Article

2007-08-23 Home Front: Politix

Justice Thomas Quietly Detonates A Legal Nuclear Device

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-08-23 10:43|| || Front Page|| [11135 views ] Top

#1 By destroying the foundations of much of the federal government, Thomas may be setting up the SCOTUS to systematically disassemble much of the government.

It would have to be based on a State or States suing the federal government, as that is directly heard by the SCOTUS, and cannot be blocked by Congress, as can other appellate cases. The Supremes would then order the President to delete the unconstitutional government agency.

A similar order happened to Andrew Jackson, and he just refused to do so. However, this would give the Congress the opportunity to stop funding said agency (though it would probably continue to do so).

But the real zinger is that the SCOTUS, and subordinate federal courts, would no longer recognize *any* legal precedent in support of the prohibited agency. The agency would also have no standing in court, as such. And thus, anyone who sued the prohibited agency would win.

So the States could ignore said agency, and organizations and individuals could sue it to death.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-08-23 10:55|| 2007-08-23 10:55|| Front Page Top

#2 Yeah, those who support a 'living' [we make this up as we go along] Constitution seem rather blind to -

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's there for a reason.
Yes, it does lead to inefficiencies and some injustice. However, as history was understood by the writers, the consolidation of power is even a greater threat to liberty and justice in the end. The temper tantrums from the left since the gain of power by the Republicans is all about that someone else having control of the power they consolidated. That was the whole point of weakening the central authority. No matter who gets it, they can't do anything destructive with it. Its a feature, not a bug.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-08-23 11:31|| 2007-08-23 11:31|| Front Page Top

#3 I have been arguing for years that the states have no rights anymore and is allowing the US government to abuse its power. While, I am nervous about rolling back every federal program, I am happy to see that congress and its alphabet agencies might be told to take a freakin' hike and have the legal statues to back it up.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-08-23 12:06|| 2007-08-23 12:06|| Front Page Top

#4 If you think about it, the entire notion of a "living constitution" is at odds with a written constitution. What's the point of writing anything down if one party can change it on a whim by fiat? Imagine if your cell phone contract was like that.

Posted by Iblis">Iblis 2007-08-23 12:17|| 2007-08-23 12:17|| Front Page Top

#5 This is one of those debates that's been going on for years--it was a week-long topic in my Con Law I class 20 (gasp!) years ago. Justice Thomas isn't making a "new" argument, though he seems to be doing a better job of stating the case than most.

Posted by Mike 2007-08-23 12:51|| 2007-08-23 12:51|| Front Page Top

#6 Cool your jets, Boys - this article is ten years old!

Posted by Bobby 2007-08-23 13:01|| 2007-08-23 13:01|| Front Page Top

#7 Law Journal, 1997. Larf!

Posted by gromky 2007-08-23 13:04|| 2007-08-23 13:04|| Front Page Top

#8 States Rights were gravely wounded in 1865 and essentially destroyed in 1913 with the 17th Amendment. FDR just recognized the opportunity and exploited it.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-08-23 13:20|| 2007-08-23 13:20|| Front Page Top

#9 #8 States Rights were gravely wounded in 1865 and essentially destroyed in 1913 with the 17th Amendment. FDR just recognized the opportunity and exploited it. Posted by: Glenmore 2007-08-23 13:20

Amen, Glenmore. The whole reason for appointing Senators was to have THEM represent the States, while the Congress represented the People. Today, both groups are wholly-owned subsidiaries of whoever buys them at the highest price. Rescinding the 17th Amendment would go a long way toward returning the government of the United States to what the Founding Fathers envisioned, and reducing the power of the federal government. LOTS of people would be put out of "work", but the nation as a whole would be greatly improved.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-08-23 14:33|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-08-23 14:33|| Front Page Top

#10 LOTS of people would be put out of "work"...

Like they do that much "work" anyway.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-08-23 15:01|| 2007-08-23 15:01|| Front Page Top

#11 Unless my history classes were off, OP, the problem with the Senate is that it did represent the state government, which were largely wholly owned and operated by local political machines doing the bidding of individuals or groups, be it the Railroad or Oil Trusts or things like the KKK. It was a lot cheaper back then to 'own' the State legislatures which did exercise considerable amount of power. As it evolved, the levels of corruption just escalated and moved towards Washington with the 'reforms'. So instead of most of the states generally running corrupt governments, we now allow the power brokers to get a discount by moving the resources to one point instead of several.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-08-23 15:04|| 2007-08-23 15:04|| Front Page Top

#12 I see many good things with the Federal Government, very many. But it is the largest and most powerful government in all of history. It costs 3 Trillion a year to operate and employs 20 million people.

When one single political party has held it in lockstep for so long, 40 years or so, you lose it's ability to actually do it's job by Constitutional definition. This coupled with the fact that this particular political party wants to do nothing but expand it's power shows that there needs to be a limit.

I can drive to the state legislature, but it is far harder to drive to DC. Direct representation mattered at the state level at one time, but now, everyone treats the federal government as a city hall and so the people are no longer directly represented, rather lobbied into a mass of voters.

This could be a very hard subject for US, I know it is hard for me.

Thomas - A FINE Judge for sure. A Black Man saving America.

Posted by newc">newc 2007-08-23 15:05|| 2007-08-23 15:05|| Front Page Top

#13 LOTS of people would be put out of "work"

They could go off and do something productive for the economy for a change. Like folding paperclips or something. But wait a minute, if all these government bureacracies went away, there would be far less need for paperclips . . . .

I guess they'll just have to find a job.

Posted by gorb 2007-08-23 15:53|| 2007-08-23 15:53|| Front Page Top

#14 Like they do that much "work" anyway.

As P.J. O'Rourke wrote:
"It takes hard work and carefull planning to waste that much money."

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2007-08-23 16:45|| 2007-08-23 16:45|| Front Page Top

#15 Cool your jets, Boys - this article is ten years old!

I told you the debate had been going on for quite a while!

Posted by Mike 2007-08-23 17:26|| 2007-08-23 17:26|| Front Page Top

#16 Lest we fergit, the infamous US NINTH declared the USA to be an ILLEGAL AND UN-CONSTITUTIONAL NATION, a decision TMK the Ninth has NOT revoked but has only un-enforced. Thus Dubya = USA has and had no standing/right vv the Ninth to invade Iraq or even go after the leadership of Radical islam, etal. OTH foreign policies as a consequence for 9-11. THE NINTH'S DECISION IS ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS ANTi-US CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARGUE THAT 9-11 WAS A US SET-UP, THAT THE USA FALSELY ATTACKED ITSELF ON 9-11 + KILLED 000's OF ITS OWN PEOPLE, + AQ IS A USG TERROR PROXY.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-08-23 19:46|| 2007-08-23 19:46|| Front Page Top

#17 Joseph, I believe I understand your point, but you are getting into the ranting bit a little much ;).

Anyone with a brain that works can completely ignore the Ninth Circus in the hope that they will keep the damage done isolated in the West. For as long as most Westerners will put up with it.

Posted by Jame_Retief">Jame_Retief 2007-08-23 19:58|| 2007-08-23 19:58|| Front Page Top

#18 The whole reason for appointing Senators was to have THEM represent the States, while the Congress represented the People.

Word, OP! Very good point. I can't believe how plainly our Founding Fathers wrote down the guiding principles and rules of our Federal (not National) gov't. And, yet, how it's all been twisted to further the power trip and money syphon that is D.C.

And, someone else has recently brought up the idea of making the Senate represent the States (not the people) again, and it was a Democrat. Of course, he campaigned and spoke for Dubya at the 2004 RNC Party...Zell Miller. As explained, the way Senators used to be chosen was by each State Legislature. That Senator was to represent the State (not the people by direct vote) in D.C. A fairly interesting concept, especially when you have 40+ year "sitting" Senators anyways....Byrd, Kennedy et al.

Posted by BA 2007-08-23 22:03|| 2007-08-23 22:03|| Front Page Top

23:53 trailing wife
23:45 Zenster
23:41 Zenster
23:38 Zenster
23:27 Unutle McGurque8861
23:21 OldSpook
23:07 Silentbrick
23:05 JosephMendiola
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:40 ed
22:36 Eric Jablow
22:21 Spike Ebbairt4868
22:19 twobyfour
22:18 BA
22:03 BA
21:53 john frum
21:51 Mike N.
21:46 SteveS
21:34 Jules
21:31 Whiskey Mike
21:22 cingold
21:21 Jules
21:18 Frank G