When Did the Supreme Court Start To Spiral Downward in a Libertarian's Opinion?

[insidemanpoker]

I guess what I am asking is when do people like Ron Paul believe the Supreme Court really started allowing the legislature to pass laws greatly enhancing the power of the federal government in a way he believes was not intended by the Constitution? Was it before the New Deal? Was it a slow progression or a specific instance where the precedent dramatically shfted?

I find it very interested that at the time of prohibition they amended the Constitution in order to ban alcohol. Today, to ban things the Congress can do it with impunity and often even in an unread attachment to another bill that doesn't even get read. It is pretty shocking to see just how dramatically things have changed because the idea of an amendment just to ban a drug today would be totally crazy to 99% of those in the federal government.

So what happened? When did it happened? Speculation about why it happened? What is RP's opinion?

[The Gold Standard]

1790

[GunnyFreedom]

Marshall Court, Specifically Marbury v Madison 1803

The Court was off the reservation before Marbury, but that was the landmark case that first derailed the train.

[noneedtoaggress]

Authoritarian monopoly court systems are fundamentally unlibertarian.

[GunnyFreedom]

Authoritarian monopoly court systems are fundamentally unlibertarian.

Hence Marbury v Madison.

[Legend1104]

I think Marbury v. Madison wasn't great but I really think McCulloch v. Maryland was worse.

[Gumba of Liberty]

The Supreme Court was destined to fail. To give any group the power to interpret anything is completely... well, naive. Their power grew from day one. Immediately. Marbury v. Madison being the first major move toward big government.

[insidemanpoker]

Thanks guys, and forgive my naivety, but the central government didn't balloon until the 20th century. Did this have nothing to do with the Court?

[Vessol]

1789
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/davies2.1.1.html

"The sixth action of that first session bore fruit on September 24th, 1789 and was the "Judiciary Act" – and it's notorious and breathtaking. Here's why.

On its face, its purpose was just to flesh out Article Three, which said there was to be a Judicial Branch in the new government. It had to do with establishing Courts – Supreme, District, Circuit – and government Attorneys, General and less general. But as well as that administrative stuff, the 1789 Judiciary Act declared that the Supreme Court had the power to hear actions for "writs of mandamus" as one of original jurisdiction, and so not to be just a court of appeal. Congress was therefore purporting to grant to its sister Branch a power which Article Three never gave it.

Oops! Right off the bat, in its very first session, Congress therefore tried to do something it was not empowered to do (if you'll allow for the moment that, contrary to Spooner, the Constitution actually empowered anyone to do anything). In so doing, Congress demonstrated its disdain for the fences placed around it by Articles Two and Five. Very clearly, government today acknowledges no limits on its power; the 1789 Judiciary Act made it plain that Congress never did acknowledge such limits, even in its very first session."


Thanks guys, and forgive my naivety, but the central government didn't balloon until the 20th century. Did this have nothing to do with the Court?

Oh the central government was plenty large in the 19th century. Maybe not near the size of the giant state of the 20th century, but it was no libertarian state besides during a few brief times in history.

[Occam's Banana]

Thanks guys, and forgive my naivety, but the central government didn't balloon until the 20th century. Did this have nothing to do with the Court?
It did - especially during the tenure of Oliver Wendell Holmes. But it couldn't have happened without the ground being prepared ...

The seeds were sown in the 19th century - with the Marshall court's Marbury v. Madison decision being the first furrow to be plowed.

[musicmax]

Wickard v. Filburn - A farmer growing grain on his own land for his own family's use was deemed to be engaged in "commerce among the several states" and was therefore subject to Congressional regulation.

[Pericles]

Marshall Court, Specifically Marbury v Madison 1803

The Court was off the reservation before Marbury, but that was the landmark case that first derailed the train.

Agree that was the start, and by Barron v. Baltimore 1833, the derail is complete. Article VI and the BoR is gutted - in effect the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land, the SCOTUS is.