Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (7253)	7/13/2004 6:13:01 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Suppose SOuth Carolina were to pass a law relegalizing slavery. Should the federal gov't intervene?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (7253)	7/14/2004 1:48:35 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Respond to of 20039

Just what Jefferson feared has taken place in the US.... "Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties. . . , " and so forth. "It is by dividing and subdividing . . . that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body . . . 11 The ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, Jefferson explained, "is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States." 12 In short, if some issue of power so agitates the country, let the matter be settled and put to rest by constitutional amendment. Jefferson rightly discerned that if any body in government could ultimately settle questions of the location of constitutional authority, it would tend to settle them in favor of the government to which it belonged, and ultimately its very own body. In short, the tendency would be to concentrate all authority in one body, and that body would have few or no restraints on its authority. Such a concentration of power would sooner or later be arbitrary and capricious and hence tyrannical. The greatest likelihood of such concentration would be in the general government at the expense of the state governments and the people." libertyhaven.com

To: Skywatcher who wrote (7253)	7/14/2004 1:58:46 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Even so, over the years Jefferson became ever more firmly convinced that the federal judiciary would be the instrument for concentrating power in the federal government and the reducing of the other branches to subordinate status. He may have been drawn to this conclusion by the long tenure of John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, by his dominance of that body, and by his tendency to interpret the Constitution in such a way as to subordinate the states and enhance the power of the federal government. Be that as it may, Jefferson saw clearly and correctly that the potential of the courts for undermining the Constitution and tipping the flow of power toward themselves was there. He was right that the courts were potentially irresponsible, that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to hold the Supreme Court to account for vagrant opinions. He was right, too, in fearing that the states would be the first to have their independence undermined on the way to the concentration of power. He was on the mark as well in detecting an institutional flaw in the Constitution which gave lifelong tenure to federal judges.