Which is the worst Supreme Court Decision?

[dude58677]

There isn't any judicial supremacy under the Constitution. It is possible for the Supreme Court not to even exist such as if Congress didn't appropiate funds for it. Congress can also eliminate jurisdiction under Article 3 section 2 as Ron Paul has issued a legistlative bill for. It is also limited with jury nullification and it is also has limited powers under the ninth and tenth amendments. Finally, judicial officers have to take an oath to abide by the Constitution as does everyione else who is a public official.

 

[Truth Warrior]

None of the above. The WORST decision was to NOT rule ALL unconstitutional "laws" unconstitutional.<IMHO>

 

[jvockrodt]

West Coast Hotel v. Parish -- The switch in time that saved nine, after FDR's court packing scheme. This case signaled the end of the Supreme Court's blocking of New Deal and other economic legislation. But it merely embodied the principle that the democratic process was a sufficient check on legislative power, which was articulated earlier in Gibbons v Ogen.

Wickard v. Filburn -- Federal grain quotas can prevent a farmer from growing grain for use on his own farm because his lack of buying grain in the market affects interstate commerce. This was a vast expansion of the commerce clause. This case represents a huge shift toward unconstrained federal regulation.

Plessy v Ferguson -- The doctrine of separate but equal undermined the 14th amendment, and allowed the states and federal government to racially discriminate until it was repudiated in Brown v Board. Would affirmative action have gained such broad support if Plessy had been decided differently? Korematsu -- the Japanese "internment" case.

 

[Kludge]

Debs V. United States and Schenck V. United States were awful decisions -- and the whole goddam Supreme Court agreed to limit political free speech in Schenck's case.

Upholding draft laws was pretty crumby, too...

The McCulloch V. Maryland ruling really fucked us up, but I do think they interpreted the Constitution correctly.

Roth V. United States (and Miller V. California) is probably going to play a big role in how the government justifies censoring the Internet.

I think Mapp V. Ohio was a stupid ruling, but I doubt many here will agree with me.

The ruling on the Korematsu case was absolutely disgusting.


Anyway, it's all ancient history. The SCOTUS can do whatever the hell it wants, they aren't bound to the Constitution or previous rulings.

 

[dude58677]

"The McCulloch V. Maryland ruling really fucked us up, but I do think they interpreted the Constitution correctly."

No, it wasn't correct. The ninth amendment says that people have the right not to be subject to powers not expressely delegated to the federal government so then as these powers are eliminated, they are prohibited also under the tenth.

The Constitution says nothing about a national bank or paper money, so no it is not correct.

 

[Kludge]

"The McCulloch V. Maryland ruling really fucked us up, but I do think they interpreted the Constitution correctly."

No, it wasn't correct. The ninth amendment says that people have the right not to be subject to powers not expressely delegated to the federal government so then as these powers are eliminated, they are prohibited also under the tenth.

The Constitution says nothing about a national bank or paper money, so no it is not correct.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The SCOTUS justified their decision by noting it was necessary and proper to establish a national bank to assist in collecting/paying debts.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The SCOTUS justified their decision by noting it was necessary and proper to establish a national bank to assist in collecting/paying debts.

And UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

 

[Danke]

"Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 and Article I, Section 8, Clause 5
answer that question in the negative. In Article 1, Section 10,
Clause 1, the States absolutely surrendered their preconstitutional
powers to "coin Money,” to "emit Bills of Credit"
(what Americans today would call "redeemable paper currency"),
and to "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in
Payment of Debts.” Thus, the States subjected themselves to a
strict gold-and-silver-coin economy, in which they could not be the
source of the only coinage that could function as "a Tender in
Payment of Debts.”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 transferred the coinage-power to
Congress alone. The surrender of the States' primordial
sovereign power to "coin Money,” coupled with the exclusive grant
of that power to Congress, implies a right on the part of the States
to demand that Congress affirmatively exercise the coinage-power
and a duty on the part of Congress to do so. This constitutional
duty arising from a fundamental structural element in the federal
separation of powers—may never be delegated, especially to
private parties. For that reason, the adoption of a "private
money" as the unit of account of the United States is
unconstitutional."

...


"Indeed, systematic constitutional analysis of the present monetary
and banking systems results in two specific agendas for action.
Under destructive reformation, the Constitution requires that the
government:

• declare unconstitutional the Federal Reserve Act of 1913,
the seizure of gold coin and outlawry of "gold clause
contracts" in 1933, and such parts of decisions of the
Supreme Court that erroneously license Congress to emit
legal-tender paper currency and otherwise depart from its
true constitutional powers and disabilities;

• disestablish the Federal Reserve System and "privatize" its
legitimate functions under section 30 of the Federal Reserve
Act of 1913;

• decry Federal Reserve Notes as "obligations of the United
States" under 12 U.S.C. section 411;

• terminate the "legal-tender" status of Federal Reserve Notes
and base-metallic ("clad") coinage under 31 U.S.C. section
5103;

• cancel all gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve
System, in favor of a trusteeship over the gold to be executed
by the United States on behalf of the people;

• hypothecate to restoration of the constitutional money
system all unclaimed gold unconstitutionally seized in 1933
and now in the custody of the United States;

• declare voidable all contracts between member banks of the
Federal Reserve System and any other parties, where the
consideration for the contracts on the part of the banks was
unconstitutional "monetization" of debt;

• revalue all innocent private contracts denominated in
Federal-Reserve-Note "dollars" and not involving memberbanks
of the Federal Reserve System under the rule of the
Confederate Note Cases; and

• conduct searching and scrupulously impartial civil and
criminal investigations and prosecutions of the Federal
Reserve System and its operations, domestic and
international.

Under constructive reformation the Constitution requires that the
government:

• begin the coinage of silver "dollars" and fractional "dollar"
coins, with a unit of 371-1/4 grains (troy) fine silver;

• begin the coinage of gold "eagles" and fractional “eagle"
coins, denominated only in troy ounces of fine gold;

• establish a system of "free coinage" for "dollars,” "eagles,”
and fractional silver and gold coins;

• adopt all monetarily viable foreign silver and gold coins as
"Money" of the United States;

• "regulate the Value" of domestic and foreign silver and gold
coins relative to the "dollar,” with the silver-to-gold
exchange-ratio set by the free market;

• redeem outstanding United States token coinage "dollar" for
"dollar"; and,

• outlaw undisclosed or otherwise fraudulent "fractional reserve"
banking and cognate improper commercial
practices."

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ConstitutionalImperative.pdf

 

[dude58677]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The SCOTUS justified their decision by noting it was necessary and proper to establish a national bank to assist in collecting/paying debts.

I don't think you are following me. The necessary and proper clause does NOT mean that the ninth amendment can be violated.


The people under the ninth amendment have the unenumerated right not to be victims of misconstrued powers.

 

[torchbearer]

go back to 1933.

 

[Kotin]

McCulloch V. Maryland in my book...

 

[Kludge]

I don't think you are following me. The necessary and proper clause does NOT mean that the ninth amendment can be violated.


The people under the ninth amendment have the unenumerated right not to be victims of misconstrued powers.

Oh right, I forgot that some amendments are legally superior to others.

The government was granted, in the Constitution, to do whatever could be justified as necessary and proper to aid in their duties to carry duties expressly assigned to the government, including the ability to collect/repay debts, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

United States v. Miller

 

[dude58677]

"Oh right, I forgot that some amendments are legally superior to others."



If the government can do whatever is necessary and proper, then there is no point in having a Bill of Rights.

 

[torchbearer]

"Oh right, I forgot that some amendments are legally superior to others."



If the government can do whatever is necessary and proper, then there is no point in having a Bill of Rights.

There would be no point to having a constitution if the government is to do whatever is necessary and proper.
The nationalization of all our industries could be deemed "necessary and proper" in a loose interpretation.

 

[Truth Warrior]

"Oh right, I forgot that some amendments are legally superior to others."



If the government can do whatever is necessary and proper, then there is no point in having a Bill of Rights.

Gotta just luv the builtin GOTCHA!

 

[Kludge]

If the government can do whatever is necessary and proper, then there is no point in having a Bill of Rights.

The SCOTUS has ignored it on many cases -- just read my initial post. Aside from Mapp V. Ohio, they're all violations of the Constitution, IIRC. There are no rights granted to United States citizens -- we're always at risk of a new SCOTUS ruling. The Constitutiton is too vague to be of much help in securing rights. Under the reign of the Constitution, we've seen FDR's New Deal, initiation of military drafts, imprisonment of Japanese, and executive orders.

 

[torchbearer]

The necessary and proper clause was first written in the articles of confederation.
A very restrictive document that created a VERY VERY weak central government.
You figure out if they meant for the central government to become an overbearing tyrannical piece of shit.

 

[Imperial]

The Insular Cases- Citing the example of the Native Americans, the Supreme Court decreed in a series of cases that the Constitution does not necessarily follow equally with US acquisitions in foreign territory, like Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

 

[slothman]

Wickard v. Filburn -- Federal grain quotas can prevent a farmer from growing grain for use on his own farm because his lack of buying grain in the market affects interstate commerce. This was a vast expansion of the commerce clause. This case represents a huge shift toward unconstrained federal regulation.

I agree with that one.

There are 3 others but I can't find them.
One is that Henry Ford tried to give money away as a trust but the other stockholders said no.
The court said that the only point of a corp. is to make money.
That in effect made corporations pathalogical and didn't need to care about ethics if it helped make more money.

Another case,
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, was when somone tried to sue a corp and won.
That wsa a case in which granted "personship" to companies which gave them more rights I think they shouldn't have.

The third one is when they uphelp the crime for someone who voiced against the WWI draft.
It was an easy assault on Free Speech.