Anti Second Amendment Defense Secretary Leon Panetta speaks to U.S. troops in Italy. "For the life

Originally posted by METACOMET

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Except neither of you decide what is constitutional. The Supreme Court does. We will find out soon.

Then you shouldn't have a problem pointing out the clause in the constitution that grants the supreme court the power of judicial review.

Judicial review is based off of Maybury v. Madison and was established (self-serving in a way) by Chief Justice Marshall. Before that decision, no Act of Congress was ever deemed unconstitutional. His basis for his decision was derived from the very Act that Maybury was brought to suit; The Judiciary Act of 1789 (rather Section 13 of the Act). That precedent expanded the power of the Court at a time that the Executive itself was expanding its power. However, those expansions were relegated to governmental functions and actions.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Sure, the lawyer class felt that to uphold their oath to the constitution they'd just go ahead and usurp power not specifically delegated to them. Go figure.

reply to post by METACOMET


That is one way to look at it but if that decision hadn't been made the third branch would have been relegated to nothingness; which would have done the exact opposite in strengthening the Executive and the Legislative without a check against it (save the Senate at such time was properly beholden to State legislatures.)

Given that, it actually worked out in a manner especially when the 17th Amendment came into effect and removed the States from any power and decision within the Federal Government to check against an extremely strong central government.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


It's the only way to look at it.

The SC had constitutional channels it could have pursued to be delegated such powers. They didn't pursue them. Instead, they spit on the law and usurped that power. And now history repeats itself.

Anyways, to stay on topic, Leon is a douche. I don't kill people at his behest so I can say that without taking a pay cut.

Originally posted by METACOMET
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

It's the only way to look at it.

The SC had constitutional channels it could have pursued to be delegated such powers. They didn't pursue them. Instead, they spit on the law and usurped that power. And now history repeats itself.

And what channel would that have been besides judicial review of the lawmakers and executors? Judicial review falls squarely under Article III, Section 2 as most people who bring to suit a case have to meet the Constitutional standard outlined as within. So I am not sure where you are getting an usurpation of power.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Via Article 5.

The SC is not granted the power to interpret the constitution or decide what the constitution itself means.

reply to post by METACOMET


What's the check on the Supreme Court? Can a 2/3 majority of the senate over-ride a Supreme Court ruling?

I believe it's a 2/3 majority of senate that can over-ride a President.

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by METACOMET

 

What's the check on the Supreme Court? Can a 2/3 majority of the senate over-ride a Supreme Court ruling?

I believe it's a 2/3 majority of senate that can over-ride a President.

I honestly couldn't answer that question anymore.

(The laws) undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be like tomorrow. -Madison

In this day and age, it would be legal for the president to issue an executive order and just get rid of the other branches all together. "There is no more country, everybody go home."

He isn't delegated that power by the constitution, but heck, it's implied, right?

Originally posted by METACOMET
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Via Article 5.

The SC is not granted the power to interpret the constitution or decide what the constitution itself means.

So the Supreme Court should call for a Constitutional Convention? Why even have a judicial branch if they cannot independently review the laws that the legislators create and the executive implement?

Federalist #78

...the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.

The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.

Hamilton laid the ground work by explaining the reasoning of the Judiciary. Clearly his arguments were accepted when the Constitution was ratified. I am not arguing that the Supreme Court has power above the Legislature or even that they can decide what it means (that part of judicial review borders on what Brutus in the Anti-Federalist wrote of).

reply to post by ownbestenemy


All I'm saying here is that the power assumed by the supreme court is not granted to them in the constitution. It just isn't there. Assuming power not specifically delegated goes against the very purpose of having a constitution in the first place.

Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. – Thomas Jefferson

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. – Thomas Jefferson

For the life of me I dont know why the defense secretary would be bringing this up in front of troops overseas. Or troops anywhere. Or at all given what his job is. Completely bizarre.

Unless he's putting out feelers for confiscation compliance?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
For the life of me I dont know why the defense secretary would be bringing this up in front of troops overseas. Or troops anywhere. Or at all given what his job is. Completely bizarre.

Unless he's putting out feelers for confiscation compliance?

NOT going to happen.

If you think for a second that most US Soldiers would be willing to do this...You are mistaken.

We need guns like them, to kill tyrants like him.

Leon Panetta asks U.S. military troops why anybody but them needs assault weapons.

This is how stupid the antigun crowd is and those who use made up labels to describe guns they don't like,.

Not a single soldier carries an AR-15 hell most would never carry that in to a combat zone the AR is the civilian version where those solider us the M4 line of weapons and the military does not call them "assualt weapons" only ignorant politicians and political pundits.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
That's funny. If it was the other way around you guys would be saying how great he is and how right he is, but because he doesn't agree with you it is unbecoming.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
That's funny. If it was the other way around you guys would be saying how great he is and how right he is, but because he doesn't agree with you it is unbecoming.

You don't drag troops into a political fight regardless of what they are saying. We are not allowed to respond to Mr. Panetta. Our voices are effectively silenced regardless of how we view the issue.

Mr. Panetta knows this and I find it unbecoming of a Defense Secretary.

I have my well known views on this issue. But if he had come in there and said Americans should own any gun they want in reference to this gun control debate it would still be unbecoming of a SofD.

Originally posted by METACOMET
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

All I'm saying here is that the power assumed by the supreme court is not granted to them in the constitution. It just isn't there. Assuming power not specifically delegated goes against the very purpose of having a constitution in the first place.

I agree but then what role does the Supreme Court hold if they are not able to review and hear cases? That is what judicial review is; when people bring suit that makes its way to the Supreme Court they have to show cause as to why the Supreme Court has the authority to hear it.

So even if we take Jefferson's comments (similar comments made by Madison, Hamilton and Jay) who is going to declare those laws unjust and unconstitutional? The Congress who enacted them? The Executive that enjoys them? The People who may be benefiting from them? The media who promoted them? The businesses reaping from them? Hence an independent judiciary.

I admire your staunch constitutional view as I hold the same but I would recommend moving away from relying solely upon Jefferson to support your claims. Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Jay, Paine, Henry and Morris were far more influential in designing the structure of the Government to actually operate and not consistently offer platitudes as Jefferson oft did. Not saying he isn't important, but I notice many who are either coming around to or hold onto whatever knowledge they have of the the Constitution just look to him as their point of authority upon the Constitution.

Interestingly though is our obvious rift is that akin to Marshall and Jefferson; history it seems, draws such parallels from time to time. His pure democratic view that the People would willfully vote out of office persons of the individual branches that have violated the Constitution with their actions shows flaw and disregard for the republic he helped create.

Jefferson himself started out believing that judicial review was good -- until Marshall established it -- then it was bad; because it was directly against him as president.

Jefferson himself highly praised Virginia's judges for having disregarded state legislation found to be at odds with the state constitution; and his assumption that courts would perform likewise with respect to the federal Constitution was advanced by him as a principal reason for adding a "bill of rights" by amendment."

Elbridge Gerry mentioned the following during the Constitutional Convention:

"The Constitution will undoubtedly be their first rule; and so far as your laws conform to that, they will attend to them, but no further."

To the above, I agree. The Court must have the ability to examine and attend to cases that call into question the Constitutionality of an Act created by Congress or and action that the Executive has taken. With that, they will have to derive their opinion based on precedents; which at that time, was Black's law dictionary, Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers, and other various writings and convention notes.