2ND Amendment idea: National Militia!

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Phage

The Congress once the act is passed into law and signed by the president

The SCOTUS would be the monitor of this new force NOT the congress nor the executive branch

That's not at all the job of the Supreme Court. An act of Congress can't change that. Only a Constitutional Amendment.

a reply to: peter vlar

How can it be a separate government when it was created by an act of congress and signed into law by the president and within the law is the assertion tat the SCOTUS is the watchdog of this national private militia.

What’s the big deal?
Go ahead try to challenge the constitutionality of a private militia law that the exact words of the constitution validates

You'd be laughed out of court

a reply to: Willtell

The SCOTUS would be the monitor of this new force NOT the congress nor the executive branch

Please show me what gives Congress the authority to assign new roles to the SCOTUS.

BTW, how do you imagine the SCOTUS would "monitor" this national militia?

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Phage

The Congress once the act is passed into law and signed by the president

The SCOTUS would be the monitor of this new force NOT the congress nor the executive branch

That's not at all the job of the Supreme Court. An act of Congress can't change that. Only a Constitutional Amendment.

Then how can an act of congress give such power to the PRIVATE Federal reserve?


I repeat the congress can pass any law it wants


Look at the Patriot act

a reply to: Willtell

Then how can an act of congress give such power to the PRIVATE Federal reserve?

The Federal Reserve is not private.

a reply to: Phage

The Supreme Court does de facto makes its own laws now. Look at the present abortion rights laws

Those were made by the SCOTUS NOT the congress.

Rather than the congress changing a law that the SCOTUS finds unconstitutional the SCOTUS now makes changes in the law itself and then ORDERS people to act.

The Supreme court can order the president to do what it deems legal

a reply to: Phage

Technically it is private with federal oversight


That will be the same status of this national militia

a reply to: Willtell

The Supreme Court does de facto makes its own laws now. Look at the present abortion rights laws

No. It does not make any laws. Roe v Wade removed a law, it did not create a law.

The Supreme court can order the president to do what it deems legal

No. It can't. It can, however, point out that the President is acting illegally, if he is.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Willtell

The SCOTUS would be the monitor of this new force NOT the congress nor the executive branch

Please show me what gives Congress the authority to assign new roles to the SCOTUS.

BTW, how do you imagine the SCOTUS would "monitor" this national militia?

It would hire lawyers to do it.

It shouldn’t be omnipotent that’s not the point. Its a power balancing apparatus, as well we need as much help against terrorism and police overreach as we can get in this age of surveillance and terrorism

The point is that the balance of power has faded to much to an oligarchy


The SCOTUS, although not perfect, has the most independence left of the three branches of government.

a reply to: Willtell

Its a power balancing apparatus, as well we need as much help against terrorism and police overreach as we can get in this age of surveillance and terrorism

I agree.
Your national militia would just add more overreach and surveillance. But for some reason you think that those who would seek to be part of it would somehow be different than those who seek to be in law enforcement now.

a reply to: Phage

Harry Andrew Blackmun (November 12, 1908 – March 4, 1999) was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1970 until 1994. Appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon, Blackmun ultimately became one of the most liberal justices on the Court. He is best known as the author of the Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade.[3]

In 1973, Blackmun authored the Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade, invalidating a Texas statute making it a felony to administer an abortion in most circumstances. The Court's judgment in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton held a less restrictive Georgia law to be unconstitutional also. Both decisions were based on the right to privacy announced in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and remain the primary basis for the constitutional right to abortion in the United States. Roe caused an immediate uproar, and Blackmun's opinion made him a target for criticism by opponents of abortion,

Having concluded in Roe that access to abortion is a “fundamental right,” the court declared that only a “compelling state interest” could justify the enactment of state laws or regulations that limit this right. The court also recognized that the state has an “important and legitimate interest” in protecting the health of the mother and even “the potentiality of human life” inside her. The court then asked: When does the state’s legitimate concern for maternal and fetal protection rise to the level of compelling interest? To answer this question, Blackmun created a three-tiered legal framework, based on the nine-month period of pregnancy, which gave the state greater interest and regulatory latitude in each successive tier.

www.pewforum.org...
By invalidating a law they deem unconstitutional they de facto right laws and rules that govern the law

That's why I used the term
de facto

The SCOTUS doesn’t write laws directly but they do essentially make law through rulings.

And often can order courts to make rules that people have to obey


It happens all the time in federal courts

For the edification of whom it may concern:

Knowing that they, like the Pope, lack an army, and that nine sages appointed for life constitute America’s least democratic branch of government, Supreme Court justices traditionally operated with “judicial restraint.” The Supremes picked cases sparingly and decided cautiously, deferring to the popular will as expressed by state legislatures, the Congress, and the president. The Constitution does not explicitly allow judicial review—declaring executive and legislative acts unconstitutional. When Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803), he asserted the power theoretically. Only in 1810 in Fletcher v. Peck did the Supreme Court first strike down a state law.

www.thedailybeast.com...

a reply to: Willtell

The SCOTUS doesn’t write laws directly but they do essentially make law through rulings.

No. They remove laws. That's it.

And often can order courts to make rules that people have to obey

A court order is not a law. Courts do no make "rules" or laws.

For the edification of whom it may concern:

I see you googled "supreme court makes laws." Nice blog. Nice opinion piece.

a reply to: Phage

The SCOTUS de facto makes laws through what they call judicial review


de fac•to
ˌdā ˈfaktō/
adverb
adverb: de facto; adverb: defacto
1. 1.
in fact, or in effect, whether by right or not.
"the island has been de facto divided into two countries"
synonyms: in practice, in effect, in fact, in reality, really, actually
"the republic is de facto two states"
antonyms: de jure

adjective
adjective: de facto; adjective: defacto
2. 1.
denoting someone or something that is such in fact.
"a de facto one-party system"
synonyms: actual, real, effective
"de facto control"

a reply to: Willtell

The SCOTUS de facto makes laws through what they call judicial review

I know what de facto means, thank you.


Name one law which the SCOTUS has made. Prohibiting someone from doing something is a law. Allowing someone to do something is not a law. Laws tell us what we can't do. If there isn't a law against it, it means we can do it. The Constitution does not tell us what we can't do. It tells the government what it can't do.

The SCOTUS considers laws and how they relate to the Constitution.
There were laws prohibiting blacks from marrying whites. They have said there can be no laws prohibiting blacks from marrying whites.
There were laws prohibiting abortion. They have said that there can be no laws absolutely prohibiting abortion.
There were laws prohibiting same sex marriage. They have said that there can be no laws prohibiting same sex marriage.

The SCOTUS removes laws, they do not make laws. De facto, or otherwise.

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Phage

The Congress once the act is passed into law and signed by the president

The SCOTUS would be the monitor of this new force NOT the congress nor the executive branch

That's not at all the job of the Supreme Court. An act of Congress can't change that. Only a Constitutional Amendment.

Then how can an act of congress give such power to the PRIVATE Federal reserve?

Doesn't seem very private when the entire 12 member board of directors is appointed by the President.

I repeat the congress can pass any law it wants

Saying it doesn't make it true. Brown sugar is naturally mauve. Nope, my sugar is still brown.

Look at the Patriot act

And much like the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 you keep referring to, the Patriot Act makes every bit as much sense as your plan.

There already is a private, national militia.

They are the citizens of this country who have taken it upon themselves to defend their families and their homes.

The government already acknowledges us because they (progressives) want to take that power away from us.

Actually a sheriff run militia empowered from the state would be also a rescue group as well as augmentable firefighters or disaster response teams.
Security would also be part of their missions.

a reply to: Willtell

What if the president calls for martial law from paris styled attacks?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Willtell

What if the president calls for martial law from paris styled attacks?

My Militia would look it and see if its justified.

if not we got problems