What is Ron Paul's position on judical review?

kinggovernor · 06-27-2007, 09:52 PM

Because that shit certainly isn't in the constitution

Dumpy Dooby · 06-28-2007, 01:06 AM

I'm not sure. Hopefully he's against it because that shit certainly isn't in the Constitution.

thomez · 06-28-2007, 02:41 PM

I found this on the subject, though I'm not sure if it answers the question

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in our ever-growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the courts to rule favorably, when Congress and the executive branch go astray, we must curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by writing laws, rubber-stamping bad legislation, or overruling state laws.

A Wise Consistency by Rep. Ron Paul

kinggovernor · 06-29-2007, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I'm not sure. Hopefully he's against it because that shit certainly isn't in the Constitution.

he would secure my support if he came out against judical review

thomez · 06-29-2007, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

he would secure my support if he came out against judical review

without judicial review the Constitution really is "just a goddamn piece of paper"

kinggovernor · 06-30-2007, 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

without judicial review the Constitution really is "just a goddamn piece of paper"

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Just think about it, Justice Kennedy, an unelected man in power for life, will decide most of the country's most important issues. I really have a problem with that, especially because it is not in the constitution

thomez · 06-30-2007, 08:29 AM

I understand Jefferson's view, but as with many if not most things, he was wrong.

Without a branch of government to decide the Constitutionality of the law or to stop the Legislative or Executive branches from breeching their Constitutionally defined authority, the Constitution is completely worthless and not worth the paper it is written upon. If you believe that our government has strayed far from the Constitutional intent of our founders WITH judicial review, you do not even want to imagine what it may have looked like without.

No system is perfect, but from all evidence that I can see, a system with judicial review has a much greater chance of protecting the rights of the people than one without. Without judicial review it would be far too easy for a single branch of government, the legislative, to enact tyranny upon the people by ways of un-Constitutional laws for which there is no check (except a Presidential Veto, which can be avoided by a 2/3 vote). The same also holds true for the Executive, however this system seems to have broken down during the Andrew Jackson administration. When the Supreme Court decided against his wishes, he ignored it, since he had no respect for the Constitution and they had no way to enforce their ruling except to depend on Executive-branch officials. At that point, the system broke down, but generally (and I say that cautiously) presidents have obeyed the Constitutional/un-Constitutional decisions of the court.

Without judicial review, the system of checks and balances completely erodes. The judicial branch is no longer a check on anything at all, as they have no authority to tell either branch that they are wrong on any issue with regards to the Constitution. The executive could fail to provide warrants for searches and seizures, who can stop them? Nobody. The legislative can enact laws that deem our national religion Christianity... who can stop them? Nobody.

The lifetime appointment of men that swear to uphold the Constitution is, in my opinion, the best chance of preserving Constitutional protections and limits upon government. If you leave this decision up to 1 person in the Executive or a democratically elected House AND Senate (for which the Constitution did not provide), you are asking for tyranny. The problem with Jefferson is that he did not seem to mind the consequences of a democratically elected tyrannical majority... because he loved mob-rule democracy. Other founders spoke of democracy as a foul word because they realized the problems with pure majority-rule and the disappearance of any protections of rights for the minority... You can see in Jefferson's eyes why judicial review is not necessary - he believed there was no problem with whatever elected representatives would pass as legislation because it was the will of the people... the same holds true for the Presidency, because it was supposed to be the will of the people through an indirect election of President, and he was obviously naive of the Constitutional abuses future presidents would bring to the nation's highest office (he was often naive).

Hopefully that explains the case for judicial review, and why those who favored simple majority-rule democracy would not support it, but those who believed in upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of the minority did so.

kinggovernor · 06-30-2007, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

I understand Jefferson's view, but as with many if not most things, he was wrong.

Without a branch of government to decide the Constitutionality of the law or to stop the Legislative or Executive branches from breeching their Constitutionally defined authority, the Constitution is completely worthless and not worth the paper it is written upon. If you believe that our government has strayed far from the Constitutional intent of our founders WITH judicial review, you do not even want to imagine what it may have looked like without.

No system is perfect, but from all evidence that I can see, a system with judicial review has a much greater chance of protecting the rights of the people than one without. Without judicial review it would be far too easy for a single branch of government, the legislative, to enact tyranny upon the people by ways of un-Constitutional laws for which there is no check (except a Presidential Veto, which can be avoided by a 2/3 vote). The same also holds true for the Executive, however this system seems to have broken down during the Andrew Jackson administration. When the Supreme Court decided against his wishes, he ignored it, since he had no respect for the Constitution and they had no way to enforce their ruling except to depend on Executive-branch officials. At that point, the system broke down, but generally (and I say that cautiously) presidents have obeyed the Constitutional/un-Constitutional decisions of the court.

Without judicial review, the system of checks and balances completely erodes. The judicial branch is no longer a check on anything at all, as they have no authority to tell either branch that they are wrong on any issue with regards to the Constitution. The executive could fail to provide warrants for searches and seizures, who can stop them? Nobody. The legislative can enact laws that deem our national religion Christianity... who can stop them? Nobody.

The lifetime appointment of men that swear to uphold the Constitution is, in my opinion, the best chance of preserving Constitutional protections and limits upon government. If you leave this decision up to 1 person in the Executive or a democratically elected House AND Senate (for which the Constitution did not provide), you are asking for tyranny. The problem with Jefferson is that he did not seem to mind the consequences of a democratically elected tyrannical majority... because he loved mob-rule democracy. Other founders spoke of democracy as a foul word because they realized the problems with pure majority-rule and the disappearance of any protections of rights for the minority... You can see in Jefferson's eyes why judicial review is not necessary - he believed there was no problem with whatever elected representatives would pass as legislation because it was the will of the people... the same holds true for the Presidency, because it was supposed to be the will of the people through an indirect election of President, and he was obviously naive of the Constitutional abuses future presidents would bring to the nation's highest office (he was often naive).

Hopefully that explains the case for judicial review, and why those who favored simple majority-rule democracy would not support it, but those who believed in upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of the minority did so.

I disagree, the Court is just an indirectly elected group of elites, but I understand your position. I would support judical review under a different set of rules but I do not like the current system.

lew · 06-30-2007, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

I understand Jefferson's view, but as with many if not most things, he was wrong.

I hate you Hamiltonians.

thomez · 06-30-2007, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I disagree, the Court is just an indirectly elected group of elites, but I understand your position. I would support judical review under a different set of rules but I do not like the current system.

We can disagree about how a Supreme Court justice gets or maintains his job, but without a system of judicial review (a branch of government that can decide the Constitutionality of law), you have nothing more than a democratically elected tyranny and your Constitution is nothing but a piece of scrap paper.

The belief behind lifetime appointments to the judiciary was an effort to keep them away from the politics of their decisions... to keep them away from the possible democratic tyranny in the other 2 branches. Presidents would change every 4 years, the Legislature could dramatically change every 6 years, but the judicial branch did not work at the whims of the populace and would stay steady.

As far as changing how a justice gets their job, I think that would be a worthy idea to explore... but ditching judicial review is effectually scrapping the Constitution.

thomez · 06-30-2007, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I hate you Hamiltonians.

I find it quite funny myself that Jefferson was so often wrong, yet deified, but his great friend and ally Thomas Paine was so often right, yet almost forgotten. It's amazing what a long life can bring you in history.

Publius · 06-30-2007, 01:53 PM

Judicial Review, while not a specific power outlined directly in the Constitution, is an inferred power there and is explicitly commented upon by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 80:

[...] there ought always to be a constitutional method of giving efficacy to constitutional provisions. What, for instance, would avail restrictions on the authority of the State legislatures, without some constitutional mode of enforcing the observance of them? The States, by the plan of the convention, are prohibited from doing a variety of things, some of which are incompatible with the interests of the Union, and others with the principles of good government. The imposition of duties on imported articles, and the emission of paper money, are specimens of each kind. No man of sense will believe, that such prohibitions would be scrupulously regarded, without some effectual power in the government to restrain or correct the infractions of them. This power must either be a direct negative on the State laws, or an authority in the federal courts to overrule such as might be in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. There is no third course that I can imagine. The latter appears to have been thought by the convention preferable to the former, and, I presume, will be most agreeable to the States.

just fyi.

thomez · 06-30-2007, 02:09 PM

also

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:

“ If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Dumpy Dooby · 06-30-2007, 03:34 PM

This thread is being polluted with nonsense backwards Hamiltonian jibbajabba.

I'm kidding. You know I love you guys. <3

Donkey® · 07-02-2007, 01:16 PM

You guys really can't picture what this country would be like if Marshall hadn't taken up that stance? I think first and foremost, there would be no Supreme Court. They would have been rendered useless and written out of the equation long ago.

David Octavius · 07-04-2007, 02:33 AM

Judicial Review is the heart of our system, it checks government and the people and is independent..the only thing I would want is for it to be a closed system so that a law that is deemed unconstitutional can be reverted back to the legislature for modification or possibly overturned with enough votes (say 75%)

kinggovernor · 07-04-2007, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Judicial Review is the heart of our system, it checks government and the people and is independent..the only thing I would want is for it to be a closed system so that a law that is deemed unconstitutional can be reverted back to the legislature for modification or possibly overturned with enough votes (say 75%)

everyone talks about checks and balances but there really isn't a check on the SC. Hearing are a joke, potential justices just say whatever it takes to get approved and then we are left with their opinions until they die.

kinggovernor · 07-11-2007, 06:47 PM

The idea of judicial review was officially grasped by the Supreme Court in the Marbury decision, Chief Justice Marshall seized that power for the Supreme Court. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.” Originally this power was used only under the most unusual cases, it was not until the 1857 Scott case where the Court used its self proclaimed judicial review powers. During the 20th century and most notably under the Warren Court the Court began legislating from the bench. While many of their decisions were morally justified the process was not and it created a dangerous undemocratic precedent of unelected judges some our most important policy decisions. The court did do a lot for individual civil rights in the 20th century but at a definite cost to individual rights as well. We now allow our policy issues to framed inside a courtroom and are disenfranchising ourselves by allowing this to happen. We have turned our Supreme Court into little more than an indirectly elected body, Presidential candidates now campaign promising to appoint like-minded Justices, who will slant the court's findings into their political agenda. The courts are not supposed to be a legislative body, they are supposed to hear a case and make a decision based upon the way the law is written, and nothing else. It is not their job to decide if a law is not in the best interests of the country or is immoral, that is the job of Congress. Once we allow the Courts to establish our laws then we are making the system more and more undemocratic. I believe that when one side(conservative or liberal) has the majority in the Court they would want an expanded Court with more powers, but they are too short-sighted to realize how dangerous this is.