The intention of the Constitutional Convention, held in 1787, was to create a stronger central government. The government provided for by the Articles of Confederation was not strong enough.

 

Oh, I don't doubt that the president knows the Constitution quite well. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason he made it his major course of study was so he'd know how far outside it he could safely creep (or try to creep), in hopes of it not ending up in court.

 

I am certainly proud of the political success of Franklin Roosevelt. He raised the top tax rate and expanded the public sector of the economy. Most American benefited, and reelected him three times.

 

Amazing.
Now we've moved from bigot to Constitutional scholar.
it's an improvement, of sorts.
Not a big improvement, mind you, but improvement all the same...........

 

Please show me in the constitution where the Supreme Court is granted the authority of judicial review?

 

The federal government was created by the states to be the central leader. They didn't intend for the federal to usurp states authority every chance it got. States rights to legislate themselves has been greatly reduced by the federal government, and an out of control SCOTUS.

 

Exactly. The people granted MORE powers to the central government in the Constitution, while making sure that particular rights of the people were protected in the Bill of Rights.

 

Simply (I have to make it simple for some people), the Constitution makes the SUPREME Court, well, the SUPREME court in all appellate cases (in other words, the final court of appeals); When suits are brought questioning the constitutionality of a law, it is the Supreme Court, established by the Constitution, that had final appellate status---in other words, the final say on constitutionality; both in Great Britain and, from the colonial period through the Confederation period, state Supreme Courts had the right of judicial review in regard to state law in appellate proceedings, so for the highest court to make these decisions was traditional, and in interpreting Articles III & IV, logically, once a case like Marbury v Madison or even Hylton v The United States, earlier, the Supreme Court naturally made, through its appellate status, decisions that determined constitutionality.

 

President of the United States, Congressional leaders, Supreme Court Justices, and the American electorate know less about the U.S Constitution than I do, if they did know more than I do about the U.S. Constitution, I can assure you, this country would not have an over reaching tyrannical federal fucking government.

 

The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation. Basically, if a federal and state law contradict, then when you're in the state you can follow the state law, but the feds can decide to stop you. When there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, it is the federal law that prevails.

So my question is, if my individual rights are to be protected by the Constitution, why was Article VI created, the supremacy clause that gave the federal government the trump card in final say as to the law of the land? Seems the concept of a central government in itself is contrary to state rights and individual rights being paramount. And if the fucking the government wants to give me is to become worse, they can enlist another amendment or let a slanted court interpret our Constitution. Sounds like a recipe for success...in fucking the individual.

 

That clause was intended for interstate commerce, and national security..Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Interesting.

If that happened, DL and his ilk would be tried for crimes of treason.

He wouldn't be hung, quartered and his entrails removed, as the Brits used to do,,oh no.

He would be locked up in solitaire, behind a lexicon glass door, provided with a stainless steel toilet and wash bin and a thin mattress, and an affixed video monitor playing Fox News, for the rest of his natural life.

 

You should give him a big scary black guy as a cell mate. He wouldn't necessarily even have to be a criminal. Just let him go into the cell to bug DL every so often.

 

That would be unpleasant for the big scary black guy. . . . I have more compassion than that.

 

I've said exactly that for the last 6 years, Obama's background dictates that you are correct.

 

It's funny how those who oppose an over reaching tyrannical federal fucking government and nanny state restrictions will eagerly vote for the government to prohibit an adults right to consume marijuana on his own time in his own home.

just say'n..

 

Are you turning into a one trick pony?

 

The founding fathers intended for the Judiciary branch to be the weakest branch of the government. Nowhere in the constitution is the Supreme Court granted the authority of judicial review. You can't point to it because it doesn't exist. Unelected judges cannot make law. Only congress can make laws. If the founding fathers saw our Supreme Court in its current state they would burn it to the ground.