Who was the worst Supreme Court Justice of all time?

[Galileo Galilei]

Who was the worst Supreme Court Justice of all time?

Samuel Chase
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

Corrupt. Was impeached by the US House and Thomas Jefferson didn't like him. A sad ending for a man who signed the Declaration of Independence.

John Marshall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall

Accused of being for big government when the federal share of the GNP was less than 2%

Roger Brooke Taney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney

Wrote the dreadful Dred Scott decision

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.

The worst ever. He overturned Lochner vs. New York (1905)

Owen Roberts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Roberts

A traitor. The Urban VIII, Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold of the Supreme Court. he flip-flopped on the commerce clause in National Labor Relations Board vs. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)

Benjamin N. Cardozo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo

Assassinated the general welfare clause. The general welfare clause was born in the Articles of Confederation and died in Helvering vs. Davis (1937)

Robert H. Jackson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jackson

Led the charge to repeal the commerce clause in Wichard vs. Filburn (1942)

William Rehnquist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist

A big government and Drug War fascist. Butchered James Madison in many court decisions.

Antonin Scalia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia

Another fascist. Actually worse than Rehnquist because he is better at coaching his plausible language.

Someone Else

Reference Material to help you in your voting decisions:

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_Unite d_States

Good books on the Supreme Court

The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedomby Robert A. Levy and William Mellor
http://www.amazon.com/Dirty-Dozen-Radically-Expanded-Government/dp/1595230505

A History of the Supreme Court
by Bernard Schwartz
http://www.amazon.com/History-Supreme-Court-Bernard-Schwartz/dp/0195093879

The Supreme Court Under Marshall And Taney
by R. Kent Newmyer
http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Marshall-American-History/dp/0882952412

To Secure the Liberty of the People: James Madison's Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court's Interpretation
by Eric T. Kasper
http://www.amazon.com/Secure-Liberty-People-Madisons-Interpretation/dp/0875804217

Marbury v. Madison : The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review
by William Edward Nelson
http://www.amazon.com/Marbury-v-Madison-Origins-Judicial/dp/0700610626/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210609348&sr=1-3

Gideon's Trumpet
by Anthony Lewis
http://www.amazon.com/Gideons-Trumpet-Anthony-Lewis/dp/0679723129

[jmdrake]

Easy. John Marshall for saying the necessary and proper clause meant the government had the authority to set up a national bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

That said, why'd you leave Clarence Thomas off the list? His decision in the Hamdi case is more fascist than anything Scalia ever did. In fact Scalia's dissent in that case is actually pretty good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

[Galileo Galilei]

Easy. John Marshall for saying the necessary and proper clause meant the government had the authority to set up a national bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

That said, why'd you leave Clarence Thomas off the list? His decision in the Hamdi case is more fascist than anything Scalia ever did. In fact Scalia's dissent in that case is actually pretty good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

The problem with that argument is that the central government was the same size in 1835 as it was in 1801.

[Acala]

John Marshall. Set the Supreme Court up as the final arbiter of Constitutionality, among other great wrongs.

[nate895]

The problem with that argument is that the central government was the same size in 1835 as it was in 1801.

It isn't about the pace of government power and influence increasing, it is about the foundations for eventually building the massive Federal superstructure that we have today. Once the foundation of limited Constitutional government was undermined by the Marshall Court's decisions on the necessary & proper clause and Federal supremacy on a matter not delegated to it were put into place, the trend towards ever increasing Federal government expansion became practically irreversible outside of a radical change in direction.

[Galileo Galilei]

John Marshall. Set the Supreme Court up as the final arbiter of Constitutionality, among other great wrongs.

That's completely false. Late in his term, he was rebuked by Andrew Jackson. read Nullification by Thomas Woods. The Wisconsin Supreme Court was acting as a final arbiter in the 1850s. Ron Paul today still acts as a final arbiter. So does the Libertarian Party.

[nate895]

That's completely false. Late in his term, he was rebuked by Andrew Jackson. read Nullification by Thomas Woods. The Wisconsin Supreme Court was acting as a final arbiter in the 1850s. Ron Paul today still acts as a final arbiter. So does the Libertarian Party.

Why was Marshall rebuked? Because he stood in the way of the Trail of Tears. Admirable? Yes. Constitutional? Absolutely. Redeem his previous sins? No.

[Galileo Galilei]

It isn't about the pace of government power and influence increasing, it is about the foundations for eventually building the massive Federal superstructure that we have today. Once the foundation of limited Constitutional government was undermined by the Marshall Court's decisions on the necessary & proper clause and Federal supremacy on a matter not delegated to it were put into place, the trend towards ever increasing Federal government expansion became practically irreversible outside of a radical change in direction.

The national bank was already settled law by the time Marshall ruled on it in 1819. And yes, actually increases in size of government DO matter. The biggest increases came from 1913 until FDR. Owen Roberts, all by himself, caused the government to get bigger in just one decision by flipping his vote than Marshall did in 35 years. It is amazing how the defacto defenders of the New Deal like to blame stuff on John Marshall.

You should read the Dirty Diozen.

[Galileo Galilei]

Why was Marshall rebuked? Because he stood in the way of the Trail of Tears. Admirable? Yes. Constitutional? Absolutely. Redeem his previous sins? No.

You moved the goalposts. The Supreme Court was not the final arbiter of the Constitution in the 1830s.

[nate895]

The national bank was already settled law by the time Marshall ruled on it in 1819. And yes, actually increases in size of government DO matter. The biggest increases came from 1913 until FDR. Owen Roberts, all by himself, caused the government to get bigger in just one decision by flipping his vote than Marshall did in 35 years. It is amazing how the defacto defenders of the New Deal like to blame stuff on John Marshall.

You should read the Dirty Diozen.

I didn't say it didn't matter. My point was that the foundation for increasing size matters more. As for the National Bank being "settled law," I call BS. Law is never settled outside of the binds of the Constitution. If it is unconstitutional, then it isn't a law at all.

[Galileo Galilei]

Its pretty obvious from this poll that people here know next to nothing about the Wilson era and the New Deal court.

The federal government accounted for only 1.75% of the GNP in 1912 and this was long long after John Marshall was gone.

[nate895]

You moved the goalposts. The Supreme Court was not the final arbiter of the Constitution in the 1830s.

It liked to pretend to be. It isn't now, but it likes to pretend to be. As for "moving the goalposts," I have no idea what you're talking about. I never set up any to begin with.

[nate895]

Its pretty obvious from this poll that people here know next to nothing about the Wilson era and the New Deal court.

The federal government accounted for only 1.75% of the GNP in 1912 and this was long long after John Marshall was gone.

Is government % of GNP all you care about? That's BS on its face. The local and state governments make up less of the GDP today than the the Feds do, and yet they suppress more of our liberties (albeit, mostly at the behest of Congressional fiat). It isn't about how much is spent, but where and why it is spent.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Kegan

-t

[Galileo Galilei]

I didn't say it didn't matter. My point was that the foundation for increasing size matters more. As for the National Bank being "settled law," I call BS. Law is never settled outside of the binds of the Constitution. If it is unconstitutional, then it isn't a law at all.

Marshall's decision in 1819 was poor. But not for the reason you cite. His decision interfered with state rights and powers. James Madison critisized the decision. But the Constitutionality of the bank (and the limited powers it had) was settled by 1819. At that time, it was a political issue. It still is a political issue.

The overall actions of people like Marshall, Madison, and Jackson set a constitutional limit on the powers of a central bank. The central bank must be of a limited term (20 yeras or less). It must not issue fiat currency. it mst be auditied. It must not do bailouts. Etc.

All this was forgotten in 1913. It the 20-year term had been retained, the Fed would have closed in 1933.

[Galileo Galilei]

Is government % of GNP all you care about? That's BS on its face. The local and state governments make up less of the GDP today than the the Feds do, and yet they suppress more of our liberties (albeit, mostly at the behest of Congressional fiat). It isn't about how much is spent, but where and why it is spent.

Percent of GNP is the best way to measue the size of government. It can be used to evaluate ther Roman Empire or any nation or state that has economic statistics that are reliable. The optimum central government uses up about 2% of the GNP. It becomes oppressive when it gets to 10%. Less than 1% and you get basically anarchy.

If you are copmplaining about large local governemnts, then you must blame human nature itself. If you want a smaller government, then you must win the battle of ideas. Ranting about John Marshall, a Patriot who fought in the Revolution, is not a good way to win the battle of ideas and is a good way to lose it.

[nate895]

Percent of GNP is the best way to measue the size of government. It can be used to evaluate ther Roman Empire or any nation or state that has economic statistics that are reliable. The optimum central government uses up about 2% of the GNP. It becomes oppressive when it gets to 10%. Less than 1% and you get basically anarchy.

If you are copmplaining about large local governemnts, then you must blame human nature itself. If you want a smaller government, then you must win the battle of ideas. Ranting about John Marshall, a Patriot who fought in the Revolution, is not a good way to win the battle of ideas and is a good way to lose it.

I am the one fighting the battle of ideas. You're off fighting some sort of battle defending an enemy of every classically liberal constitutionalist he came across politically. Jefferson didn't like him. Madison didn't like him. The only would-be dictator he stood up to was Jackson for egregious acts against the Constitution. As for his war hero status, so was Hamilton. Finally, where does Congress get the right to authorize a bank, or to charter any corporation whatsoever? The states had that spelled out in their constitutions, why didn't the Feds?

Edit: If you think that we have enough contemporary economic data to reconstruct a Roman GDP, then you must have access to data no one else has. Please release the documents so some actual historians can read them.

[Galileo Galilei]

I am the one fighting the battle of ideas. You're off fighting some sort of battle defending an enemy of every classically liberal constitutionalist he came across politically. Jefferson didn't like him. Madison didn't like him. The only would-be dictator he stood up to was Jackson for egregious acts against the Constitution. As for his war hero status, so was Hamilton. Finally, where does Congress get the right to authorize a bank, or to charter any corporation whatsoever? The states had that spelled out in their constitutions, why didn't the Feds?

Edit: If you think that we have enough contemporary economic data to reconstruct a Roman GDP, then you must have access to data no one else has. Please release the documents so some actual historians can read them.

There is a lot of economic data from t he Roman Empire. Please check out The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter.

James Monroe liked John Marshall, they were friends from childhood until death. Monroe voted against the Constitution, while Madison voted for it and jefferson supported it.

Marshall voted for smaller government in 1833 in Barron vs Baltimore. He also voted for smaller government in Marbury vs Madison.

Oliver Wendell Holmes did far more damage than John Marshall, because in 1905, th Supreme Court decided Lochner vs New York. This protected the right to contract, which pretty much trumps anything else the government does. For example, you can't have a war on drugs with a right to contract, because a drug sale is a contract. You can't do much "regulation" of commerce because it would interfere with contracts. Etc. John Marshall protected the right to contract.

Holmes led a lifelong fight against Lochner vs New York, and "succeeded.

[BuddyRey]

Holmes wrote the majority opinion in a Supreme Court ruling which upheld states' rights to forcibly sterilize the mentally handicapped and other "undesirable elements."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

[jmdrake]

The national bank was already settled law by the time Marshall ruled on it in 1819. And yes, actually increases in size of government DO matter. The biggest increases came from 1913 until FDR. Owen Roberts, all by himself, caused the government to get bigger in just one decision by flipping his vote than Marshall did in 35 years. It is amazing how the defacto defenders of the New Deal like to blame stuff on John Marshall.

You should read the Dirty Diozen.

No. It was not "settled law". If it had been John Marshall could have simply referred to the earlier precedent instead of going with his "necessary and proper" nonsense. And the size of government isn't the correct measure. If I take a compass and turn 180 degrees and take two steps I'm still close to where I started but I've headed in the wrong direction.

[Galileo Galilei]

No. It was not "settled law". If it had been John Marshall could have simply referred to the earlier precedent instead of going with his "necessary and proper" nonsense. And the size of government isn't the correct measure. If I take a compass and turn 180 degrees and take two steps I'm still close to where I started but I've headed in the wrong direction.

The bank was settled law by 1819:

* the first congress voted for the bank

* George Washington signed the bank bill

* the bank had never been challenged in court

* the 15th congress passed another bank bill

* James Madison signed the bank bill

* a central bank is a gray area in the Constitution, so it must be settled by precedent

So the Father of our Country and the Father of the Constitution had settled the issue.

[misterx]

Why is Earl Warren not on the list?

[Galileo Galilei]

Why is Earl Warren not on the list?

That's a good point. Warren served on the Warren Commission, which covered up the crime of the century.

[SovereignMN]

Harry Blackmun authored Roe V Wade which puts him EXTREMELY high on my list.

[John Taylor]

The problem with that argument is that the central government was the same size in 1835 as it was in 1801.

Easily the worst justice was Marshall. He established the abhorrent principle of judicial review and final arbitration on federal constitutional issues. He established the precedent Lincoln and Wilson would later utilize.

[jmdrake]

The bank was settled law by 1819:

* the first congress voted for the bank

* George Washington signed the bank bill

* the bank had never been challenged in court

* the 15th congress passed another bank bill

* James Madison signed the bank bill

* a central bank is a gray area in the Constitution, so it must be settled by precedent

So the Father of our Country and the Father of the Constitution had settled the issue.

So the first time there is some "gray area" in the constitution the president and the congress get to do what they want? Well universal healthcare is constitutional then. It's not expressly prohibited by the constitution nor is it allowed. It's a "gray area". It hasn't been challenged in court before so when it is challenged the Supreme Court should just say it's "settled law" and ok under the "necessary and proper" clause and be done with it. .... Or they could follow the constitution.

[John Taylor]

The bank was settled law by 1819:

* the first congress voted for the bank

* George Washington signed the bank bill

* the bank had never been challenged in court

* the 15th congress passed another bank bill

* James Madison signed the bank bill

* a central bank is a gray area in the Constitution, so it must be settled by precedent

So the Father of our Country and the Father of the Constitution had settled the issue.

Bullshit.

We know as a matter of basic constitutional construction that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers only, with all others being retained by the states and their people. If, as Galileo and his Hamiltonian acolytes intimate, the constitution crafted careful limits on the legislative branch, limiting it to exercising imperium over those areas in which the states delegated an enumerated power to the federal government, while simultaneously granting an unrestrained extra-constitutional interperative “prerogative” to the judicial branch, where would be the limit? Are not the powers of the federal government few and defined? The owners of a loaf of bread divide it between two persons. But does the donation of one half imply a right to eat up the other half. The powers of the federal government are wholly derived from the constitution, and in no degree from representation of the sovereign people or from some nebulous prerogative. Under the constitution, the federal government, in its entirety, is a limited government. Were expansion through prerogative through “inferred” powers discovered by constitutional constructive alchemy, the judicial, and through it the federal government would become unlimited.

I have not often seen people be so consistently mistaken as the dear Galileo Galilei is in this thread.

[Galileo Galilei]

Easily the worst justice was Marshall. He established the abhorrent principle of judicial review and final arbitration on federal constitutional issues. He established the precedent Lincoln and Wilson would later utilize.

Judicial review is no different than congressional review or executive review. All branches of government are supposed to follow the Constitution. Judicial Review goes back to the Magna Carta, so you should be voting for King John instead of Marshall. You just made one of the most ignorant comments I've ever seen ont he ronpaulforums.

Final arbitration of the Constitution was not established by Marshall. Ron Paul makes final arbitrations all the time on the Constitution even to this day.

People who smoke pot are doing exactly the same thing, they have decided that the war in drugs is unconstitutional.

[Galileo Galilei]

So the first time there is some "gray area" in the constitution the president and the congress get to do what they want? Well universal healthcare is constitutional then. It's not expressly prohibited by the constitution nor is it allowed. It's a "gray area". It hasn't been challenged in court before so when it is challenged the Supreme Court should just say it's "settled law" and ok under the "necessary and proper" clause and be done with it. .... Or they could follow the constitution.

You are confused. It is the powers of the central bank that matter. There is a vast difference between the 1st bank and the Fed.

[Galileo Galilei]

Bullshit.

We know as a matter of basic constitutional construction that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers only, with all others being retained by the states and their people. If, as Galileo and his Hamiltonian acolytes intimate, the constitution crafted careful limits on the legislative branch, limiting it to exercising imperium over those areas in which the states delegated an enumerated power to the federal government, while simultaneously granting an unrestrained extra-constitutional interperative “prerogative” to the judicial branch, where would be the limit? Are not the powers of the federal government few and defined? The owners of a loaf of bread divide it between two persons. But does the donation of one half imply a right to eat up the other half. The powers of the federal government are wholly derived from the constitution, and in no degree from representation of the sovereign people or from some nebulous prerogative. Under the constitution, the federal government, in its entirety, is a limited government. Were expansion through prerogative through “inferred” powers discovered by constitutional constructive alchemy, the judicial, and through it the federal government would become unlimited.

I have not often seen people be so consistently mistaken as the dear Galileo Galilei is in this thread.

The first national bank crafted by Hamilton didn't have very much power at all. Its power was very limited.

[John Taylor]

Judicial review is no different than congressional review or executive review. All branches of government are supposed to follow the Constitution. Judicial Review goes back to the Magna Carta, so you should be voting for King John instead of Marshall. You just made one of the most ignorant comments I've ever seen ont he ronpaulforums.

Final arbitration of the Constitution was not established by Marshall. Ron Paul makes final arbitrations all the time on the Constitution even to this day.

People who smoke pot are doing exactly the same thing, they have decided that the war in drugs is unconstitutional.

The judicial review claimed by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, and in McCulloch v. Maryland, is not simply a claim of co-equal authority to opine on the consitutionality of a law, it is a claim that the U.S. Supreme Court IS THE FINAL ARBITER on constitutional issues. This is entirely extra-constitutional, and flies directly in the face of all principles of limited government.

Shame on you for deliberately misconstruing this through false association of an often employed judicial principle with a claim for unlimited power.

[John Taylor]

The first national bank crafted by Hamilton didn't have very much power at all. Its power was very limited.

It doesn't matter how large the fetus of tyranny was then, it was an unconstitutional aggrandizement of federal power.

[John Taylor]

We know as a matter of basic constitutional construction that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers only, with all others being retained by the states and their people. If, as Galileo and his Hamiltonian acolytes intimate, the constitution crafted careful limits on the legislative branch, limiting it to exercising imperium over those areas in which the states delegated an enumerated power to the federal government, while simultaneously granting an unrestrained extra-constitutional interperative “prerogative” to the judicial branch, where would be the limit? Are not the powers of the federal government few and defined? The owners of a loaf of bread divide it between two persons. But does the donation of one half imply a right to eat up the other half. The powers of the federal government are wholly derived from the constitution, and in no degree from representation of the sovereign people or from some nebulous prerogative. Under the constitution, the federal government, in its entirety, is a limited government. Were expansion through prerogative through “inferred” powers discovered by constitutional constructive alchemy, the judicial, and through it the federal government would become unlimited.

[White Knight]

William Rehnquist was the greatest, his name should not be on that list. Really, no option for that asshole Thurgood Marshall?

[jmdrake]

Judicial review is no different than congressional review or executive review. All branches of government are supposed to follow the Constitution. Judicial Review goes back to the Magna Carta, so you should be voting for King John instead of Marshall. You just made one of the most ignorant comments I've ever seen ont he ronpaulforums.

Final arbitration of the Constitution was not established by Marshall. Ron Paul makes final arbitrations all the time on the Constitution even to this day.

People who smoke pot are doing exactly the same thing, they have decided that the war in drugs is unconstitutional.

Yeah....but a pothead citing his constitutional rights smoke weed in court just doesn't carry the same weight as a Supreme Court decision for some reason.

Also there's a difference between three branches of government having "review" over whether something is constitutional or not and the Supreme Court having the final say. Take the free exercise clause for instance. The Supreme Court decided to relegate that to a lower standard of review (rational basis review) than "made up" rights like a right to an abortion (strict scrutiny) even through the free exercise clause is expressly in the constitution. When congress tried to rectify that through RFRA the Supreme Court struck that down.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/free_exercise/index.aspx

[John Taylor]

William Rehnquist was the greatest, his name should not be on that list. Really, no option for that asshole Thurgood Marshall?

Galileo Galilei doesn't approve of Rehnquist's almost single-handed revival of federalism and the 10th Amendment.

[jmdrake]

You are confused. It is the powers of the central bank that matter. There is a vast difference between the 1st bank and the Fed.

I'm not at all confused. It's the same "necessary and proper" power to create a central bank that allows the creation of the fed.

[John Taylor]

I'm not at all confused. It's the same "necessary and proper" power to create a central bank that allows the creation of the fed.

Precisely. Once the principle of "elastic" constitutional construction is surrendered, one can't complain about the inevitable abuses which follow.

[Galileo Galilei]

The judicial review claimed by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, and in McCulloch v. Maryland, is not simply a claim of co-equal authority to opine on the consitutionality of a law, it is a claim that the U.S. Supreme Court IS THE FINAL ARBITER on constitutional issues. This is entirely extra-constitutional, and flies directly in the face of all principles of limited government.

Shame on you for deliberately misconstruing this through false association of an often employed judicial principle with a claim for unlimited power.

Marshall can claim whatever he wants. That doesn't prevent other branches from making Constitutional claims. At least Marshall was a Founding Father who fought in the Revolution and debated at the Virginia Ratifying Convention so he has some credibility.

The veto power of the president is a final arbiter of the Constitution, for example, and has been used 100s of times in US history.

[Galileo Galilei]

It doesn't matter how large the fetus of tyranny was then, it was an unconstitutional aggrandizement of federal power.

It had power delegated in the Constitution to regulate the value of currency and borrow money on credit. What powers are you claiming it had that weren't constitutional?

[jmdrake]

The first national bank crafted by Hamilton didn't have very much power at all. Its power was very limited.

McCulloch v. Maryland was about the SECOND bank of the United States, not the FIRST bank. And you think I'm confused?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States

Note the reason that Maryland tried to take the 2nd bank of the U.S. down. The bank was corrupt, running short on cash and started calling in all of its loans. It's reckless policies caused the panic of 1819. "Limited power" my foot.

[Galileo Galilei]

We know as a matter of basic constitutional construction that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers only, with all others being retained by the states and their people. If, as Galileo and his Hamiltonian acolytes intimate, the constitution crafted careful limits on the legislative branch, limiting it to exercising imperium over those areas in which the states delegated an enumerated power to the federal government, while simultaneously granting an unrestrained extra-constitutional interperative “prerogative” to the judicial branch, where would be the limit? Are not the powers of the federal government few and defined? The owners of a loaf of bread divide it between two persons. But does the donation of one half imply a right to eat up the other half. The powers of the federal government are wholly derived from the constitution, and in no degree from representation of the sovereign people or from some nebulous prerogative. Under the constitution, the federal government, in its entirety, is a limited government. Were expansion through prerogative through “inferred” powers discovered by constitutional constructive alchemy, the judicial, and through it the federal government would become unlimited.

That sounds like eloquent language from the Federalist Papers. Was it Hamilton or Madison?

:D

[John Taylor]

Marshall can claim whatever he wants. That doesn't prevent other branches from making Constitutional claims. At least Marshall was a Founding Father who fought in the Revolution and debated at the Virginia Ratifying Convention so he has some credibility.

The veto power of the president is a final arbiter of the Constitution, for example, and has been used 100s of times in US history.

Marshall used his position to centralize power in the federal government. That is a fact. John Taylor of Caroline was a Founding Father who fought in the American Revolution and debated at th Virginia Ratfication Convention, and wrote numerous books explaining why Mr. Marshall was completely and utterly mistaken in his constructions.

The only guidepost we have is the constitution. The federal gov't has no authority outside its enumerated powers.

[John Taylor]

That sounds like eloquent language from the Federalist Papers. Was it Hamilton or Madison?

:D

Neither, that is my own writing, which I wrote today in opposition to you.

[Galileo Galilei]

William Rehnquist was the greatest, his name should not be on that list. Really, no option for that asshole Thurgood Marshall?

I'd put him in the top 20. His research was sloppy. A also forgot to put Felix "Buthcer of Madison" Frankfurter.

[John Taylor]

That sounds like eloquent language from the Federalist Papers. Was it Hamilton or Madison?

:D

Judicial prerogative is lack of legal restraint. It is imperio. It is consolidation, for it invites and rewards those who find an outlet for their application and expansion of “prerogative”. England lost thirteen colonies by attempting to establish a concentrated supremacy grounded in prerogative, and our founders were wise enough not to re-institute on these new shores, the despotism of the old... weren't they?

[jmdrake]

It had power delegated in the Constitution to regulate the value of currency and borrow money on credit. What powers are you claiming it had that weren't constitutional?

And it had the power delegated in the Constitution to "promote the general welfare". I guess Nancy Pelolsi is right then. Universal healthcare is constitutional. (I'm being sarcastic of course).

[Galileo Galilei]

Galileo Galilei doesn't approve of Rehnquist's almost single-handed revival of federalism and the 10th Amendment.

Clarence Thomas is the only recent judge who rules properly on the commerce clause. Not Rehnquist.

[John Taylor]

Clarence Thomas is the only recent judge who rules properly on the commerce clause. Not Rehnquist.

Rehnquist is DEAD. So you disagree with Rehnquist in Morrison?

[John Taylor]

That sounds like eloquent language from the Federalist Papers. Was it Hamilton or Madison?

:D

I'm still waiting for you to refute this.

[Galileo Galilei]

I'm not at all confused. It's the same "necessary and proper" power to create a central bank that allows the creation of the fed.

creating a central bank means nothing unless the bank has powers. You need to specifiy what powers of the central bank you find objectionable.

[John Taylor]

creating a central bank means nothing unless the bank has powers. You need to specifiy what powers of the central bank you find objectionable.

No, you need to specify where the federal government derives the power to establish a national bank.

[Galileo Galilei]

Rehnquist is DEAD. So you disagree with Rehnquist in Morrison?

I said recent judge. Rehnquist was a big government facist. He was one of the small number of people essential for the evil war on drugs to flourish. Under the Rehnquist dioctrine unconstitutional federal law trumps constitutional state law.

[John Taylor]

creating a central bank means nothing unless the bank has powers. You need to specifiy what powers of the central bank you find objectionable.

In any event, it is not what we individually may find objectionable, it is what is objectional to the constitution which is the standard.

[jmdrake]

creating a central bank means nothing unless the bank has powers. You need to specifiy what powers of the central bank you find objectionable.

A) It doesn't matter whether I find the powers "objectionable" or not. If the constitution doesn't give the government the power to do it, it doesn't have it. I might think universal healthcare is a good idea, but it's not constitutional. (I don't think it is a good idea, just saying).

B) Have you figured out yet that we're talking about the second bank of the U.S. and not the first?

[jmdrake]

Clarence Thomas is the only recent judge who rules properly on the commerce clause. Not Rehnquist.

On the "big three" recent commerce clause cases (Lopez, Morrison and Raich), Thomas, Renquist and O'Connor all voted the same way.

[John Taylor]

I said recent judge. Rehnquist was a big government facist. He was one of the small number of people essential for the evil war on drugs to flourish. Under the Rehnquist dioctrine unconstitutional federal law trumps constitutional state law.

Rehnquist was not a big government fascist. You are a liar and a scoundrel.

So you disagree with Morrison then?

The Rehnquist doctrine is to roll back unconstitutional commerce clause precedent, and restore federalism.

[Galileo Galilei]

McCulloch v. Maryland was about the SECOND bank of the United States, not the FIRST bank. And you think I'm confused?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States

Note the reason that Maryland tried to take the 2nd bank of the U.S. down. The bank was corrupt, running short on cash and started calling in all of its loans. It's reckless policies caused the panic of 1819. "Limited power" my foot.

The second bank had the same powers as the first bank. James Madison vetoed a bank bill in 1815 that tried to expand the bank powers. Madison's veto stands as a precedent against any central bank that would expand on the powers of our two early banks. The Fed violated Madison's precedent right out of the box.

You have been duped by NWO deception. The NWO wants you to argue about the black and white of a bank or no bank, because the NWO doesn't want people to debate the POWERS of the bank.

[John Taylor]

The second bank had the same powers as the first bank. James Madison vetoed a bank bill in 1815 that tried to expand the bank powers. Madison's veto stands as a precedent against any central bank that would expand on the powers of our two early banks. The Fed violated Madison's precedent right out of the box.

You have been duped by NWO deception. The NWO wants you to argue about the black and white of a bank or no bank, because the NWO doesn't want people to debate the POWERS of the bank.

HAHA, you're just pulling our chains here right?

The bank has no constitutional powers. DOES IT? If so, where are they enumerated again in the constitution?

[Galileo Galilei]

McCulloch v. Maryland was about the SECOND bank of the United States, not the FIRST bank. And you think I'm confused?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States

Note the reason that Maryland tried to take the 2nd bank of the U.S. down. The bank was corrupt, running short on cash and started calling in all of its loans. It's reckless policies caused the panic of 1819. "Limited power" my foot.

Incidently, I don't agree with the entire McCulloch decision. For the portions I disagree with, please see James Madison's dissent.

[Galileo Galilei]

I'm still waiting for you to refute this.

I'm not a defender of Hamilton. I'm a defender of Madison.

[John Taylor]

Incidently, I don't agree with the entire McCulloch decision. For the portions I disagree with, please see James Madison's dissent.

James Madison was not on the Supreme Court. John Taylor championed the opposition to McCulloch, and it is his book, Constructions Construed and Constitutions Vindcated which outlined the constitutional order of the framers.

[jmdrake]

Incidently, I don't agree with the entire McCulloch decision. For the portions I disagree with, please see James Madison's dissent.

James Madison's dissent? Madison wasn't even on the court. What are you talking about?

[John Taylor]

I'm not a defender of Hamilton. I'm a defender of Madison.

HAHAHA. Bullsbutt you are.

[Galileo Galilei]

In any event, it is not what we individually may find objectionable, it is what is objectional to the constitution which is the standard.

I mean Constitutionally objectionable. What powers of the central bank did you find objectionable?

[Galileo Galilei]

A) It doesn't matter whether I find the powers "objectionable" or not. If the constitution doesn't give the government the power to do it, it doesn't have it. I might think universal healthcare is a good idea, but it's not constitutional. (I don't think it is a good idea, just saying).

B) Have you figured out yet that we're talking about the second bank of the U.S. and not the first?

I figured that out. Now you need to figure out what powers of the bank were not necessary and proper?

[jmdrake]

The second bank had the same powers as the first bank. James Madison vetoed a bank bill in 1815 that tried to expand the bank powers. Madison's veto stands as a precedent against any central bank that would expand on the powers of our two early banks. The Fed violated Madison's precedent right out of the box.

You have been duped by NWO deception. The NWO wants you to argue about the black and white of a bank or no bank, because the NWO doesn't want people to debate the POWERS of the bank.

The NWO wants me to think the federal reserve is constitutional? I've heard it all now.

Tell me this. Why do you think Andrew Jackson killed the second bank of the U.S.? (Hint. It was for the same reasons the state of Maryland attempted to kill it).

[John Taylor]

I mean Constitutionally objectionable. What powers of the central bank did you find objectionable?

I find them all constitutionally objectionable. NO power is granted to congress to create a national bank.

Where is the constitutional authorization for any national bank?????

[John Taylor]

I figured that out. Now you need to figure out what powers of the bank were not necessary and proper?

NO. The onus is on YOU to demonstate the constitutionality of the bank... every bit of it.

[jmdrake]

I figured that out. Now you need to figure out what powers of the bank were not necessary and proper?

It's actual creation. It was not necessary for there to be a central bank in order for the federal government to borrow money. The period of time this nation existed without a central bank is enough itself to prove it wasn't necessary. The fact that the bank was the cause of the 1819 panic proves that it wasn't proper.

[Galileo Galilei]

HAHA, you're just pulling our chains here right?

The bank has no constitutional powers. DOES IT? If so, where are they enumerated again in the constitution?

The general welfare clause from the Articles of Confederation authorizes the bank. The Articles of Confederation were never repealed.

Article III

"The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

This is combined with the US Constitution:

Article I, section 8

"To borrow money on the credit of the United States"

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,and with the Indian tribes"

"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin"

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers"

[Galileo Galilei]

James Madison was not on the Supreme Court. John Taylor championed the opposition to McCulloch, and it is his book, Constructions Construed and Constitutions Vindcated which outlined the constitutional order of the framers.

It doesn't matter if he is in the Supreme Court. He is the Father of the Constitution. That trumps the Supreme Court. It is called higher law, inspired by God.

[John Taylor]

The general welfare clause from the Articles of Confederation authorizes the bank. The Articles of Confederation were never repealed.

Article III

"The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

This is combined with the US Constitution:

Article I, section 8

"To borrow money on the credit of the United States"

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,and with the Indian tribes"

"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin"

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers"

General welfare clause? My God man, go back to the Daily Kos with that divel. The Articles of Confederation were completely superceded by the U.S. Constitution. None of the powers you listed create authority to create a national bank...the TREASURY can do everything you've described.... OH, except for regulating commerce... nice that you brought up the commerce clause. It only applies to Congress, and is not constitutionally delegatable.

[Galileo Galilei]

The NWO wants me to think the federal reserve is constitutional? I've heard it all now.

Tell me this. Why do you think Andrew Jackson killed the second bank of the U.S.? (Hint. It was for the same reasons the state of Maryland attempted to kill it).

Jackson killed the second bank because James Madison told him to do so. In the summer of 1832, Jackson traveled to visit James Madison in Montpelier for a secret meeting. Also, Jackson's private secretary from 1828 to 1834 was Madison's secret agent, Nicholas Trist.

[John Taylor]

It doesn't matter if he is in the Supreme Court. He is the Father of the Constitution. That trumps the Supreme Court. It is called higher law, inspired by God.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Now I know you are jesting.

[John Taylor]

Jackson killed the second bank because James Madison told him to do so. In the summer of 1832, Jackson traveled to visit James Madison in Montpelier for a secret meeting. Also, Jackson's private secretary from 1828 to 1834 was Madison's secret agent, Nicholas Trist.

Bullshit. Jackson was able to see on his own that the nationalist bank was patently unconstitutional.

[Galileo Galilei]

I find them all constitutionally objectionable. NO power is granted to congress to create a national bank.

Where is the constitutional authorization for any national bank?????

George Washington signed the bank bill. Washington is the Father of our country. If George Washington says its Constitutional, then its Constitutional. Pretty simple, eh?

[Galileo Galilei]

NO. The onus is on YOU to demonstate the constitutionality of the bank... every bit of it.

the bank had the power to borrow money, that is an enumerated power.

:eek:

[John Taylor]

George Washington signed the bank bill. Washington is the Father of our country. If George Washington says its Constitutional, then its Constitutional. Pretty simple, eh?

That's funny, I thought the constitution is the supreme law of the land, not one man....

Odd... I thought this was to be a country of laws, and not of men (to quote Madison).

Weasel your way out of that one slick.

[Galileo Galilei]

It's actual creation. It was not necessary for there to be a central bank in order for the federal government to borrow money. The period of time this nation existed without a central bank is enough itself to prove it wasn't necessary. The fact that the bank was the cause of the 1819 panic proves that it wasn't proper.

Oh my God! Not the Panic of 1819!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRGGGG!!!!!

[John Taylor]

the bank had the power to borrow money, that is an enumerated power.

:eek:

So what, a dictator would have the power to borrow money... could congress delegate their ArticleI powers to a dictator?

[John Taylor]

Oh my God! Not the Panic of 1819!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRGGGG!!!!!

You're clearly not even attempting to engage in serious conversation here. Try asserting arguments instead of these 3rd grade softballs.

[John Taylor]

We know as a matter of basic constitutional construction that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers only, with all others being retained by the states and their people. If, as Galileo and his Hamiltonian acolytes intimate, the constitution crafted careful limits on the legislative branch, limiting it to exercising imperium over those areas in which the states delegated an enumerated power to the federal government, while simultaneously granting an unrestrained extra-constitutional interperative “prerogative” to the judicial branch, where would be the limit? Are not the powers of the federal government few and defined? The owners of a loaf of bread divide it between two persons. But does the donation of one half imply a right to eat up the other half. The powers of the federal government are wholly derived from the constitution, and in no degree from representation of the sovereign people or from some nebulous prerogative. Under the constitution, the federal government, in its entirety, is a limited government. Were expansion through prerogative through “inferred” powers discovered by constitutional constructive alchemy, the judicial, and through it the federal government would become unlimited.

[Galileo Galilei]

Bullshit. Jackson was able to see on his own that the nationalist bank was patently unconstitutional.

Not true. Jackson was afraid to kill the bank without Madison's approval. He went to see Madison right before the election of 1832. Madison told him to do it after the election. Since the economic boom & free trade of the War of 1812 had paid all the debt off, no bank was needed anymore.

And remember, Nicholas Trist was privvy to all of Jackson's correspondenct from 1828 to 1834. Jackson made little use of his cabinet and Trist was is closest advisor. But Trist was also Madison's agent.

[Galileo Galilei]

That's funny, I thought the constitution is the supreme law of the land, not one man....

Odd... I thought this was to be a country of laws, and not of men (to quote Madison).

Weasel your way out of that one slick.

It's easy to go against the word of Washington 211 years after he died. In his time, no. I bet the real John Taylor didn't have the balls to oppose George Washington.

[Galileo Galilei]

So what, a dictator would have the power to borrow money... could congress delegate their ArticleI powers to a dictator?

So the congress was supposed to carry the money they borrowed around in cash? Stick it under the mattress? Or put it in the bank?

[John Taylor]

It's easy to go against the word of Washington 211 years after he died. In his time, no. I bet the real John Taylor didn't have the balls to oppose George Washington.

Are you kidding? John Taylor was the founder of the Virginia School, and was the constitutional construction creator of the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian Republican's constitutional construction.

Washington was dead wrong on this issue.

Who are you, some disaffected juvenile?

[John Taylor]

So the congress was supposed to carry the money they borrowed around in cash? Stick it under the mattress? Or put it in the bank?

How about depositing it with the U.S. Treasury?

[John Taylor]

So the congress was supposed to carry the money they borrowed around in cash? Stick it under the mattress? Or put it in the bank?

Again:

So what, a dictator would have the power to borrow money... could congress delegate their ArticleI powers to a dictator?

[Galileo Galilei]

You're clearly not even attempting to engage in serious conversation here. Try asserting arguments instead of these 3rd grade softballs.

Hey, I'm just glad I didn't have to live through that Panic of 1819. It was so bad that president James Monroe.... got relected by winning all 23 states in 1820!

[John Taylor]

Not true. Jackson was afraid to kill the bank without Madison's approval. He went to see Madison right before the election of 1832. Madison told him to do it after the election. Since the economic boom & free trade of the War of 1812 had paid all the debt off, no bank was needed anymore.

And remember, Nicholas Trist was privvy to all of Jackson's correspondenct from 1828 to 1834. Jackson made little use of his cabinet and Trist was is closest advisor. But Trist was also Madison's agent.

False. The bank was and is unconstitutional. Jackson was simply upholding his oath.

[Galileo Galilei]

How about depositing it with the U.S. Treasury?

There is no authority under the Constitution to create the US Treasury. I am a strct constructionist. Show me where it says you can create the US Treasury?

[John Taylor]

Hey, I'm just glad I didn't have to live through that Panic of 1819. It was so bad that president James Monroe.... got relected by winning all 23 states in 1820!

Of course he was, presidents a chief executives of the government, not of the country's economy. Responding to you is like building a conversation with a kindergartner, one must start at the very bottom, and establish foundational principles.

[John Taylor]

There is no authority under the Constitution to create the US Treasury. I am a strct constructionist. Show me where it says you can create the US Treasury?

You're a strict constructionist?

Tell me another whopper.

You're a liar of all liars.

Of course the constitution allows for the congress to create a warehouse to store their constitutionally generated revenues. Such a warehouse IS necesary and proper for carrying out enumerated powers. A bank is not.

[Galileo Galilei]

False. The bank was and is unconstitutional. Jackson was simply upholding his oath.

Wrongola! Jackson articulated policy reasons for getting rid of the bank. If it was really unconstitutional, that would have been redundant.

[John Taylor]

Wrongola! Jackson articulated policy reasons for getting rid of the bank. If it was really unconstitutional, that would have been redundant.

Completely and utterly false. The bank was killed because it was unconstitutional.

You don't even bother with a facade of truth do you?

[Galileo Galilei]

You're a strict constructionist?

Tell me another whopper.

You're a liar of all liars.

Of course the constitution allows for the congress to create a warehouse to store their constitutionally generated revenues. Such a warehouse IS necesary and proper for carrying out enumerated powers. A bank is not.

If the US Treasury is warehousing money, and using it to borrow money and pay bills, then it is a bank. So you agree with the national bank after all and are just playing word games.

So again, what powers of the Entity of 1791 are you claiming are not constitutional?

[Galileo Galilei]

Completely and utterly false. The bank was killed because it was unconstitutional.

You don't even bother with a facade of truth do you?

Actually, the bank was a temporary entity, and its lease expired. And Jackson just removed the deposits before that.

Which is another reason Marshall's decision of 1819 did little to make the government bigger. The bank was gone in less than 20 years anyway.

[John Taylor]

If the US Treasury is warehousing money, and using it to borrow money and pay bills, then it is a bank. So you agree with the national bank after all and are just playing word games.

So again, what powers of the Entity of 1791 are you claiming are not constitutional?

CONGRESS can borrow money, not the U.S. Treasury or a bank. The Congress pays the bill, and directs the Treasury to release the money.

Where in the constitution do you find any authority for congress to delegate its powers, any of them, to a bank?:eek:

[Galileo Galilei]

CONGRESS can borrow money, not the U.S. Treasury or a bank. The Congress pays the bill, and directs the Treasury to release the money.

Where in the constitution do you find any authority for congress to delegate its powers, any of them, to a bank?:eek:

Where do find its powers to delegate them to a Treasury? You are a Stretcher.

[John Taylor]

Actually, the bank was a temporary entity, and its lease expired. And Jackson just removed the deposits before that.

This FACT has nothing to do with Jackson's REASONING for destroying the bank.



Which is another reason Marshall's decision of 1819 did little to make the government bigger. The bank was gone in less than 20 years anyway.

Are you kidding here?:eek::confused::eek::confused: McCulloch created the precedent for upholding all future national banks...and overturned the federal balance of divided powers.

[John Taylor]

Where do find its powers to delegate them to a Treasury? You are a Stretcher.

The congress is not delegating anything, it is placing the money it raises in the charge of the executive branch to accomplish explicitly enumerated constitutional powers. Try again. You are a big government hack. At best.

[Galileo Galilei]

This FACT has nothing to do with Jackson's REASONING for destroying the bank.

Jackson gave policy reasons for wanting to get rid of the bank. He said it was corrupting the government. So I caught you in another lie.


Are you kidding here?:eek::confused::eek::confused: McCulloch created the precedent for upholding all future national banks...and overturned the federal balance of divided powers.

McCulloch set no precedent. The bank itself was already settled law by 1819.

The real precedent was set in January 1815, when Madison vetoed a bill that expanded the banks powers. The precedent was set that only the powers of the First bank were constitutional, and no more. The Second bank reinforced this precedent because it gave the bank no new powers.

Madison's dissent to McCulloch also limited the scope of McCulloch, because no justice worth his salt would dare oppose the great James Madison.

Again, you have an unhealthy fixation on banks, and need to fixate on powers.

[Galileo Galilei]

The congress is not delegating anything, it is placing the money it raises in the charge of the executive branch to accomplish explicitly enumerated constitutional powers. Try again. You are a big government hack. At best.

You are assuming powers here that are not specifically delegated. That is a Hamiltonian construction technique.

[John Taylor]

Jackson gave policy reasons for wanting to get rid of the bank. He said it was corrupting the government. So I caught you in another lie..

Bullshit. Jackson killed the bank because it was unconstitutional, not because of some vague policy reason, and surely not because of Madison's proddings.


McCulloch set no precedent. The bank itself was already settled law by 1819..

LIES. McCulloch is still good law. I myself was taught McCulloch in law school. YOU LIE SIR.


The real precedent was set in January 1815, when Madison vetoed a bill that expanded the banks powers. The precedent was set that only the powers of the First bank were constitutional, and no more. The Second bank reinforced this precedent because it gave the bank no new powers.

Madison's dissent to McCulloch also limited the scope of McCulloch, because no justice worth his salt would dare oppose the great James Madison.

Again, you have an unhealthy fixation on banks, and need to fixate on powers.

If you think that Madison's comments are more powerful than supreme court precedent, you are very mistaken.

Again, Madison could not issue a dissent in McCulloc, as he was not on the court.

[John Taylor]

You are assuming powers here that are not specifically delegated. That is a Hamiltonian construction technique.

No I am not, and for you to accuse ME of this is hypocrisy at its very worst.

[Aratus]

poor roger brooke taney becuz his ruling negated clay's compromises...

the ruling undercut the groundrules of a third compromise in the grand

manner of the master politician from the great state of kentucky. in my

own humble opinion the peculiar institution was and is highly immoral.

[Galileo Galilei]

Bullshit. Jackson killed the bank because it was unconstitutional, not because of some vague policy reason, and surely not because of Madison's proddings.

Jackson asserted that is was unconstitutional. But the bank actually ended because its lease expired. Jackson also, to his credit, vetoed a bank bill, and the veto could not be overturned. And Jackson went to see Madison in the summer of 1832, right before all this happened. And Jackson's private secretary from 1828-1834 was Nicholas Trist. Trist was a lifelong James Madison fanatic. Trist was fanatically devoted to anything and everything James Madison. Trist lived and breathed James Madison. Trist's grandmother, Mary House, provided the lodging for James Madison when he was at the Constitutional Convention. trist later negotiated then treaty that ended the Mexican War.

btw - Henry Clay also went to see Madison in 1832, right after Jackson left Madison's plantation. Clay was Jackson's opponent in 1832 for president.


LIES. McCulloch is still good law. I myself was taught McCulloch in law school. YOU LIE SIR.

Good law for what? Where does McCulloch authorize a bank with an unlimited term? Or fiat currency? Or bailouts? Or unaudited secrecy?


If you think that Madison's comments are more powerful than supreme court precedent, you are very mistaken.

James Madison is quoted all the time by Supreme Court justices. He is the most authoritative authority on the original meaning of the Constitution.


Again, Madison could not issue a dissent in McCulloc, as he was not on the court.

Madison dissented anyway, despite your protestations.

[libertybrewcity]

I honestly don't follow supreme court politics as much as I would like to. I couldn't give an informed vote on the poll. Any one have any books to recommend on the Supreme Court?

[Galileo Galilei]

I honestly don't follow supreme court politics as much as I would like to. I couldn't give an informed vote on the poll. Any one have any books to recommend on the Supreme Court?

I put some books with links in the initial post.

Here's another good one:

Leading Constitutional Decisions
http://www.amazon.com/Leading-Constitutional-Decisions-R-Cushman/dp/B001O1F11W

[John Taylor]

I honestly don't follow supreme court politics as much as I would like to. I couldn't give an informed vote on the poll. Any one have any books to recommend on the Supreme Court?

Start here:

http://www.constitution.org/jt/jtnvc.htm

[Aratus]

ole howard taft is often said to be a better
supreme court justice than he was a president.
howard taft is the father of sen. robert taft.

[Galileo Galilei]

Start here:

http://www.constitution.org/jt/jtnvc.htm

This is going to have little relevance to someone who wants to read through the history of Supreme Court cases and se what judges ruled what and what their reasons were.

I think everybody in this forum agrees that the Constitution should be followed according to the text. The fact is, we have the world's shortest Constitution and it contained a lot of gray areas. Most of the early cases of our history concerned gray areas.

If we had kept the gray area decisions of the early courts, Marshall and Taney, we would have a very small cebntral government accounting for 2% or less of the GNP.

One simple example:

In Marbury vs. Madison, John Marshall & his Court ruled that one branch of the federal government cannot delegate power from itself to another. This basic principle is onvious and follows directly from the text.

Yet today, 85% of all "laws" are not written by congress, they are written by another entity, ususally and alphabet bureaucracy. Under Marshall's early ruling, this was blatantly unconstitutional.

One thing John Taylor and John Marshall have in common is that they usually reasoned from the text of the Constitution.

The biggest problem with the Supreme Court is the layers upon layers of case law that end up clealry violating the original text.

[Aratus]

auld kynge john in 1215 had to humour some angry barons.

by the middle 1700s we see mr. blackstone's magnus opus.

we have done in less than half the tyme whut it took some

of MY very distant kith and kin some 500 to 600 years to do!

[jmdrake]

@ Galileo Galilei: Two questions.

1) Do you really believe that anything George Washington said was automatically constitutional? Because that's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The whole point of the constitution was to be a "nation of laws and not a nation of men".

2) What was the real purpose of starting this thread? If you really think John Marshall was an awesome and wonderful judge, why even put his name up there? Was your poll just a ruse to get people to engage you in how wonderful you think John Marshall was?

[Aratus]

jimdrake... you DO assume the poll was a classic push~poll...

i am sorta surprised at the vote and how we all voted for i am

the lone solitary vote for poor taney. to be fair to mr. taney, he at

times seemed to be carrying on with what mr. marshall had started...

[John Taylor]

jimdrake... you DO assume the poll was a classic push~poll...

i am sorta surprised at the vote and how we all voted for i am

the lone solitary vote for poor taney. to be fair to mr. taney, he at

times seemed to be carrying on with what mr. marshall had started...

I have yet to see any evidence that Dred Scott was wrongly decided, under the pre-reconstruction constitution. Can anyone demonstrate how Dred Scott was wrongly decided?

[Aratus]

our colonial feudalism had bond servants.

slavery was pre-CONSTANTINE and hense

not christian. it was a tad zeus or jove. i feel

that if i am correct over how edmund burke

and john locke overlap, i can sell my self into

a finite bond servant contract but not my DNA.

[Aratus]

i think that the death of justice john mckinley changed the court.

i think john quincy adams was quite correct in the amistad case.

the way he argued then, implies that the dred scott case was

(A.) semi-literate (B.) semi-illiterate (C.) a powder-keg politically.

our whole nation went glandular between the summer of 1860

and the summer of 1861 to the degree where we fragmented...

[Aratus]

henry adams wrote a topical middle-brow biography about john randolph.
i do think the copy of the book i read was published in 1910, a century ago!
in the begining of the book, he writes about states rights and john c. calhoun.
if someone wants a concise description of WHY john randolph sought to run young
jamie monroe in 1808 against james madison, you can read the recent bio by harry ammon
for it also delves into the basic issues of our early republic also down to each LAST
of gunpowder + each state's militia. a LAST is a way to measure gunpowder
and quite a few barrels can become a LAST. jamie monroe liked marshal.

[Galileo Galilei]

@ Galileo Galilei: Two questions.

1) Do you really believe that anything George Washington said was automatically constitutional? Because that's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The whole point of the constitution was to be a "nation of laws and not a nation of men".

For gray areas of the Constitution, if George Washington says it, then that lays down a precedent. This was a very common belief in the United States before 1912, when we still followed the Constitution.


2) What was the real purpose of starting this thread? If you really think John Marshall was an awesome and wonderful judge, why even put his name up there? Was your poll just a ruse to get people to engage you in how wonderful you think John Marshall was?

I'm not a big fan of John Marshall. But compared to the Supreme Court in the era of the New Deal, he is a great guide to small government. Marshall's decisions were based on the text. Starting in the New Deal, most cases were based on case law, without checking back to the original text.

I was hoping to use this thread to expose Oliver Wendell Holmes who did far more damage to this nation than Marshall, and then to expose the New Deal judges after Holmes who took the bad stuff of Holmse and made it worse.

I veiw obsessive John Marshall bashing as defacto praise for the Holmes and the New Deal. In reality, the principles of Marshall are entirely foreign to Holmes and the New Deal. And also in reality, the federal government was very small in Marshall's time and remained so for generations. In 1912, the federal share of the GNP was less than 2%. The commerce clause was in effect. Most cases were still decided upon text rather than case law. The right ot contract was upheld in 1905 in Lochner vs New York. Income taxes on people were banned in the Pollack decision in 1894. Administrative "laws" were ruled unconstitutional. Etc.

[Galileo Galilei]

I have yet to see any evidence that Dred Scott was wrongly decided, under the pre-reconstruction constitution. Can anyone demonstrate how Dred Scott was wrongly decided?

Dred Scott infringed on state rights. If a state wants to make a black person a citizen, they can do it.

It also created unfunded mandates, requiring states to pay for the cost of returning runaway slaves. Wisconsin nullified the Dred Scott decision.

[jmdrake]

For gray areas of the Constitution, if George Washington says it, then that lays down a precedent. This was a very common belief in the United States before 1912, when we still followed the Constitution.


Find me one court case where a statement by George Washington was used as binding precedent. And following the dictates of what a former president said as binding precedent is NOT following the constitution. Someone might look to the words of Washington in order to understand original intent, but they do that today with Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams etc.



I'm not a big fan of John Marshall. But compared to the Supreme Court in the era of the New Deal, he is a great guide to small government. Marshall's decisions were based on the text. Starting in the New Deal, most cases were based on case law, without checking back to the original text.

I was hoping to use this thread to expose Oliver Wendell Holmes who did far more damage to this nation than Marshall, and then to expose the New Deal judges after Holmes who took the bad stuff of Holmse and made it worse.

I veiw obsessive John Marshall bashing as defacto praise for the Holmes and the New Deal. In reality, the principles of Marshall are entirely foreign to Holmes and the New Deal. And also in reality, the federal government was very small in Marshall's time and remained so for generations. In 1912, the federal share of the GNP was less than 2%. The commerce clause was in effect. Most cases were still decided upon text rather than case law. The right ot contract was upheld in 1905 in Lochner vs New York. Income taxes on people were banned in the Pollack decision in 1894. Administrative "laws" were ruled unconstitutional. Etc.

Then why didn't you just start a thread about how terrible Holmes is? When I wanted to bash Joe Lieberman I just put up a "poll" where he was the only choice.

[Galileo Galilei]

Find me one court case where a statement by George Washington was used as binding precedent. And following the dictates of what a former president said as binding precedent is NOT following the constitution. Someone might look to the words of Washington in order to understand original intent, but they do that today with Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams etc.

Joseph Story used it in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833. Since Story was on the Court from 1811 to 1845, I'm assuming he used it in actual cases. Even if he didn't, his book proves that Washington's decision was decisive in his thinking.

Story is the most learned scholar ever to sit on the Supreme Court, and he was nominated by the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.

Another thing you overlook. The veto power before the time of Andrew Jackson was viewed as a Constitutional statement. In other words, if a president made a veto, it was assumed he deemd the law unconstitutional. And conversely, if he signed the law, he deemed it constitutional.

Jackson declared the bank law unconstitutional. But it was widely regarded at the time asthe first veto that was not purely on Constitutional grounds. Most at the time thought the bank was Constitutional, but opposed it on policy grounds as the national debt had been paid off.

Most early precedents on the Constitution for gray areas were set by the decisions of the president and congress, not by the Supreme Court. In fact Marshall becomes a remarkable figure in that he was able to wiggle into the action unexpectedly.


Then why didn't you just start a thread about how terrible Holmes is? When I wanted to bash Joe Lieberman I just put up a "poll" where he was the only choice.

I guess I didn't know people here were so ignorant of Holmes and the New Deal court. I'm from the Libertarian Party. We recognize that main growth of federal power occurred after 1912. Statisticas prove this, as the federal share of the GNP was only 1.75% in 1912. It had remained at 2% or less almost the entire time from the close of the Revolutionary war until 1912. It stayed below 4% even during the War of 1812. Even the Civil War it only hit 10%.

Today, a federal budget of 10% would mean only $1.5 trillion, less than half what it actually is.

[Galileo Galilei]

MARBURY V. MADISON: The Movie!
http://livemoviestv.com/marbury-v-madison/


Equal Justice Under Law Marbury v. Madison (1st in the 4 partial series). Dramatizations of ancestral decisions from the courtroom of America’s good Chief Justice, John Marshall. Who determines what the Constitution means—what is as well as is not constitutional? In this 1803 box the Supreme Court determined the shortcoming to examination the constitutionality of acts of Congress. President John Adams allocated Federalist William Marbury as probity of the peace, though unsuccessful to broach Marbury’s central elect prior to President Jefferson as well as the Democratic-Republicans took over the administration. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to sequence Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, to broach the commission. Marbury’s direct precipitated the fight in between Chief Justice Marshall as well as President Thomas Jefferson. The Supreme Court hold which it did not have office as well as spoken which the law needing the Court to listen to the box was unconstitutional. Purchase of the fasten of this video was done probable by the grant by Joseph Kulhavy.

25 Responses to “MARBURY V. MADISON”
http://livemoviestv.com/marbury-v-madison/

[jmdrake]

Joseph Story used it in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833. Since Story was on the Court from 1811 to 1845, I'm assuming he used it in actual cases. Even if he didn't, his book proves that Washington's decision was decisive in his thinking.

Story is the most learned scholar ever to sit on the Supreme Court, and he was nominated by the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.

Another thing you overlook. The veto power before the time of Andrew Jackson was viewed as a Constitutional statement. In other words, if a president made a veto, it was assumed he deemd the law unconstitutional. And conversely, if he signed the law, he deemed it constitutional.

Jackson declared the bank law unconstitutional. But it was widely regarded at the time asthe first veto that was not purely on Constitutional grounds. Most at the time thought the bank was Constitutional, but opposed it on policy grounds as the national debt had been paid off.

Most early precedents on the Constitution for gray areas were set by the decisions of the president and congress, not by the Supreme Court. In fact Marshall becomes a remarkable figure in that he was able to wiggle into the action unexpectedly.


In other words, you don't actually have a case. Just someone quoting Washington in a commentary. Interesting but no cigar.



I guess I didn't know people here were so ignorant of Holmes and the New Deal court. I'm from the Libertarian Party. We recognize that main growth of federal power occurred after 1912. Statisticas prove this, as the federal share of the GNP was only 1.75% in 1912. It had remained at 2% or less almost the entire time from the close of the Revolutionary war until 1912. It stayed below 4% even during the War of 1812. Even the Civil War it only hit 10%.

Today, a federal budget of 10% would mean only $1.5 trillion, less than half what it actually is.

:rolleyes: People aren't at all ignorant of Holmes or the New Deal. But a lot of people recognize Marshall as the start of the problem. Anyway, if you think a speech by GW is "legal precedence" you're not in a position to lecture anyone about "ignorance".

[Galileo Galilei]

In other words, you don't actually have a case. Just someone quoting Washington in a commentary. Interesting but no cigar.

Story wrote the most authoritative commentary on the Constitution since the Federal Papers.


:rolleyes: People aren't at all ignorant of Holmes or the New Deal. But a lot of people recognize Marshall as the start of the problem. Anyway, if you think a speech by GW is "legal precedence" you're not in a position to lecture anyone about "ignorance".

You seem to be deluded by propaganda. The Supreme Court is not the final judge of the Constitution. GW also asserted the right to judge the Constitution, as he should by his oath of office. Pretty much everything Washington set a precedent accepted by the Courts.

All I'll go you one better; I challenge YOU to find even one action by Washington not accepted by the Courts as legal.