__________________


Defeating market theocrats since 2001.

I think that we would end up with all kinds of insane nonsense driven by the passions of the day.

__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat

Read what I wrote.. You see I set two dates. 1832 and 1844.. then said during this time (mean period)... Adams and Clay found the NRP. So I laid out the time period these things happened.

__________________
Pioneers are walking all around singing songs about Lenin and they should be shot for it.

Handlebars

"If you are looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror"- V

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
H. L. Mencken

come on you know you wanna play football..

Beagán agus a rá go maith.

Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

I didn't say Congress couldn't. I simply said that taxes before the 16th Amendment had to be based on apportionment.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

I don't know of any libertarians that say the Courts can't rule on the constitutionality of a law. We would, however, insist that Article III does not give the Courts the power to insert its own opinion or meaning (interpretation) in the place of what the writer and ratifiers of the Constitution meant. In other words, the Courts don't get to decide (for example) that "public use" in the fifth amendment means take the land from the owner and sell it to a developer because the developer will pay more in property tax or (using an example from the 19th century) that corporations are persons.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

So, trying to bring this back on track...

One of the problems I have with what the founding fathers gave us is that they really didn't provide much in the way of checks on the federal courts. I agree with the statement in Anti-Federalist Papers 78-79 (a two-part work) that "The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control." I think that any new Constitution should include some sort of check on the courts. Here's what I propose:

The federal courts would have jurisdiction over the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress, i.e. they would decide whether Congress had the authority under the Constitution to pass the specific piece of legislation and, if so, whether the legislation complies with what is in the Constitution. If it is determined that a particular law is unconstitutional, the deciding court shall send to Congress (through the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court did not decide the case) specific instructions indicating how the legislation is unconstitutional or outside Congress' authority. Congress shall then decide whether to amend or repeal the legislation in question.

The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction in cases involving disputes between the executive and legislative branches and in cases involving the constitutionality of executive branch policies and decisions.

The courts shall not "interpret" the Constitution, i.e. they would not be allowed to insert their own opinions or meanings in place of the meaning intended by authors of that Constitution. The Constitution means exactly and only what its authors and ratifiers (to the extent there is no disagreement between authors and ratifiers) intended.

The Supreme Court would be allowed to decide cases involving disputes between states, between the citizens of one state and the government of another state, between a citizen of a state and the government of that state after all state appeals have been exhausted, disputes between indigenous tribes and federal or state governments, disputes between citizens of another country and the government of the United States with regard to disputes occurring between them within the United States (citizens of other countries would not be allowed to file suit against the United States for its foreign policy or for actions that occur in other countries).

The Supreme Court would be allowed to decide cases involving treaties made, involving ambassadors (whether American ambassadors to other countries or foreign ambassadors in the United States) and other government officials, involving (to quote Article III of the current Constitution) "all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction."

The federal courts shall try all cases involving violations of federal law, except cases involving the impeachment of federal officials. Such trials shall be by jury. The Supreme Court would have appellate jurisdiction only.

The Supreme Court shall try all cases involving the impeachment of federal officials except for the impeachment of Supreme Court justices. Such trials shall be by jury.

The trial of Supreme Court justices shall be by a specially-empaneled five-member judiciary appointed jointly by the legislative and executive branches. The party bringing forth charges against a Supreme Court justice shall present evidence and arguments for impeachment but the defendant justice shall have the right to counsel and to present evidence and arguments in his or her defense.

Impeachment of federal court justices, including Supreme Court justices, may only be imposed in cases where the justice committed a crime (presuming the applicable law is constitutional) or where the justice overstepped the judiciary's constitutional authority, e.g. a justice inserted his or her own interpretation in the place of the original intent of the Constitution's authors and ratifiers. If convicted, the justice shall be removed from his or her position and be permanently prohibited from serving as a justice in any federal, state or local court. The empaneled judiciary trying such cases may, in addition, impose fines (not exceeding the justice's salary for the most recent year) and/or imprisonment.

In cases of physical or mental incapacity, a specially-empaneled five-member judiciary shall hear evidence showing a justice to be incapacitated and decide whether the justice in question should be removed. The justice charged with being incapacitated shall be allowed, with the assistance of counsel, to present evidence showing he or she is not incapacitated.

Inasmuch as rights exist naturally independent of government, and are determined only by the people, the federal courts shall not decide whether specific rights exist and shall not differentiate among citizens for entitlement to special protections.

The appointment of federal court justices, including Supreme Court justices, shall be made by the President in consultation with the legislature. Candidates for such positions may only be drawn from justices in lower courts. No religious, political or philosophical test may be imposed and candidates may not be queried on specific decisions they would make in actual or hypothetical cases.

The appointment of federal justices, including Supreme Court justices, shall be for a period of 20 years except that a justice may be removed by impeachment or for incapacity as indicated above. Salaries and other remuneration shall be decided by Congress but may not be diminished during the justice's period of appointment.

Other issues covered in the current Article III:

Treason against the United States shall consist only in acts of war against the United States, support for and adherence to nations or other foreign parties at war with the United States, giving aid and comfort to such nations or parties, and elected federal officials showing a pattern of overstepping their constitutional bounds or other disregard for the Constitution. The Supreme Court shall have sole jurisdiction in cases of treason. Punishment for treason shall be loss of American citizenship and permanent exile or, if no other nation will grant the traitor entry, death.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."