On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Paul M Foster wrote:
> Russ mentioned a case back in the 1700's one time, the first one where
> the federal Supreme Court decided to "interpret" the law. Might have
> been a good idea to start impeaching judges right then. Then maybe we
> wouldn't have had to deal with 200+ years of judges doing it.
Marbury v. Madison. A well stated precis is at:
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/marbury/background.htm
Particularly telling is this excerpt:
"But through its role as arbiter of the Constitution, [the
federal Supreme Court] has, especially in the twentieth
century, been the chief agency for the expansion of individual
rights." --
Clothing the federal Judiciary's 'role as arbiter' -- a
hopefully neutral referee -- to put a sugar coat on the
judicial activism from 1950 on, is a pretty nice prevarication
-- it is raw judicial usupration of the political checks and
balances between the three Branches.
But back from 1787 through through Reconstruction, the federal
government was a mere shadow of what it became after 1929 --
heck, federal courthouses were still pretty sleepy places
until after WW II
The 'popular' abnegation of personal responsibility, the
emergence and unchecked growth of the 'entitlement' mentality,
and the secular 'liberalization' of the US culture are not
hopeful signs within the last half century.
-- Russ Herrold
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:16:46 EDT