a5ab585c
XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: user@nowhere.com
On 7/1/2012 7:12 PM, Charles Bell wrote:
> On Jul 1, 6:45 pm, Josh wrote:
>> On 7/1/2012 6:31 PM, Charles Bell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 6:16 pm, Josh wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/2012 5:49 PM, Charles Bell wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 1, 5:19 pm, Josh wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/1/2012 5:16 PM, Charles Bell wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 10:50 am, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2012 1:36 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> ObamaCare is still the law of the land, and we blame George W. Bush.
>>
>>>>>>>> No. Blame those that enacted the law and upheld the law. None of
them
>>>>>>>> understand the just purposes of government.
>>
>>>>>>>>> So what we have here is another 5-4 decision ...
>>
>>>>>>>> Divided we fall.
>>
>>>>>>>> Divide and conquer.
>>
>>>>>>>> Split decisions (and the power to even have them) is a simple recipe
for
>>>>>>>> destruction in any branch of government.
>>
>>>>>>>> The founders missed this point, or presumed that we'd make the
necessary
>>>>>>>> Constitutional changes (they were wrong). It should be super-majority
>>>>>>>> in legislative issues, unanimity in judicial issues.
>>
>>>>>>> And yet conservatives will continue on and allow this never-
>>>>>>> articulated in the Constitution process of judicial review to
>>>>>>> continue.
>>
>>>>>> If it weren't for judicial review, the law couldn't even have been
>>>>>> challenged
>>
>>>>> Isn't that exactly the only thing Chief Justice Roberts cared about?
>>>>> That "judicial review" means nothing to restrain unlimited federal
>>>>> power, in the final conclusion? But rather to expand it infinitely
>>>>> through any taxation whatsoever? I'm sorry, but there is a HUGE
>>>>> difference between taxing an item or an activity and taxing doing
>>>>> exactly nothing and buying nothing. He just shifted unlimited federal
>>>>> power by use of the Commerce Clause to unlimited federal power using
>>>>> taxation, and quite frankly, because the American Revolution was
>>>>> fought over British extension of presumed unlimited imperial power to
>>>>> do anything by commerce (mercantilism) and taxation (a remote
>>>>> government usurpation) the consequent USA Constitution can never have
>>>>> been to do just that.
>>
>>>> That was a wonderful non-response to my critique of your position that
>>>> judicial review should not be continued
>>
>>> As with any change, it would take time to see the effects, and yet you
>>> presume that after 200+ years without (constitutional) judicial review
>>> following on Marbury we would be here today exactly as we are. Is that
>>> your position from which you stand to which I am to respond? That
>>> Obamacare would still stand under a process of state nullification,
>>> for example, in lieu of SCOTUS review?
>>
>>> On other hand, from a time in which a Constitutional Amendment or two
>>> would be adopted clarifying and apportioning the responsibility for
>>> Constitutional standing of federal law is the time I imagine the stuff
>>> and nonsense like unlimited power given to the federal government
>>> through whatever means SCOTUS has given it will wither away.
>>
>> Good luck with the state nullification amendment. Until then, all you
>> have is judicial review.
>>
>
> Here it is my turn to say:
>
> That was a wonderful non-response to my critique of your position that
> judicial review should be continued.
I did reply. Like it or not, we don't have state nullification. We
therefore need judicial review. I will also add we need judicial review
of state laws, for which state nullification wouldn't help anyway.
I'm not seeing how your questions relevance to whether judicial review
needs to be continued. Instead, they are contrafactuals that have no
bearing on the situation as it is today.
> Y/N questions:
>
> (1) Do you think that after 200+ years without (constitutional)
> judicial review following on Marbury we would be here today exactly as
> we are, just without SCOTUS overturning constitutional law?
>
> (2) If 1799 (prior to Marbury) state nullification were now the
> accepted process of nullification of unconstitutional federal law,
> would Obamacare (just like the Alien and Sedition Acts, 1798 then)
> have a chance to survive?
>
> (3) Is state nullification and SCOTUS the only conceivable methods to
> overturn or prevent unconstitutional law? [Hint: see
> Bundesverfassungsgericht BRD, Constitution Commitee, U.K. Or just
> supposing the U.S. Senate were returned to representing the States and
> they assume a duty they *never* assumed from the 5th Congress onwards?
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
