Bad SCOTUS Behavior
For you Hillyardites, SCOTUS means Supreme Court of the US.
This will be submitted to the "politicsforum" community for debate next weekend.
My newest mini rant(and it ain't got an 'effn thing to do with health care). Under the cut there are six listed, out of many more SCOTUS decisions, all of which I strongly believe undercut either good governance, common sense or the Constitution of these United States.
I welcome comments from all, but the lawyers out there tend to be very wordy so as a one who is living with the disability of being a one fingered typist, I may take a bit longer to answer.
From:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Key_Court_Decisions#Ex_parte_Quirin_.281942.29
It began early.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Legally established the concept of Judicial Review (alluded to by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers).
The context of Marbury isn't important, it's the fact that from this decision, which was within their original jurisdiction and therefore proper, SCOTUS took upon itself, without a Constitutional basis or authority, the power to have the final say in what is constitutional and what isn't. Marbury gave them the "power" for all the following unconstitutional amendments to the Constitution.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Extended the commerce clause to establish federal government pre-eminence over both state and corporate power, laid groundwork for anti-trust action of late 19th century.
The actual clause, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
It clearly says "among" the states, not within the states. To do so among the states is one of the "forgoing powers" as stated in the final clause of Article 1, section 8. Congress clearly has the constitutional authority to regulate corporations that do business across state lines; or to regulate the products of corporations which are shipped across state lines. Congress has zero authority to regulate local companies or corporations whose business, services or products do not cross state lines.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
Declared that the 14th amendment creates corporate personhood, giving corporations all of the rights of individuals.
This one is truly stupid. It's even more asinine because the word corporation or company or any synonym for those words fail to appear in the 14th. This is a right, not at all natural, created out of thin air.
It gave corporations the right to participate in politics by providing huge amounts of money, directly or through lobbyists, to politicians and parties, creating certain corruption. It's just a failure of common sense. No institution of any kind; unions, business, industry, major league ball teams or churches should have been given the right to provide material support to influence campaign politics; it's between the candidates and the voters.
Funny thing is, right now, churches are the only forbidden institution, through tax law passed by congress, which gives the churches immunity from taxation under the 16th amendment and thereby giving the federal government a power over religious institutions, exactly as the first amendment forbids. If they take a political position, they lose that immunity.
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937)
Congress has the power under the commerce clause to regulate intrastate activities, such as labor relations, which have "substantial effects" on commerce.
Gimmee a break! Just producing a product that's popular and in demand has an "substantial effect" on commerce. Any successful commercial enterprise has a substantial effect on commerce even if they don't cross a state line with their product or service. This is probably the most blatant subversion of the Constitution that the congress ever let courts get away with.
That decision is an excuse to blatantly and unconstitutionally amend the Constitution for the purpose of grabbing more power for the federal government.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Established the exclusionary rule: illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court.
Common sense truly left the courts with this one. If a mistake was made by a cop or lawyer, the cop or lawyer who made the mistake should be penalized, not the people by turning loose criminals to prey on us once again. The criminal should not have any benefit at all from the bad act of another. If it's legitimate and relevant evidence, it should be before the jury.
United States v. Nixon (1974)
Legally established executive privilege, but limited it by prohibiting its use in criminal cases.
That's a good one except it encourages bad governance by limiting the people's knowledge about what goes on, on their behalf, behind closed doors, as does the "Conference Committee" that can actually write legislation without any chance for the people to comment on or have knowledge of by whom it was written.
To summarize: The congress has the constitutional authority and responsibility regulate the courts under this phrase in Article 3, Section 2, the second paragraph, "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make".
The congress does not because it's the congress that gains the most power by subverting the Constitution. Besides, congress has passed their own share of unconstitutional amendments, a few of which were needs that should have been authorized by an amendment as per Article 5. The Constitution stands in the way of their acquisition and retention of power and the more that can get away with unconstitutionally, the less of an impediment it is and the easier it is to get away with even more.
Power for the politicians over the people is what it is all about.
This will be submitted to the "politicsforum" community for debate next weekend.
My newest mini rant(and it ain't got an 'effn thing to do with health care). Under the cut there are six listed, out of many more SCOTUS decisions, all of which I strongly believe undercut either good governance, common sense or the Constitution of these United States.
I welcome comments from all, but the lawyers out there tend to be very wordy so as a one who is living with the disability of being a one fingered typist, I may take a bit longer to answer.
From:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Key_Court_Decisions#Ex_parte_Quirin_.281942.29
It began early.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Legally established the concept of Judicial Review (alluded to by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers).
The context of Marbury isn't important, it's the fact that from this decision, which was within their original jurisdiction and therefore proper, SCOTUS took upon itself, without a Constitutional basis or authority, the power to have the final say in what is constitutional and what isn't. Marbury gave them the "power" for all the following unconstitutional amendments to the Constitution.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Extended the commerce clause to establish federal government pre-eminence over both state and corporate power, laid groundwork for anti-trust action of late 19th century.
The actual clause, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
It clearly says "among" the states, not within the states. To do so among the states is one of the "forgoing powers" as stated in the final clause of Article 1, section 8. Congress clearly has the constitutional authority to regulate corporations that do business across state lines; or to regulate the products of corporations which are shipped across state lines. Congress has zero authority to regulate local companies or corporations whose business, services or products do not cross state lines.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
Declared that the 14th amendment creates corporate personhood, giving corporations all of the rights of individuals.
This one is truly stupid. It's even more asinine because the word corporation or company or any synonym for those words fail to appear in the 14th. This is a right, not at all natural, created out of thin air.
It gave corporations the right to participate in politics by providing huge amounts of money, directly or through lobbyists, to politicians and parties, creating certain corruption. It's just a failure of common sense. No institution of any kind; unions, business, industry, major league ball teams or churches should have been given the right to provide material support to influence campaign politics; it's between the candidates and the voters.
Funny thing is, right now, churches are the only forbidden institution, through tax law passed by congress, which gives the churches immunity from taxation under the 16th amendment and thereby giving the federal government a power over religious institutions, exactly as the first amendment forbids. If they take a political position, they lose that immunity.
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937)
Congress has the power under the commerce clause to regulate intrastate activities, such as labor relations, which have "substantial effects" on commerce.
Gimmee a break! Just producing a product that's popular and in demand has an "substantial effect" on commerce. Any successful commercial enterprise has a substantial effect on commerce even if they don't cross a state line with their product or service. This is probably the most blatant subversion of the Constitution that the congress ever let courts get away with.
That decision is an excuse to blatantly and unconstitutionally amend the Constitution for the purpose of grabbing more power for the federal government.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Established the exclusionary rule: illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court.
Common sense truly left the courts with this one. If a mistake was made by a cop or lawyer, the cop or lawyer who made the mistake should be penalized, not the people by turning loose criminals to prey on us once again. The criminal should not have any benefit at all from the bad act of another. If it's legitimate and relevant evidence, it should be before the jury.
United States v. Nixon (1974)
Legally established executive privilege, but limited it by prohibiting its use in criminal cases.
That's a good one except it encourages bad governance by limiting the people's knowledge about what goes on, on their behalf, behind closed doors, as does the "Conference Committee" that can actually write legislation without any chance for the people to comment on or have knowledge of by whom it was written.
To summarize: The congress has the constitutional authority and responsibility regulate the courts under this phrase in Article 3, Section 2, the second paragraph, "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make".
The congress does not because it's the congress that gains the most power by subverting the Constitution. Besides, congress has passed their own share of unconstitutional amendments, a few of which were needs that should have been authorized by an amendment as per Article 5. The Constitution stands in the way of their acquisition and retention of power and the more that can get away with unconstitutionally, the less of an impediment it is and the easier it is to get away with even more.
Power for the politicians over the people is what it is all about.