with the state governments. Still don't see your point.


Go look up "inferior."

I did and your picture was right there.


Your target is the Constitution, not the Judiciary Act.

wrong.

The Supremacy Clause creates the legimitacy of the constitution, and the Judiciary section of the constitution vests that power in the supreme court.

Wrong, it vested federal judicary power in the judical branch; and the Judicial act further defined judicial power.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 6:24:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 3:38:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/19/2011 6:42:54 AM, mongeese wrote:
The Court has contradicted both the intent of the Founders in writing the Constitution and themselves so many times that to say that they're "defending" the Constitution would be giving them way too much benefit. They interpret it however they like; therein lies the problem.

lol that was the purpose of the Supreme Court, to interpret it how they like. Essentially, you could embellish this point with a complicated and seemingly different focus of the court, but when you get down to it, this is in deed their duty, to interpret it how they like, to interpret the Constitution as they see it to be.

Therein lies the problem. What makes their interpretations any better than anyone else's?

The court is imperfect, as ALL things in are. That does not justify diminishing its authority in this highly unconstitutional manner.

It does justify questioning whether or not absolute judicial power should lie with such an imperfect system when there are better alternatives.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 6:57:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Either advocate secession or don't, don't go for silly half-measures. This "checks and balances" nothing, it simply creates legal chaos. The United States cannot ensure a republican form of government in each state under such a rule, nor enforce any other clause of the constitution. The US government would collapse unless a prudential rule was adapted to never use the law.

Also, it would immediately be ruled unconstitutional, amend at the root if you want such things.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 7:28:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 5:53:36 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/18/2011 9:22:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
Article III, Section I of constitution: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.


United States means Federal Government. thats why State Courts are not created by the Federal Congress.


Article III, Section I of constitution: The judicial Power of the Federal Government, shall be vested in one supreme Courtand in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.





The Judiciary act decided the make-up of the supreme court and the appointment.

Did more than that, read it;
http://www.constitution.org...

Common Law for example, was given by Sec 34 of the Judicary act;

"SEC. 34. And be it further enacted, That the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply."



When the supreme court makes a ruling, it is the interpretation of federal law. If a state supreme court can then nullify the ruling, the states would be able to break federal law.

reinterpret law, not break law. I said nothing of States nullifying the Legislative branch.


"The Judicial Power of the United States will be invested in a Supreme Court with INFERIOR courts."

The Judiciary powers of the Federal government will be invested in a supreme court with inferior courts.... So you arguement is what?


Just like the legislative power lies in congress and executive power lies in the executive branch.

Hey same with the state governments. Still don't see your point.


Go look up "inferior."

I did and your picture was right there.


Your target is the Constitution, not the Judiciary Act.

wrong.

The Supremacy Clause creates the legimitacy of the constitution, and the Judiciary section of the constitution vests that power in the supreme court.

Wrong, it vested federal judicary power in the judical branch; and the Judicial act further defined judicial power.

Let me see if I understand you.

You are saying that the constitution, as written, permits a lawsuit between two states to go to the Supreme Court and, once decided, either state supreme court can say "we disagree?"

If Kentucky sues an ambassador, and the Supreme Court makes a ruling, you are saying the constitution permits Kentucky supreme court to then say "screw that, I disagree?"

Do you not see how patently ridiculous that is? There is no reason to have a Supreme Court if the parties involved are allowed to change whatever ruling they receive.

Have you read the Federalists yet? Madison's critique of the Confederation? Blackstone? The uniformity of law over the states was one of the key reasons the founders wanted to abandon the articles of confederation.

You are like the anti-federalists from the 1700s, not someone trying to amend the judiciary act.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 8:34:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 7:28:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:53:36 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/18/2011 9:22:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
Article III, Section I of constitution: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.


United States means Federal Government. thats why State Courts are not created by the Federal Congress.


Article III, Section I of constitution: The judicial Power of the Federal Government, shall be vested in one supreme Courtand in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.





The Judiciary act decided the make-up of the supreme court and the appointment.

Did more than that, read it;
http://www.constitution.org...

Common Law for example, was given by Sec 34 of the Judicary act;

"SEC. 34. And be it further enacted, That the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply."



When the supreme court makes a ruling, it is the interpretation of federal law. If a state supreme court can then nullify the ruling, the states would be able to break federal law.

reinterpret law, not break law. I said nothing of States nullifying the Legislative branch.


"The Judicial Power of the United States will be invested in a Supreme Court with INFERIOR courts."

The Judiciary powers of the Federal government will be invested in a supreme court with inferior courts.... So you arguement is what?


Just like the legislative power lies in congress and executive power lies in the executive branch.

Hey same with the state governments. Still don't see your point.


Go look up "inferior."

I did and your picture was right there.


Your target is the Constitution, not the Judiciary Act.

wrong.

The Supremacy Clause creates the legimitacy of the constitution, and the Judiciary section of the constitution vests that power in the supreme court.

Wrong, it vested federal judicary power in the judical branch; and the Judicial act further defined judicial power.

Let me see if I understand you.

You are saying that the constitution, as written, permits a lawsuit between two states to go to the Supreme Court and, once decided, either state supreme court can say "we disagree?"

If Kentucky sues an ambassador, and the Supreme Court makes a ruling, you are saying the constitution permits Kentucky supreme court to then say "screw that, I disagree?"

No, I'm talking about things directly relating to the constitution, I'm not talking about civil disputes.

State nullification of judicial rulings may also be a good model, so long as the supreme court's judicial activism is checked.

For example; if 26 state Supreme Courts agree the ruling is nullified.


Do you not see how patently ridiculous that is? There is no reason to have a Supreme Court if the parties involved are allowed to change whatever ruling they receive.

Have you read the Federalists yet? Madison's critique of the Confederation? Blackstone? The uniformity of law over the states was one of the key reasons the founders wanted to abandon the articles of confederation.


A.) Not all the founders wanted to abandon the confederation, only the Federalists did.
B.) I read the Federalist papers prior to the discussion

By the way the Federalist Papers was Pro-State rights, and spoke of a severely limited Federal Government.

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." - Federalist Papers, No. 39, January, 1788

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." - Federalist Papers, No. 45, January 26, 1788

"The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security." - Federalist Papers, No. 45, January 26, 1788

"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity." - Federalist Papers, No. 46, January 29, 1788

You are like the anti-federalists from the 1700s, not someone trying to amend the judiciary act.

I'll take that as a compliment, seeing as they were right when they warned that the Federal Government would grow out of control if implemented.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 8:49:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 6:57:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Either advocate secession or don't, don't go for silly half-measures. This "checks and balances" nothing, it simply creates legal chaos. The United States cannot ensure a republican form of government in each state under such a rule,

WTF

A Constitutional Republic is what the Greek philosopher Aristotle called Polity.

A Polity or Constitutional Republic is a form of Government where the Government officials act as representatives of the entire community and must govern according to existing constitutional limitations.
A polity is a mix between a Democracy and a Oligarchy, and is restricted by constitutional law; this way neither the majority nor the minority could violate the others' liberty.

Each member State has a State Government, and the State Government has a Republican Government, with their own constitution. The Federal Government, or union state, has a Republican Government with it's own constitution.

The Federal Supreme Court has no bearing on the the State Constitutions; the State Supreme court does.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 9:09:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 8:49:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/19/2011 6:57:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Either advocate secession or don't, don't go for silly half-measures. This "checks and balances" nothing, it simply creates legal chaos. The United States cannot ensure a republican form of government in each state under such a rule,

WTF ...
Each member State has a State Government, and the State Government has a Republican Government, with their own constitution. The Federal Government, or union state, has a Republican Government with it's own constitution.

The Federal Supreme Court has no bearing on the the State Constitutions; the State Supreme court does.

Obviously you don't get the reference. A clause in the Constitution requires the federal govt to ENSURE a republican form of government. Yes, the State governments have one now. That doesn't mean the USFG can ensure they will continue when it no longer has power to do so.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 9:24:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 9:09:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/19/2011 8:49:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/19/2011 6:57:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Either advocate secession or don't, don't go for silly half-measures. This "checks and balances" nothing, it simply creates legal chaos. The United States cannot ensure a republican form of government in each state under such a rule,

WTF ...
Each member State has a State Government, and the State Government has a Republican Government, with their own constitution. The Federal Government, or union state, has a Republican Government with it's own constitution.

The Federal Supreme Court has no bearing on the the State Constitutions; the State Supreme court does.

Obviously you don't get the reference. A clause in the Constitution requires the federal govt to ENSURE a republican form of government. Yes, the State governments have one now. That doesn't mean the USFG can ensure they will continue when it no longer has power to do so.

>.< This is about the Supreme Court. Explain how this relates to the supreme court.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 12:24:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 8:34:51 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:28:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/19/2011 5:53:36 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/18/2011 9:22:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
Article III, Section I of constitution: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.


United States means Federal Government. thats why State Courts are not created by the Federal Congress.


Article III, Section I of constitution: The judicial Power of the Federal Government, shall be vested in one supreme Courtand in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.





The Judiciary act decided the make-up of the supreme court and the appointment.

Did more than that, read it;
http://www.constitution.org...

Common Law for example, was given by Sec 34 of the Judicary act;

"SEC. 34. And be it further enacted, That the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply."



When the supreme court makes a ruling, it is the interpretation of federal law. If a state supreme court can then nullify the ruling, the states would be able to break federal law.

reinterpret law, not break law. I said nothing of States nullifying the Legislative branch.


"The Judicial Power of the United States will be invested in a Supreme Court with INFERIOR courts."

The Judiciary powers of the Federal government will be invested in a supreme court with inferior courts.... So you arguement is what?


Just like the legislative power lies in congress and executive power lies in the executive branch.

Hey same with the state governments. Still don't see your point.


Go look up "inferior."

I did and your picture was right there.


Your target is the Constitution, not the Judiciary Act.

wrong.

The Supremacy Clause creates the legimitacy of the constitution, and the Judiciary section of the constitution vests that power in the supreme court.

Wrong, it vested federal judicary power in the judical branch; and the Judicial act further defined judicial power.

Let me see if I understand you.

You are saying that the constitution, as written, permits a lawsuit between two states to go to the Supreme Court and, once decided, either state supreme court can say "we disagree?"

If Kentucky sues an ambassador, and the Supreme Court makes a ruling, you are saying the constitution permits Kentucky supreme court to then say "screw that, I disagree?"

No, I'm talking about things directly relating to the constitution, I'm not talking about civil disputes.

State nullification of judicial rulings may also be a good model, so long as the supreme court's judicial activism is checked.

For example; if 26 state Supreme Courts agree the ruling is nullified.


Do you not see how patently ridiculous that is? There is no reason to have a Supreme Court if the parties involved are allowed to change whatever ruling they receive.

Have you read the Federalists yet? Madison's critique of the Confederation? Blackstone? The uniformity of law over the states was one of the key reasons the founders wanted to abandon the articles of confederation.


A.) Not all the founders wanted to abandon the confederation, only the Federalists did.
B.) I read the Federalist papers prior to the discussion

By the way the Federalist Papers was Pro-State rights, and spoke of a severely limited Federal Government.

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." - Federalist Papers, No. 39, January, 1788

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." - Federalist Papers, No. 45, January 26, 1788


"The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security." - Federalist Papers, No. 45, January 26, 1788

"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity." - Federalist Papers, No. 46, January 29, 1788






You are like the anti-federalists from the 1700s, not someone trying to amend the judiciary act.

I'll take that as a compliment, seeing as they were right when they warned that the Federal Government would grow out of control if implemented.

Suits where states are a party to a lawsuit sometimes involves constitutional matters and sometimes just federal legislation. These aren't civil disputes.

You're saying that if a certain number of states deciding something can nullify the supreme court's decision?

Or are you restricting your claim to cases where the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 12:37:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm simply saying the states should have some method to check the supreme court.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle