Most evil American political leader ever?

[David Floyd]

Although that's kinda a stretch.

It certainly IS nice to have, though, just woulda been better with an amendment

[David Floyd]

Marshall gives a pretty good original intent argument, though:

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. [5 U.S. 137, 179] Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey?

There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.' Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law.

The constitution declares that 'no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.'

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavours to preserve?

'No person,' says the constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.'
Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the consti- [5 U.S. 137, 180] tution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Well, Article III Section 2, which states:

"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

Seems to imply that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution.

"Seems to imply" are such dangerous words for a Libertarian. Your post "seems to imply" that a branch of the Federal government has the discretion to interpret what it's powers are under the Constitution. Shall we discuss the General Welfare Clause next?

The fact that they (may) have jurisdiction to consider a case doesn't extend to having a remedy of voiding an act of another branch of government. It's also a bit of a stretch (without express authority) that a party could bring an action befor the judicial branch claiming that an action of the executive or legislative branch violated the Constitution. The President has defined veto power, the Congress power over appropriations and impeachment, but nothing grants the Judiciary any particular power with respect to the other branches of government.

Marshall was good in his arguments, after all, he's the leading architect of that judicial superlegislature out of thin air.

[David Floyd]

"Seems to imply" are such dangerous words for a Libertarian. Your post "seems to imply" that a branch of the Federal government has the discretion to interpret what it's powers are under the Constitution. Shall we discuss the General Welfare Clause next?

I think it's reasonable to say that the Founders intended for SOMEONE to ensure federal compliance with the Constitution, otherwise what's the point, right?

And I already said it's a very weak argument, I just think that the Founders were remiss in not expressly delegating judicial review power to the judiciary.

So basically, you're correct, I don't believe that there is any express power there. I think Marshall makes a good, logical original intent argument, and I find it hard to believe the Founders would not have intended for someone to ensure compliance with the Constitution, but I don't necessarily believe that party had to be the judiciary. I just think it works out best that way.

There, satisfied?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov




On a sidenote, I always like to gleefully point out that it could only be the British who would think it proper military tactics to march into battle using big, densely-packed block formations while wearing astoundingly-bright red uniforms with giant, pointy black hats on top...

Actually the British tended to manuever in line formation once they got on the battlefield. It was the French 30 years later who were so very fond of attacking in giant column formations. Strangely the tactic usually worked.

The bright red uniforms reduced the number of "friendly fire" incidents, which were very common bakc then due to the large quantities of grey smoke floating over the battlefield. The tall hats may have encouraged the opposition to underestimate the distance of a british formation (they appeared to be closer than they were) causing their cannons to undershoot.

[Boris Godunov]

Pissing on parades is bad form, Doc.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kepler
No Joe McCarthy option?

I'm writing in Jimmy Carter. He seems far too ethical -- it must be an elaborate, evil plan. He does have another term coming, after all.

Carter in '04!

[DinoDoc]

:shudder:

[Boris Godunov]

Carter was the most decent President we have had in the past half century, perhaps ever.

So of course he didn't belong there...

[DinoDoc]

He's the best ex-president we've ever had. He can't do anymore damage.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He's the best ex-president we've ever had. He can't do anymore damage.

Daily dose of hyperbole?

[KrazyHorse]

You Americans and your term limits. How silly.

Who can forget Canada's glorious 21 years under Mackenzie King...

[Shi Huangdi]

Marbury v. Madison is good Law IMO.

[Lord Merciless]

It seems the Banana is winning the poll.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Chris 62
LBJ and Kennedy are two of the more vile US presidents, the first had a nasty habit of pushing the Russians to the brink of nuclear war (and the morals of a stray dog), and that smuck LBJ pushed the US into the Vietnam disaster.

Hear Hear! Both of these guys were scum. Kennedy did plenty of harm, and really was lucky that he didn't do a lot more, and absurdly fortunate to have been assassinated and Deified. Johnson I think received his fair share of vilification, though perhaps not all for the right reasons.