Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: It Is “Just a Piece of Damn Paper"!

  1. #1

    Exclamation It Is “Just a Piece of Damn Paper"!

    It Is “Just a Piece of Damn Paper”

    by eric • January 14, 2016 • 11 Comments

    http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/01/14/43556/

    We’re supposed to revere – and follow – the Constitution.

    But if they don’t, why should we?

    By they, I mean the people who lord it over us.

    Our rulers.

    I choose the word deliberately, in the interests of editorial accuracy. We’re certainly not ruled by the Constitution.

    And neither are they.

    Consider, for instance, this business of judicial review. The power claimed by the Supreme Court to “interpret” the Constitution. It is a power you will find nowhere in the Constitution itself, or even hinted at. It was simply asserted by the first chief justice, John Marshall (who was a cousin of but also – unsurprisingly – a great enemy of Thomas Jefferson’s) in a kind of lawyerly Beer Hall Putsch. The court, under Marshall, defined and decreed its own power. It has been the final arbiter of what the Constitution “really” means ever since.

    Even when the court’s interpretation is obviously at odds with the plain meaning of what is actually written in the Constitution.

    This is the mechanism by which we are halted and searched randomly – the very definition of unreasonable, which is the language you will find in the Constitution. But the Court has repeatedly asserted its own fluid definition, Humpty Dumpty-style, contrary to what is written and simply because it can. The Fourth (and other amendments) mean whatever the Court says they mean, which means they mean nothing at all.

    Here’s another:

    The Constitution defines the president as a mere administrator. It is not his job (under the Constitution) to “create jobs” or start wars yet he does both (or tries to) as a matter of routine. So routine has this become that it’s now expected – even demanded – by the electorate.

    Making war – and “creating jobs” – are two of the chief themes of modern presidential debates and the basis for judging the merits (the greatness) of a given president. Yet they have no lawful power to do either thing – under the Constitution.

    Presidents are great to the extent they ignore the Constitution. Lincoln, Wilson, FDR. Whether you regard the actions of these men as meritorious is beside the point.

    Their actions were patently not constitutional.

    Since the time of Lincoln, at least, American presidents have become elected monarchs, who rule to a great extent by a decree called the executive order, which is another thing you will find nowhere in the Constitution. It is another made-up power seized by those who wield power.

    Perhaps you have noticed a pattern.

    This power is being used more and more promiscuously – as recently by President Obama with regard to “controlling” guns (that is, controlling people who wish to exercise their right, which is in the Constitution, to keep and bear arms). The president was not able to get what he wanted through the constitutional legislative process, so he simply issued an executive order. It is the American version of a Fuhrerbefehl.

    That is, an order issued from the leader.

    Expect more such to be issued in the coming years.

    Congress is supposed to issue the nation’s currency – not a cartel of private banks. The Constitution is pretty clear on this point, too. Yet our money is under the control of private banks styling themselves the “Federal” Reserve in a pre-Clintonian (and clearly not-constitutional) contortion of the plain meaning of words.

    There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing a tax on income or property – yet we are afflicted with both.

    How did a man from, say, Pennsylvania acquire the power to dictate to parents in Kentucky how their children will be educated, what they will be taught? Scrutinize the yellowed document till the cows come home and you will find no such power awarded to senators or representatives under the Constitution. Yet they have this power – and many others besides.

    Where is it written in the Constitution that anyone has a right to health care? Or the obligation – enforceable – to purchase a health insurance policy? And if the government has the power to confer a right to health care (to be provided by others) and to require that people purchase health insurance, it logically follows that the government has the power to confer a right to food and housing (also provided by others) and to require that people purchase life and home and maybe gun insurance, too. If we’re allowed to retain our guns, of course.

    What would be the constitutional objection?

    Instead, it would be hashed out by the Court – which might decide it is (or isn’t) “constitutional”… according to its own reasoning but never referencing the actual document.

    If the Constitution were, as we’re often told, the law of the land then it would have the force of law. It doesn’t. The clear prohibitions described therein are ignored as routinely and contemptuously as the speed limit; the carefully delineated processes and protocols respected less than the virtue of a $20 Vegas streetwalker.

    Which brings up an important question. If the law is not respected (much less obeyed) by those who rule us, why should it be respected or obeyed by us?
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 01-14-2016 at 04:22 PM.
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    The power claimed by the Supreme Court to “interpret” the Constitution. It is a power you will find nowhere in the Constitution itself, or even hinted at.
    To the contrary – Article III delegates the “judicial power of the United States” to the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. What does “judicial power” encompass? At a minimum, doesn’t it include the power to determine what law applies to a case? And if a statute doesn’t comport with the Constitution (which is the supreme law of the land), isn’t it the court’s duty to declare it void?

    There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing a tax on income or property – yet we are afflicted with both.
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 specifically authorizes Congress to impose taxes in general, and the 16th Amendment authorizes a tax on income in particular (incidentally, the 16th wasn’t actually needed to levy an unapportioned tax on personal earnings, as such a tax was held to be constitutional 33 years before the 16th). Moreover, there is no federal property tax; real and personal property taxes are imposed by the States and local governments pursuant to State constitutions.

  4. #3
    'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

  5. #4
    but but but


    The BIBLE is true because the BIBLE SAYS SO!


    lol, the Constitution is factually a piece of paper signed by men whom I did not know and were not related to me. These men died 100's of years ago yet somehow their writings apply to me? HAHAHHA and people call me crazy.

    Please name another contract that you can be bound to before you are born by men you do not know.
    Last edited by ZENemy; 01-14-2016 at 04:58 PM.
    "One thing my years in Washington taught me is that most politicians are followers, not leaders. Therefore we should not waste time and resources trying to educate politicians. Politicians will not support individual liberty and limited government unless and until they are forced to do so by the people," says Ron Paul."

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    It Is “Just a Piece of Damn Paper”
    We’re supposed to revere – and follow – the Constitution.

    But if they don’t, why should we?

    im not understanding what you're trying to say. The constitution isn't for "us" to follow. It's a document describing the rules and enumerated powers of the federal government. It's the basis behind our republic. It's unrelated to citizens("us") following it. Understand?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    To the contrary – Article III delegates the “judicial power of the United States” to the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. What does “judicial power” encompass? At a minimum, doesn’t it include the power to determine what law applies to a case?
    I'm not sure what you're trying to stay, but Anti Fed is right, "interpretation of the constitution" isn't an enumerated power. You didn't point out where that power is listed in this reply.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    there is no federal property tax; real and personal property taxes are imposed by the States and local governments pursuant to State constitutions.
    Wonderful point! Exactly right!!

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    I'm not sure what you're trying to stay, but Anti Fed is right, "interpretation of the constitution" isn't an enumerated power. You didn't point out where that power is listed in this reply.
    You might as well say that "ruling on evidentiary matters" isn't an enumerated power of the federal judiciary, so that a federal judge cannot rule on an objection to the admissibility of evidence. For that matter, there's no mention of the power of a federal judge to preside over a trial, so I guess that means that the judges will have nothing to do.

    It's patently obvious that there are certain things that courts routinely do, including ruling on evidentiary matters and determining what the applicable law is. Courts had been doing that for centuries before the adoption of the Constitution, and it's absurd to think that the Founders didn't intend for them to continue to do so. The "judicial power" referred to in Article III is the power of adjudication that is essential to a court system. The Constitution didn't need to spell out in minute detail every conceivable thing that a court has the authority to do.

    Congress has limited legislative authority, and even if it legislates within its Article I, Section 8 sphere there are other constitutional provisions that limit it (e.g., the Bill of Rights). Somebody has to determine whether Congress has overstepped its bounds in a given case, and if a party alleges that a law has violated a provision of the Constitution it is the duty of the court to decide that issue, and that may very well involve interpreting the Constitution because many of its terms, such as "due process" or "freedom of speech" are not self-evident rules that can be easily applied in all cases.

    If you would deny the federal courts the power of judicial review, than is Congress to be the judge of the constitutionality of its own enactments? Is the executive branch to be the judge of the constitutionality of its own actions (e.g., the NSA)? Is the fox to be the guard of the henhouse?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by ZENemy View Post
    but but but


    The BIBLE is true because the BIBLE SAYS SO!


    lol, the Constitution is factually a piece of paper signed by men whom I did not know and were not related to me. These men died 100's of years ago yet somehow their writings apply to me? HAHAHHA and people call me crazy.

    Please name another contract that you can be bound to before you are born by men you do not know.
    Uh yes. But, you can blame your relatives if you want to. They chose to live here and by so doing, agreed to follow our Constitution.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    im not understanding what you're trying to say. The constitution isn't for "us" to follow. It's a document describing the rules and enumerated powers of the federal government. It's the basis behind our republic. It's unrelated to citizens("us") following it. Understand?
    If the government does not follow the law, why should we?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by ZENemy View Post
    but but but


    The BIBLE is true because the BIBLE SAYS SO!


    lol, the Constitution is factually a piece of paper signed by men whom I did not know and were not related to me. These men died 100's of years ago yet somehow their writings apply to me? HAHAHHA and people call me crazy.

    Please name another contract that you can be bound to before you are born by men you do not know.
    Please point out precisely where the Constitution applies to the People. The constitution is a restriction on the government.
    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Uh yes. But, you can blame your relatives if you want to. They chose to live here and by so doing, agreed to follow our Constitution.
    Not how contracts work. It is a great way to justify tyranny though.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    To the contrary – Article III delegates the “judicial power of the United States” to the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. What does “judicial power” encompass? At a minimum, doesn’t it include the power to determine what law applies to a case? And if a statute doesn’t comport with the Constitution (which is the supreme law of the land), isn’t it the court’s duty to declare it void?
    Simple, to rule in favor of one party or another. Article III in fact says nothing that could even be construed as giving the court the power of judicial review. The Constitution leaves the power to determine constitutionality with the States and not the Court.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    [B]Simple, to rule in favor of one party or another. Article III in fact says nothing that could even be construed as giving the court the power of judicial review.
    Of course it does. "Judicial power" obviously includes the power to determine the applicable law in deciding the outcome of a case. And if a party claims that a state or federal statute is inapplicable because it violates the Constitution, the court has the power to decide that issue. It may also have the duty to do so if the case can't be decided on some other issue.

  17. #15
    Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as "the foundation of the Constitution" and added, "to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn ... is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

    http://www.answers.com/topic/amendme...s-constitution

  18. #16
    What did the Founders think of judicial review?

    Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

    There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

    If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

    Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

    This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference.

    But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

    Federalist 78



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    It's patently obvious that there are certain things that courts routinely do, including ruling on evidentiary matters and determining what the applicable law is
    I completely agree.
    This is inherent in the judicial process. It's not detailed out in the constitution because it's understood that courts will offer their opinions (they don't offer rulings) based on what you're writing. But none of what you wrote points to their ability to interpret the constitution. They get to hear cases which have jurisdiction under the constitution, that's it. They don't get to redefine it. Think of it logically, why would the states write a constitution that gives the weakest of the 3 branches the most awesome power??? They wouldn't.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    If the government does not follow the law, why should we?
    Which constitutional law are you currently following or not following?!?! The constitution is law defining the federal government, it's unrelated to you

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    This is inherent in the judicial process. It's not detailed out in the constitution because it's understood that courts will offer their opinions (they don't offer rulings) based on what you're writing. But none of what you wrote points to their ability to interpret the constitution. They get to hear cases which have jurisdiction under the constitution, that's it. They don't get to redefine it. Think of it logically, why would the states write a constitution that gives the weakest of the 3 branches the most awesome power??? They wouldn't.
    Article III gives the federal courts jurisdiction to hear cases "arising under this Constitution", among other things. Well, cases arising under the Constitution will obviously include cases in which someone is claiming either that a statute violates a specific constitutional provision (e.g., the First Amendment) or that it was beyond the legislature's power to enact (e.g., the successful argument that Obamacare wasn't authorized by the Commerce Clause). In either instance, the court must determine the issue, and this will involve "interpreting the constitution" in the sense that the court must determine how the constitution applies to the facts of the case.

    Moreover, the judiciary's power isn't that awesome. First, the federal courts have no power to enforce their own decisions but must rely on the executive branch to do so. Second, the courts' funding comes from Congress, which can also restrict their appellate jurisdiction. Third, their decisions on constitutional matters can be overridden by amendments to the Constitution. Although this is not an easy process, it has occurred three times (the 11th, 13-15th and 16th Amendments).

  23. #20
    The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action


    http://web.archive.org/web/200304152...yist/vopa.html

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Article III gives the federal courts jurisdiction to hear cases "arising under this Constitution", among other things. Well, cases arising under the Constitution will obviously include cases in which someone is claiming either that a statute violates a specific constitutional provision (e.g., the First Amendment) or that it was beyond the legislature's power to enact (e.g., the successful argument that Obamacare wasn't authorized by the Commerce Clause). In either instance, the court must determine the issue, and this will involve "interpreting the constitution" in the sense that the court must determine how the constitution applies to the facts of the case.
    You're not correctly reading your first quote. The court will hear cases that relate to the constitution, ex: a 1st amendment issue, but not an issue about a property dispute within the boarders of Texas. Texas courts hear cases inside their borders (with some exceptions), but you wouldn't suggest the courts get to interpret the boarders. The courts hear cases pertaining to their jurisdiction but they don't get to interpret their jurisdiction



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •