A Post With Zero Adult Content . SCOTUS
A rant I've had before on other communities and now it's talk_politics turn. Under the cut there are four listed, out of many more SCOTUS decisions, all of which I strongly believe undercut either good governance or common sense and the Constitution of these United States.
I welcome comments from all, but to the lawyers and others out there that tend to be very wordy; 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, 50+ years later SCOTUS took upon itself, without a Constitutional basis or Constitutional 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.
The meat below the cut
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 fails 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 and for politicians.
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, however it was obtained.
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, except to modify "original jurisdiction", to 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 allowing the subversion of the Constitution. Besides that, congress has passed their own share of unconstitutional amendments, some 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 they can get away with unconstitutionally, the less of an impediment it is and the easier it is to get away with even more.
I welcome comments from all, but to the lawyers and others out there that tend to be very wordy; 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, 50+ years later SCOTUS took upon itself, without a Constitutional basis or Constitutional 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.
The meat below the cut
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 fails 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 and for politicians.
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, however it was obtained.
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, except to modify "original jurisdiction", to 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 allowing the subversion of the Constitution. Besides that, congress has passed their own share of unconstitutional amendments, some 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 they can get away with unconstitutionally, the less of an impediment it is and the easier it is to get away with even more.