Posted by
CKHustler on Friday, April 03, 2009 1:12:33 AM
The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority
From McLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON
Federalist Paper #81
"In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under
consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe
the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution"
But wait...wouldn't that cover the judges making up any law they choose, simply because....well because? I look to proposition 8 in this case and see judges trying to find any way they can make up yet another loophole so as to stop yet another vote by the people. How a judge was able to overrule the people in the first place.... The courts do not make laws! The citizens of this country need to get that through their heads if we are to fight back against these activist judges. When a judge makes up his own law, we, by law, do not have to abide by it. He has no rights to create such laws in the first place.
"From a body which had even a partial agency in passing bad laws, we
could rarely expect a disposition to temper and moderate them in the
application."
Basically, if a legislature passes a bad law, how can we expect them to moderate the law at all? If we give the treasury power to take over any business, how can we expect them to moderate themselves while using this power? We simply cannot. Social Security is another example and one that has already shown this statement to be true. It is a bad idea for the government to take control of people's retirement. People trusted the government though and at first it was in a separate fund, which the congress couldn't touch. I believe it was...LBJ?...who put that money into the general fund and all heck broke loose. So, looking back, why would the government get involved in our retirement? They don't believe people can save their own money? They don't believe we are capable of saving without their help? These things should have been thought of to stop this ridiculous program from going into effect. This "bad law" was then expanded and it completely ruined the program and now we are trillions in debt there with no way of paying it back. I have to pay in and most likely we will be bankrupt before I can even collect any social security. Couldn't moderate their bad law because they got power hungry and needed OUR money for the general fund.
"In the former, as well as in the latter, the impropriety of the thing,
on the general principles of law and reason, is the sole obstacle."
We have supreme court justices who wish to use international law in their cases! Their sole job is to rule by our Constitution and any law found underneath it, inside our country. The reasons they give are not based on law or reason. They want us to be more like the rest of the world. They don't give a why or any other reasons really, but just think our traditional ways are so barbaric basically. I repeat from yesterday, if we go this route, we are all screwed.
"There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate
usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the
united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was
possessed of the means of punishing their presumption"
This is one place in which I agree that the judicial branch is weaker. If the people are against the government taking power, the legislature will have a stiff advantage on the subject. The HoR will have the most power when it comes to a power that the people are sided with the legislature on. In a quick 2 years, the entire HoR can be changed to echo the sentiments of the people and put a halt to what is going on in the other branches. The will of the people is the strongest and I think we are about to see that happen. Check up the great depression and tell me how the stock market did after its huge drop in 1929. It rallied, oh yes it rallied, but then it plummeted again. These programs Obama has put into place have rallied the markets in the short term, but look for the house of cards to truly fall. The will of the people will shift overnight and it could get ugly for Washington.
"It is therefore necessary that the appellate jurisdiction should, in
certain cases, extend in the broadest sense to matters of fact."
How often do we hear that some liberal has been ruled against at the state level, but now seek the court of appeals? I hear it all too often, yet whenever I do hear of overrulings (usually on moral issues), how can they possibly come up with a matter of fact to overrule the states? The way I see it, there is never a matter of fact when it comes to moral issues. With that, I can never see how a court of appeals would EVER overrule the state courts on these issues.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke