It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
Would that really be any worse than the following statement?
"I can only imagine when the federal government no restraints placed upon their
attempts to control America and it's individuals with legal ease and contracts."
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
A very, very key component. You and I can vote out politicians... Corporations
controlling everything is the end of representative democracy, because you have
removed the people from the process of governance and replaced the people
with private forces who can beat you or me in virtually any legal challenge.
You think about it...
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Can you engage in a ten year long legal battle with GE or Shell Oil?
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
So if you want to challenge them or seek redress, what are you gonna do
practically speaking?
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
What if the conservative court mandates that losers pay all the legal fees like
they want to do with malpractice suits? Are you gonna have any recourse
left in this world, can you pay off 1,500 hours to pay for Shells $1,000 an hour
attorney?
Most bad government has grown out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
A very, very key component. You and I can vote out politicians... Corporations
controlling everything is the end of representative democracy, because you have
removed the people from the process of governance and replaced the people
with private forces who can beat you or me in virtually any legal challenge.
You think about it...
You can't vote out dictators. You've firmly got your head in a pipe dream, thinking that a totalitarian government will allow you to vote people out. Corporations controlling everything isn't any different than the federal government controlling everything. If corporations control the government, then they are the government, conversely, if government controls the corporations, the corporations are the government. It's the same thing! NO DIFFERENCE! Yet, you advocate for the federal government to force you to buy health care, or any other product they deem necessary?
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Can you engage in a ten year long legal battle with GE or Shell Oil?
No more so than I can engage a ten year long legal battle with the federal government.
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
So if you want to challenge them or seek redress, what are you gonna do
practically speaking?
The same thing I CAN'T do now with the federal government, wanting to force me to buy a product that I don't want.
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
What if the conservative court mandates that losers pay all the legal fees like
they want to do with malpractice suits? Are you gonna have any recourse
left in this world, can you pay off 1,500 hours to pay for Shells $1,000 an hour
attorney?
I don't see that as any different than the liberal court attempting to mandate that everyone buy a product that the federal government wants me to buy. Currently I have no recourse left in this world against that, if the Supreme Court doesn't deem it unconstitutional, and I certainly can't afford to pay for government attorneys, IRS agents, or whoever will be the strong arm thugs who will enforce this mandate.
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
If you don't see a difference it's because you are thinking critcally about it.
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
The two are similar, but there power and the dangers they pose are very different.
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Can you vote a CEO out?
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Can you vote out a President?
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
If you cannot see the implications of that then maybe this is too much for you.
Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
I also know it is popular to repeat the red meat phrases, so maybe that's your real issue, not intelligence
Article III of Constitution, Section. 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...
...to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States
the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party
He actually was able to lobby the House to IMPEACH a Supreme Court justice due to massive corruption
Samuel Chase became an ardent party in presiding on grand jury sessions and circuit court trials under the Sedition Act. To say the least, he was intemperate, caustic, opinionated, and certainly was not even-handed. Chase was on the bench for two famous grand jury and circuit court trials, for Fries and Callender, where his conduct in both was used to frame the Articles of Impeachment that were later drawn against him in the House. James Thompson Callender was a well-known and prominent Republican radical, and one of the most scurrilous political broadside and pamphlet writers in the country. The Federalists chose to bring him to trial for openly advocating the overthrow of the Adams presidency. The trials of Fries for Rebellion, and of Callender for Sedition, are well documented.
Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, and was to take office in March 1801. Now as the President-Elect, and titular head of the Republican party, he indicated he would make every effort to appoint Republican judges to replace Federalist ones as quickly as possible. The Federalist “lame duck” Congress then worked to pass the Judiciary Act of 1801 that provided for six new circuit courts and sixteen new circuit judges - - all of whom were appointed by the lame-duck President, John Adams, on the night before he was to leave office.
The Republicans were embittered by this end run, and in February 1802 the Judiciary Act was repealed. The “Midnight Judges” were turned out; however, the Republicans were then faced with all of the remaining Supreme Court Justices and circuit judges being of the Federalist persuasion.
In the long run, Jefferson planned to replace retiring and deceased judges with Republicans; however, to find an opening on the Supreme Court, he was convinced that only Impeachment proceedings and conviction against a Justice would permit him to bring some modicum of change to John Marshall’s Court. Jefferson picked his target, Samuel Chase who earned Jefferson’s dislike and anger. He was a Federalist and a constructionist, and Chase had actively campaigned for John Adams. In doing so, Chase’s absence had resulted in delays and continuations of the Court’s business.
Chase provided Jefferson with the excuse he needed. In May 1803 Chase implored a Baltimore Grand Jury not to defend a Maryland law that granted universal male suffrage to its citizens. Chase believed property ownership was a mandatory prerequisite to vote in either state or national elections. Further, Chase still was incensed by the Republican repeal of the Judiciary Act, and he blended these two dislikes into his instructions to the Grand Jury:
“The late alteration of the federal Judiciary . . . and the recent change in our state constitution, by the establishment of universal suffrage . . . will . . . take away all security for personal property and liberty, and our Republican constitution will sink into a mobocracy, the worst of all popular governments.”
On May 13, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Joseph H. Nicholson, Maryland’s Republican member of the House, obliquely suggesting impeachment of Chase, based on Chase’s Baltimore Grand Jury outburst.
“You must have heard of the extraordinary charge of Chase to the Grand Jury at Baltimore. Ought this seditious and official attack on the principals of our Constitution, and on the proceedings of a State, go unpunished? And to whom so pointedly as yourself will the public look for the necessary measures? I ask these questions for your consideration, for myself it is better that I should not interfere?”
Nicholson demurred, believing Chase’s conduct, although reprehensible, did not qualify for the Constitutional requirement for impeachment and removal from office. As a result, nothing was done for the remainder of 1803.
In January 1804, Jefferson probably asked a fellow Virginian, John Randolph, a member of the House, to begin Impeachment proceedings against Chase. Randolph moved to establish a Committee of Inquiry to investigate Chase’s conduct. The Committee’s investigation took two months and resulted in a report recommending impeachment. The House agreed, and eight Articles of Impeachment were drawn up based upon Chase’s conduct in the Fries and Callender trials. The Articles were presented to the House for approval; however Congress adjourned without charging Chase, and the process was delayed until Congress met in November.
During this recess, Chase assembled his defense team, and having obtained Randolph’s drafts of the Articles, they were able to map out a substantial defense. Chase had asked Alexander Hamilton to be one of his lead attorneys; however, Hamilton was killed in the duel with Aaron Burr before he could respond. Ironicaally, Burr, as Vice President, would preside over Samuel Chase’s trial in the Senate.
...the only Supreme Court Justice to ever be impeached in US History.
On March 1, Chase was acquitted on all counts. Although a majority of the Senate had voted against him on three of the eight counts, these votes lacked the two thirds required to convict. The remaining five counts were dismissed with significant votes for acquittal. One possible influence on the votes centered on James Callender - - no longer a Republican favorite, and now both condemned and despised by the Republicans as a scoundrel and as a turncoat. Any vote to convict Chase would be construed as continued and open Republican support of Callender, a convicted salacious scandalmonger. Even Jefferson privately admitted that Chase should be acquitted. Jefferson’s change of heart and the extensive details and analyses of Chase’s Impeachment and Senate trial have been documented and assessed in many primary many sources. One recent and relevant assessment was written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
The Senate ultimately struck it down.
When Republicans under Thomas Jefferson led an impeachment attack against Samuel Chase, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, the agenda was clearly political. The outcome of Chase's trial would largely determine whether the judiciary could remain independent. And the fly in Jefferson's ointment would be his own vice president, Aaron Burr, who was wanted in two states for the death of Alexander Hamilton.
Born in Princess Anne, Maryland, in 1741, Samuel Chase had served his country honorably. He held a seat in both the Maryland assembly and the Continental Congress. He was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Before being appointed to the Supreme Court by George Washington, Chase had been chief judge of the Maryland General Court. A Federalist, Chase believed in a strong central government. But in his decisions, he also reflected a concern for the rights of individuals with due process under the law.
President Thomas Jefferson, leader of the Republicans, disliked the idea of judges being appointed for life. He feared that under such a system, the judiciary might become too powerful. And when Samuel Chase expressed Federalist opinions from the bench, Jefferson encouraged the House of Representatives to impeach him.
Chase's trial would serve as an important test case. Could a judge be impeached for expressing unpopular opinions? Or did a judge need to be guilty of crimes in order to be impeached? Jefferson was eager to have the question answered. If he could impeach Chase easily, other Federalist judges, notably Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, would probably follow.
In March, 1805, when Chase's trial began in the United States Senate, the Republicans were in control of the government. But much to their surprise, Chase kept his post, thanks largely to Vice President Aaron Burr, a Republican. Burr was wanted for the shooting of Alexander Hamilton, but he was immune from prosecution in Washington, DC. And presiding over an impeachment was his duty as vice president.
Although many senators looked upon the impeachment trial as something akin to a kangaroo court, Burr conducted the trial in a manner that was remarkable for its order and decorum. He gave Chase's lawyer, Luther Martin, the opportunity to present a complete defense of his client. In short, Burr prevented Chase from being railroaded, and in the end, Chase was acquitted.
But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government. Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility.
Implied powers, in the United States, are those powers authorized by a legal document (from the Constitution) which, while not stated, seem to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States against the protests of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers. Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper clause" gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.
"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."
This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.
to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.
— Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804 [ex/]
edit on 9-4-2012 by TZela because: speilling correct