Archive

Posts Tagged ‘John Marshall’

A Vast New Federal Power by Andrew P. Napolitano

July 3, 2012 Leave a comment

If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. R...

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. Roberts (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.

If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,

If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.

~ The Beatles in “The Taxman”

Of the 17 lawyers who have served as chief justice of the United States, John Marshall – the fourth chief justice – has come to be known as the “Great Chief Justice.”

English: Judge recording an episode of at CPAC...

English: Judge recording an episode of at CPAC in . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The folks who have given him that title are the progressives who have largely written the history we are taught in government schools. They revere him because he is the intellectual progenitor of federal power.

Marshall’s opinions over a 34-year period during the nation’s infancy – expanding federal power at the expense of personal freedom and the sovereignty of the states – set a pattern for federal control of our lives and actually invited Congress to regulate areas of human behavior nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. He was Thomas Jefferson’s cousin, but they rarely spoke. No chief justice in history has so pronouncedly and creatively offered the feds power on a platter as he.

Now he has a rival.

No one can know the true motivations for the idiosyncratic rationale in the health care decision written by Marshall’s current successor, John Roberts. Often five member majorities on the court are fragile, and bizarre compromises are necessary in order to keep a five-member majority from becoming a four-member minority.

Read more…

JUSTICE ROBERTS, THE MOST HATED MAN IN AMERICA

June 29, 2012 2 comments

Chief Justice John Roberts is the most hated man in the United States of America today. He will be hated forever by strict constructionalists, but he will not be hated by conservatives reasonably versed in Supreme Court rulings, they will simply dislike him. After all, Justice Roberts is on solid Constitutional ground.

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. R...

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. Roberts (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Read more…

(“…from the very origins of the American republic, such nationalist politicians and government bureaucrats as Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Justice Joseph Story, Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln toiled mightily to rewrite American constitutional history in such a way that would have made the propagandists of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany blush”) Rethinking America’s Supreme Judicial Dictatorship by Thomas DiLorenzo

May 30, 2012 2 comments

Yours Truly contributes an essay on how, from the very origins of the American republic, such nationalist politicians and government bureaucrats as Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Justice Joseph Story, Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln toiled mightily to rewrite American constitutional history in such a way that would have made the propagandists of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany blush.

English: Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth Presid...

English: Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States. Latviešu: Abrahams Linkolns, sešpadsmitais ASV prezidents. Српски / Srpski: Абрахам Линколн, шеснаести председник Сједињених Америчких Држава. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Indeed, the latter characters might well have learned their tactics from their fellow nationalists in America generations earlier. Hitler himself did in fact quote Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address in Mein Kampf to make his case for centralized governmental power and the abolition of states’ rights in Germany.

Read more…

Did Obama pass the Bar?

April 4, 2012 Leave a comment
Barack Obama delivers a speech at the Universi...

Barack Obama delivers a speech at the University of Southern California (Video of the speech) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Obama’s little temper tantrum over the Supreme Court voting down his unconstitutional takeover of the health insurance industry may have awakened a sleeping giant — the Judiciary. Good lawyers know better than to tick off judges.

And your common graduate of Cleveland State University knows the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the law. Apparently a Harvard education was wasted on the president because on Monday, the president said it was “unprecedented” for a “group of unelected people” to tell him no. Instead of studying John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Barack Obama must have been poring over George Wallace’s tirades against that “group of unelected people” in Washington.

What sort of 40-year-old American who is not a socialist blathers on about “negative liberties”? He wants unlimited government. That’s socialism. Judge Jerry Edwin Smith called him on that perverted view of constitutional government. Expect more of these confrontations, not less as Barack Obama has chosen anger, hate and spite as his re-election theme.

Read more…

WILL IT TAKE A REVOLUTION? (“That power the courts claim to have is called Judicial Review, and it is addressed nowhere in the Constitution”)

March 31, 2012 Leave a comment
John Marshall.

John Marshall. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We are told that it is up to the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, but that is hardly in line with the limiting principles offered by the U.S. Constitution. That power the courts claim to have is called Judicial Review, and it is addressed nowhere in the Constitution. In fact, the federal courts seized that power for themselves through an opinion written by Justice John Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803.

Read more…

James Madison and the Making of America by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

February 22, 2012 Leave a comment
James Madison, Hamilton's major collaborator, ...

Image via Wikipedia

Kevin Gutzman’s James Madison and the Making of America takes what we thought was a familiar story and gives it a fresh and important interpretation that challenges old orthodoxies and helps us better understand important episodes in American history.

For instance, proper credit for the world-historic Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is at last granted not to its draftsman, Thomas Jefferson – who had his gravestone list the statute along with the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the University of Virginia as his proudest achievements – but to James Madison, who actually managed to get the statute enacted and who would have nothing inscribed on his gravestone.

More significantly, we are treated to a precise and detailed description of Madison’s evolving role vis-a-vis the drafting of the Constitution.

At the Philadelphia Convention Madison had championed a much stronger central government, a veto over state laws, and a diminished role and significance of the states.

He favored a national rather than a federal government, and one in which the states would be retained insofar as they might be “subordinately useful.”

His major proposals, including the veto of state laws, a legislature with plenary authority, and basing both legislative houses on population, were all rejected.Madison may be known as the father of the Constitution, but Gutzman is having none of it.

Read more…

States’ Rights vs. Monetary Monopoly by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

January 24, 2012 8 comments

The federal government today can wage wars without the consent of our congressional representatives, overthrow foreign governments, tax nearly half of national income, abolish civil liberty in the name of “homeland security” and “the war on drugs,” legalize and endorse infanticide “partial-birth abortion”, regulate nearly every aspect of our existence, and there’s little or nothing we can do about it.

Andrew Jackson (1767 – 1845) English: Portrait...

Image via Wikipedia

“Write your congressman” is the refrain of the slave to the state who doesn’t even realize he’s a slave thanks to decades of government school brainwashing.But Americans were not always slaves to federal tyranny. Perhaps the best illustration of this is how Americans once utilized the Jeffersonian, states’ rights traditions of nullification and interposition to assist President Andrew Jackson in his campaign to veto the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States BUS in 1832. Jackson essentially ended central banking in America until it was revived thirty years later by the Lincoln administration. The story is told in James J. Kilpatrick‘s wonderful 1957 book, The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia.The Bank was notorious for fraud, mismanagement, corruption, and attempts to engineer a “political business cycle.” Prior to 1861, the American people were still sovereign over their government. They exercised that sovereignty in the way the founders intended: through state political conventions or legislatures. The federal government was their agent.Consequently, as early as 1816, Indiana and Illinois amended their state constitutions to prohibit the BUS from establishing branches within their jurisdictions. North Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland imposed heavy taxes on BUS branches within their states in attempts to tax them out of existence

Read more…

GUNNY G: ONLY RARELY, I EXPECT, ARE SO MANY SCOUNDRELS AND VILLAINS MENTIONED IN ONE SINGLE ARTICLE!

December 7, 2011 3 comments

The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

…..After a lucid explanation of each section of the Constitution the judge discusses how the nationalist/mercantilist coalition, led by Alexander Hamilton and his accomplice Judge John Marshall, conspired to effectively rewrite (and undermine) the Constitution almost as soon as he ink was dry on the original copy.

The “Federalists” (who would eventually morph into the Whigs, and then the Republicans) never accepted their defeat in the Constitutional convention (which created a federal, not a national government). Nor did they accept Jefferson’s election as president.

Thus, two days before his term ended the Federalist President John Adams appointed dozens of “midnight federal judges” and appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court on March 3, 1801, one day before he would leave office. Marshall “spent the remainder of his career finding clearly disingenuous, historically inaccurate, and highly questionable justifications for ruling that federal power is not limited,” writes Judge Napolitano.

In his most famous decision, Marbury vs. Madison, Marshall gave the federal judiciary the power to rule on the constitutionality of both statutory law and the behavior of the executive branch. “[T]his means that the Supreme Court granted itself the authority to declare the will of the people . . . null and void . . .” This of course has caused endless mischief and tyranny. This principle of a monopoly in reviewing constitutionality was not widely accepted, however, until after Lincoln’s war of 1861—1865 destroyed state sovereignty once and for all.

Until that point, many Americans believed that the citizens of the states, as well as the president and Congress, should have equally legitimate claims on interpreting the Constitution. As President Andrew Jackson famously said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it if he can.”

Marshall and his fellow Federalists, such as Justice Story, also paved the way for the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. This clause only grants “supremacy” to the central government on the seventeen specific functions of the central government that are delineated in Article I, Section 8, period, many of which have to do with waging war and foreign policy.

This power has been grossly abused by implying that the central government is somehow “supreme” in anything and everything vis-à-vis the citizens of the states. This of course is a perfect recipe for tyranny.

Judge Napolitano recognized that it was Federalists like Joseph Story and John Marshall, and later Whig politicians like Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln, who would tell The Big Lie that the Constitution was ratified by “the whole people” and not as it actually was — by the citizens of the sovereign states, with their representatives assembled in state conventions. “That was both historically incorrect and intellectually dishonest,” says Judge Napolitano.

According to this false view of the American founding the central government was always the master, not the servant, of the people. This, too, is a perfect recipe for tyranny that has been made by tyrants everywhere (Hitler even invoked this argument in Mein Kampf to make his case for destroying state sovereignty in Germany)…..

EXCERPT

via The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution by Thomas DiLorenzo.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo105.html

*****

Gunny G: The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution

September 27, 2011 1 comment

The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

DIGG THIS

In his 1850 Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun argued that a written constitution would never be sufficient to contain the plundering proclivities of a central government. Some mechanisms for assuring consensus among the citizens of the states regarding “federal” laws would be necessary. Consequently, Calhoun proposed giving citizens of the states veto power over federal laws that they believed were unconstitutional (the “concurrent majority”). He also championed the Jeffersonian idea of nullification. To Calhoun (and Jefferson), states’ rights meant that the citizens of the states were sovereign over the central government that they created as their agent, and could only be so if such mechanisms – including the right of secession – existed.

Without these political mechanisms the forces of nationalism, mercantilism, and political plunder would relentlessly reshape the Constitution with their rhetoric, and their efforts would eventually overwhelm the strict constructionists. At that point the Constitution would become a dead letter.

In his new book, The Constitution in Exile, Judge Andrew Napolitano explains in very clear language just how prescient Calhoun was. The biggest special-interest group of all – the federal government itself – has “seized power by rewriting the supreme law of the land,” as Judge Napolitano says in the subtitle to his book. Just as Calhoun predicted. The purpose of the book, says the judge, is to tell “the unhappy story of liberty lost, federalism trampled, and Big Government run amok.” How did we get to the point, he asks, of where the “federal” (i.e., central) government defines for us the drinking age for alcohol, how much wheat farmers can grow, the ability of terminally ill cancer patients to medicate themselves with marijuana, the amount of sugar that can be used in ketchup, and even the size of toilets?

Unlike the neocons who surround Judge Napolitano in his appearances on the FOX News Channel, he understands that freedom comes “from God and is inherent to our humanity . . .” “Freedom” is not derived from military adventurism under the guise of phony humanitarianism, as the David Horowitz/William Kristol/Rush Limbaugh/ crowd would have us believe. (For an amusing rendition of this fascistic theory take a look at the web site of the “David Horowitz Freedom Center“).

Judge Napolitano is one libertarian who is not intimidated by the forces of political correctness, a defining feature of so many “beltway libertarians.” Consequently, he is not afraid to recognize the truth about the American founding: “The states were sovereign entities that the Continental Congress could not directly control. Essentially, there was no binding central government” Even better, “Congress could not tax the people of the United states (Ah, the good old days!)” Advocates of centralized governmental power have long falsely associated statements about states’ rights with racism and slavery, which has intimidated most beltway libertarians, but not Judge Napolitano.

After a lucid explanation of each section of the Constitution the judge discusses how the nationalist/mercantilist coalition, led by Alexander Hamilton and his accomplice Judge John Marshall, conspired to effectively rewrite (and undermine) the Constitution almost as soon as he ink was dry on the original copy. The “Federalists” (who would eventually morph into the Whigs, and then the Republicans) never accepted their defeat in the Constitutional convention (which created a federal, not a national government). Nor did they accept Jefferson’s election as president. Thus, two days before his term ended the Federalist President John Adams appointed dozens of “midnight federal judges” and appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court on March 3, 1801, one day before he would leave office. Marshall “spent the remainder of his career finding clearly disingenuous, historically inaccurate, and highly questionable justifications for ruling that federal power is not limited,” writes Judge Napolitano………….

MORE…..

via THE GUNNY G WEBLOG @ NETWORK54.COM: The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution.

“Lincoln increased the power of the federal government at the expense of the rights of the states and civil liberties. This opened the door to more unconstitutional acts by the government in the 1900s through to today.” (via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL))

September 2, 2011 Leave a comment

********************************************** The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution by Thomas J. DiLorenzo DIGG THIS In his 1850 Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun argued that a written constitution would never be sufficient to contain the plundering proclivities of a central government. Some mechanisms for assuring consensus among the citizens of the states regarding "federal" laws would be necessary. Consequently, Calhoun proposed gi … Read More

via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

O’s house of cards

February 2, 2011 Leave a comment

Free RepublicBrowse · Search Pings · Mail News/ActivismTopics · Post ArticleSkip to comments.O’s house of cardsNY Post ^ | February 1, 2011 | MICHAEL A. WALSHPosted on Wednesday, February 02, 2011 5:53:03 AM by Scanian

Monday’s ruling by federal Judge Roger Vinson that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — a k a ObamaCare — is unconstitutional is a signal event in modern American history. For the first time since FDR browbeat the Supreme Court into accepting most of his New Deal, the Leviathan known as the federal government has been rocked back on its heels.If the administration and the Senate Democrats had any sense, they’d take Judge Vinson’s ruling as a gift, not a setback. Because, whether they know it or not, the judge just handed them an opportunity to get health care right.The House Republicans took a dramatic step forward last month when they passed repeal, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced yesterday that he’ll attach a repeal amendment to a bill authorizing funding for the Federal Aviation Administration as the Senate’s next order of business.Good for him. It’s imperative that the Republicans keep the momentum going; whether the fate of ObamaCare is eventually decided by the Supreme Court is secondary to deciding its fate in the proper venue — the legislative branch.Judge Vinson’s lucidly written and cogently argued decision, which approvingly cited the Federalist Papers, John Marshall and the Tenth Amendment, seized upon the Democrats’ arrogant decision to not include a “severability clause” in the legislation — which would’ve allowed the rest of the 2,000-page law to stand even if parts of it were to be found unconstitutional.Excerpt Read more at nypost.com …

Read more…

“Lincoln increased the power of the federal government at the expense of the rights of the states and civil liberties. This opened the door to more unconstitutional acts by the government in the 1900s through to today.”

January 6, 2011 3 comments

 

**********************************************
The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

DIGG THIS

In his 1850 Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun argued that a written constitution would never be sufficient to contain the plundering proclivities of a central government. Some mechanisms for assuring consensus among the citizens of the states regarding “federal” laws would be necessary. Consequently, Calhoun proposed giving citizens of the states veto power over federal laws that they believed were unconstitutional (the “concurrent majority”). He also championed the Jeffersonian idea of nullification. To Calhoun (and Jefferson), states’ rights meant that the citizens of the states were sovereign over the central government that they created as their agent, and could only be so if such mechanisms – including the right of secession – existed.

Read more…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,073 other followers