Constitutional Concerns

[level_head]

The US Constitution does not need to be replaced or scrapped, as a number of folks on the left have suggested going back to President Woodrow Wilson. It does not need to be cured of its fatal flaws, so that Obama can implement redistribution of wealth and “break free” from the negative liberties placed by the founding fathers to prevent this, as

Comments

[akilika]

As much as the federal structure and separations of powers are of great interest to me, and I always enjoy your dissections of such ... it's by far the secondary interest to me in this post.

*hugs* I'm glad you're feeling better, at least some, and hope the trend continues.

(Psst--I know I'm not rowyn, but if you'd send me a picture ( selela7 [at] yahoo [dot] com ) I'd be happy to try a currently-accurate, non-scary depiction.)

[level_head]

I will try to take a picture that doesn't startle me. But since alcohol and drugs have no effect on me (a genetic quirk), there is nothing to deaden the impact.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

[level_head]

Incidentally, thank you for your kind offer.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

[ford_prefect42]

Hmm... Marbury V. Madison was indeed, as you point out, an expansion of the SCOTUS powers beyond the text of the constitution. However, I do find it interesting that it's the introduction of an additional "Check". IE, That particular power could only be used to slow the expansion of unconstitutional expansions from the other branches.

[level_head]

Well, isn't your statement true if and only if the judges rule correctly 100% of the time? The effect in practice has been rather reversed - many legislative and executive actions are held to be constitutional which clearly aren't. And when the legislative and executive branches perceive that they get favorable treatment, the gateway is wide open. This has led to massive corruption of the Constitution from its original aims.

Even the recent "wins" celebrated by Constitutional conservatives cut against the Constitution, when read closely. An example of this is the ruling on recess appointments. And the ability to impeach SCOTUS judges has been effectively dead for two centuries.

The fix for this erosion of checks involves the states, I believe. More on that tomorrow.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

[ford_prefect42]

Well, yes and no. Yes, they can still ignore abuses, that's a given, however, the Marbury decision allows them to strike abuses too. It doesn't allow them to make new law, or to exacerbate other abuses, that's still the purview of congress. So, even though they ignore a lot of abuses, they still occasionally strike some, and that slows the pace of tyranny

[justgoto]

Will be eagerly awaiting the fix post!

I am glad you are better, and hope it stays that way!

[belvarius]

It is good to see you are back and recovering! Looking forward to seeing your suggestions on how to fix this mess our federal government has become.

[level_head]

Thank you. I cannot seem to will myself to recover more quickly, but I'd sure like to.

I will not propose a Constitutional Convention, as this seems to cause panic in my conservative friends. I never cared for the idea, in any case.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

[level_head]

Thank you. Would that it could be faster.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle