tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post8406518879659873941..comments2024-02-29T20:00:59.902-08:00Comments on Cartago Delenda Est: Roberts Actually Did The Right Thing, And I ApproveMatteohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-30284276782702175292012-07-11T21:04:17.800-07:002012-07-11T21:04:17.800-07:00I would agree, but then nullification and secessio...I would agree, but then nullification and secession are the keys to the puzzle of federal power...Kevhttp://www.solavirtus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-55333802791937791792012-07-08T10:53:40.923-07:002012-07-08T10:53:40.923-07:00"While we are on the topic of Constitution, I..."<i>While we are on the topic of Constitution, I would remind you that no Founding Father but Hamilton saw any value in democracy.</i>"<br /><br />Surely you mean Jefferson, that proto-leftist weasel, not Hamilton.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-92222900816632655582012-07-08T10:50:04.047-07:002012-07-08T10:50:04.047-07:00"Ilion, please see my latest post."
But..."<i>Ilion, please see my latest post.</i>"<br /><br />But, I had. <br /><br />I was not disputing what you'd written, but rather pointing out yet one more truth we grasp when we give actualy consideration to what the Constitution actually says.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-3782377399127718272012-07-08T10:28:27.571-07:002012-07-08T10:28:27.571-07:00Actually, my current thinking on this topic is as ...Actually, my current thinking on this topic is as follows:<br /><br />-----<br /><br />Question: If the Constitution is a contract, then who are the parties to the contract?<br /><br />Up until recently, I would have answered “The states and the Federal government”.<br /><br />However, this is a logical impossibility: the Federal government did not exist at the time the contract was signed.<br /><br />Now, if parties to a contract create an entity via the contract to further the interests of the parties, then whose right is it to determine whether the created entity is fulfilling the terms of the contract? The created entity, or the original parties?<br /><br />Under our current “system” the almost universal assumption is that the created entity is the one to make this determination. This is, of course, insane. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to rule on whether or not it is playing by the stated terms. But under the current “system”, we’ve allowed the federal government to be both a party and also the judge in every Constitutional dispute. Is it any wonder that federal power almost always wins? What else would common sense expect?<br /><br />One of the reasons the Obamacare case has been such a farce is that it is simply not allowed to be tried on any real grounds: namely that the Federal Government simply lacks any enumerated power to do anything whatsoever about health care in this country. Instead, we have the spectacle of trying to get the whole thing thrown out on a ludicrous sideshow technicality (aka “The Mandate”), a case begged before a tribunal that in truth has no right to decide the outcome. Even Congressional elections are essentially a sideshow.<br /><br />Conservatives have got to learn, and learn quickly, to stop adopting the mentality of a slave who must go before its master plaintively begging for rights that the master will never give. If asked to arbitrate between itself and anyone else, the Federal Government (via courts or the Congress) will choose itself almost every time. Of course!<br /><br />The irony is that under the Constitution, the federal government is not--and cannot logically be--the decider of what counts as Constitutional. That power is reserved to the states, because that power came from the states. It is the only place where that power resides, or logically can reside.<br /><br />Until conservatives figure this out, they will continue to lose, and lose, and lose, as they foolishly try to play a game that cannot be won. Everything else is delusion.Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-45745626167379557412012-07-07T08:29:53.511-07:002012-07-07T08:29:53.511-07:00He most definitely did NOT do the right thing. Yes...He most definitely did NOT do the right thing. Yes, Marbury v. Madison was activism, and it did not give the judiciary a right that never existed. That is true, though one may argue on practicality that it doesn't matter any more that this right was not created because it exists now, and Roberts' failure to use it in this instance does not mean that he is not going to turn around and use it on the next 500 cases. I am sure this is the reality. But I won't even argue that point. What I will argue is that this was, in itself, judicial activism. Roberts created an entirely new power for Congress to exploit, one that is in steep contrast to the direct apportionment or 16th Amendment (if one recognizes it in the face of the original body of the Constitution, but I digress) taxing powers that the government was bound to, at least somewhat, before this ruling. You commend Roberts for restraint, and I agree on the Commerce Clause issue. But on taxation, the cure is far worse than the ailment. This opens the door to Congress taxing us on having or not having anything, ad perpetuam, for mere fact that we live in the borders of the U.S. While he did a bit of good, he then turned to a great evil. The power to tax is the power to destroy. The left has shown that they have no qualms about economic destruction at home, and the right has shown that they have no qualms about economic destruction both at home and abroad.<br /><br />While we are on the topic of Constitution, I would remind you that no Founding Father but Hamilton saw any value in democracy. Democracy was easily labeled by all of those men, and as far back as Plato, as tyranny. Being beholden to 51% of the population is extremely dangerous. They knew this, and they knew democracy is the natural tendency of dumb men, which most people are - especially today. This is why we have the Constitution to begin with; They knew that when 51% (it could be far less today, since almost no one votes) of the population wanted to take away the rights of any minority, there would be no problem for the majority to take these rights. What we have here last week with Obamacare being upheld on new case law, is that a new power for the majority to act in opposition to any minority was created. It undermines not only the taxing powers of the Constitution, but the entire Constitution. For what Roberts "saved" via the Commerce Clause strike-down, he has utterly ruined the purpose of the entire document. So much so, that the Commerce Clause may now become the backup loophole for any legislation that Congress knows in unconstitutional but wants enacted anyway. The door has been opened - nay, the entire wall removed - on the taxing power. There is no reason for any further justification by Congress. Which brings around the concept of democracy again - the slavery that is the "greater will of the people." By enshrining the power solely in who is elected, Roberts has effectively made us our defining restraining principle one of men and elections, not laws. This is displayed very clearly by the exceptions Obama has given in this law to his various friends and financial sponsors - including the Congress itself. Democracy will end this country if we let it brew long enough, and it is far and away the biggest hurdle that anyone who believes government should not lord over us like a totalitarian god needs be concerned with. The populous will never feel safe enough, have enough of that which they realize they can vote themselves, or think themselves morally humble enough to admit that maybe they do not know the best laws that should bind everyone.Men are too capricious and competitive for such things. Accordingly, democracy is a train wreck. Check out Frederic Bastiat sometime for fuller explanations of the economics and governmentalism that democracy yields. <br /><br />There is no possible way that a 2000-page federal law is Constitutional, per federalism or the purpose of the document in the first place. Conservatives who think so are gravely mistaken.Kevhttp://www.solavirtus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-11660403632788642052012-07-02T21:02:44.600-07:002012-07-02T21:02:44.600-07:00Ilion, please see my latest post.
The Constituti...Ilion, please see my latest post. <br /><br />The Constitution does not give _any_ of the Federal government authority to declare on Constitutionality, for the simple reason that such a thing would be a blatant conflict of interest. <br /><br />Now, let's see, if nothing in the Constitution gives the federal gov't this authority, and if all unenumerated powers are reserved to the States and to the people, then...?<br /><br />What is needed at some point is a state (I'm looking at you, Texas) to simply say: "We find this law [whatever is the "last straw"] to be unconstitutional and therefore it is null and void in this state. Any attempt at federal enforcement will be met with force."<br /><br />The States created the Constitution and as such, they are the final judge as to whether the federal gov't is living up to it.<br /><br />It amazes me that we've all internalized a form of slavery, such that we cannot see what should be blindingly obvious.Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-43228095137153776172012-07-02T20:16:43.826-07:002012-07-02T20:16:43.826-07:00Exactly.
All that stuff we were taught in high sc...Exactly.<br /><br />All that stuff we were taught in high school civics class about 3 co-equal branches of government was false. And it's false in at least two ways:<br />1) it's not how things have been working for at least 60 years, and probably longer;<br />2) even if it were how things were working, it's not the system laid out in the Constitution.<br /><br />For starters, not only does Constitution not give the Supreme Court the authority to declare on Constitutionality, but all Federal Courts, including the SC, are creatures of Congress.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com