Posted by
CKHustler on Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:37:18 AM
The Powers of the Judiciary
From McLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON
Federalist Paper #80
"1st, to all those which arise out of the laws of the United States,
passed in pursuance of their just and constitutional powers of
legislation
2rd, to all those which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union
3rd, to all those in which the United States are a party
4th, to all those which involve the PEACE of the CONFEDERACY, whether
they relate to the intercourse between the United States and foreign
nations, or to that between the States themselves
5th, to all those which originate on the high seas, and are of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction
lastly, to all those in which the State tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial and unbiased"
The only possible one that any moral issues could possible come under would be the 3rd reason in which the United States is a party. They clearly do not fall under any of the other, besides the last one, and in that one the States CAN be impartial so it doesn't fall under that either. Basically what is SUPPOSED to happen here is that a person sues the State in which she lives to have her right for abortion, for example. The State is clearly impartial in each case where a moral issue like this would come up so there is no need for any of these cases to rise up into the supreme court. What the supreme court is mainly for is to keep the rest of the government in check, as per the Constitution, and to settle arguments that are outside any states jurisdiction. High seas is an example of that, as are intercourse between the states. It is wholly unneeded to call on the supreme court for any other reason than those.
"Controversies between the nation and its members or citizens, can only be properly referred to the national tribunals."
That argument is the last stand of where these moral issues would fall. However nothing more is to be gained by the citizen in bringing the suit to the national level rather than the state level. Sure it FORCES others, on an moral issue, to follow a set of judges where it is unnecessary. These cases are meant for say a citizen bringing some cargo across state lines, or maybe his business is say a railroad company and he is located in multiple states. In that case the lawsuit cannot be brought to any state level court and must be brought to a higher power. Moral issues can be easily held to the state court system without fail because moral issues have no state lines and each state is obliged to the powers put forth in the bill of rights 10th amendment. On an issue such as abortion, the right has not been granted to the federal government and it therefore falls to the state governments.
"The power of determining causes between two States, between one State
and the citizens of another, and between the citizens of different
States"
I notice that he does not mention a state and its citizen, for that would be a state issue. Just another point for states handling the moral issues.
"yet it is warrantable to apprehend that the spirit which produced them
will assume new shapes, that could not be foreseen nor specifically
provided against."
Ah, but here is the saving grace of the democrats. They always pass a law with "good intentions" right? Well, they make us think so, but then they turn the law into something that was not intended (at least publicly) and we have problems. Take this new power Geithner wants where he can take over businesses. Sure it sounds like a good idea if, and only if, the person with the power uses it wisely to help businesses get back on their feet. It would work if that person actually knew more about the business than the people running these companies. Unfortunately, our government knows nothing more than those who are in these businesses and it won't help at all to give the government these powers. The person in charge, Geithner, will not use this power wisely and will soon be confiscating businesses simply because he can. This law will be used in a new way, not foreseen because it would not be specifically provided against. Every law that comes to our attention must be investigated in this way. What COULD they do with this law, not what they claim to intend on doing. If it can be twisted, it will be, you can count on it.
"To all cases in law and equity, ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION and THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. "
Remember, the Constitution is the ULTIMATE law of the land. Always remember that. We do have those in our government that wish to sign over our freedoms to a global community in which our Constitution will not be the supreme law of the land anymore. An international government will take precedence over our Constitution in cases which they do not match. Think about how our freedoms would be overrun. Think about having a government who we do not directly elect, governing over us as well as the rest of the world. Imagine how inefficient our current government is and think they only cover a single country on a single continent. How would a government do when it is micromanaging the entire globe? Anyone with a hint of sense can see that this will not work. Sure in a PERFECT world it would, but then so would communism, but human nature does not allow it to work. Human nature cannot be disregarded as that is one thing that will never change in this world.
I wish he could bring up some moral issues. I'm sure they had their fair share in his day, but he did not directly bring them up. The judicial department continues tomorrow, but since this was the paper concerning their specific powers, I doubt he will cover them.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke