There's Not Enough Time for Indulgences

I will be blogging less and less, but note taking more and more. In fact, now I'm also going to be posting Supreme Court Briefs as they appear.

Today we had a speakers program in the Capital Building! This time it was with Congressmen

Congressman Glenn Nye (VA) talked much about the problems involving the return of troops without homes and mental issues in addition to the reason behind the molasses pace withdrawal of troops.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK) drilled us on the merits of having oil drilling in Alaska despite the fact that environmentalists do not realize the lack of problems drilling causes while also forwarding proponents of new energy sources and integrating them into life without an abrupt switch.

Congressman Chaka Fattah (PE) spoke to us about education, its issues, and his own personal amendments that he forwarded for decades, and that it is because the largest educational problem is teachers who are teaching subjects that they do not have degrees for.

Congressman James Clyburn (SC) pretty much opened the floor to questions and ensured us that there is no reason to believe that there is going to be a party power switch, and that there will be seats lost, but not significant enough.

Congressman William Pascrell (NJ) ... can't remember? He was great though.

Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) was incredible. He is an independent but believes in Democratic Socialism philosophy. His greatest arguments were that the distribution of wealth is caused by complacency and greed. It is the natural progression of those who want indefinitely. He also focused on one phrase, "I want you to think about this." This summed up what we were there for.

...

JSA Georgetown Summer Session II, 2010
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer

Dr. Bonham’s Case (1610) – there was a period of time in which the courts had enormous power. The High Justice Cooks applied the common law to the king for the first time. This was an instance of Judicial Review. This lead to the eventual rise of power in Parliament, and if an act of Parliament is supreme, no court can refute it.

Privy Council (during colonial period) – any time a colonial legislature passed a statute, on the boat to England, it had to be reviewed by this council. Another sense of Judicial Review.

State courts under Articles of Confederation – every state exercised Judicial Review.

Federalist #78 – Hamilton says stuff taken from Dr. Bonham’s Case and Marshall steals from Hammy in Marbury v. Madison. If you look carefully, the only thing that Madison and Hamilton have in common is that the Constitution has to be ratified. Hamilton believes that the Constitution is all for the central government, and that it’s not going to be the only powers. You make power as you need power. Madison believes that all of the power is definitely listed in the Constitution. If it is not listed, suck it up and hope for the best. The only power is listed power.

I. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
a. History
i. Judiciary Act of 1789 - creates the federal court system. This establishes appellate jurisdiction in addition to the original jurisdiction granted in Article 3. Section 13 of this Act gives the supreme courts under original jurisdiction the writ of mandamus (someone can bring up a case to the courts). This allowed Marbury to immediately go to the Supreme Court instead of going to the district circuit. Had it been in Section 13 under appellate jurisdiction, Marbury would’ve had to go through the system legitimately. The guy was Oliver Ellsworth who brought this to the floor. 2nd Chief Justice.
ii. The case comes before the court. We all know that Marbury is entitled to his commission. His commission letter was never physically delivered to him. This is a wrong by the Jefferson Administration. Is the remedy a mandamus issue from the Supreme Court? No. This would imply that Marbury would need to go to a higher power for justice. Impossible.
b. Would it have been possible to not establish Judicial Review?
i. It was not. This would’ve undermined the Supreme Court. So, Judicial Review was established, but was not used until Dred Scott v. Sanford (1854).
c. Marshall’s Opinion
i. What gives the Judiciary the authority to become philosopher kings? Don’t the people who write the law understand the law as much as judges do? Why wasn’t it included? One way is that it was so damn obvious and commonplace to the generation of the framers that the Courts were assumed to always exercise Judicial Review. However, how can you get this without appellate jurisdiction prior to this!? Can’t.
ii. There is one place where you can have judicial review in the constitution. The “supremacy clause”. The Court is the only one who can decide between the states and Federal system. This is the only hint at judicial review in the Constitution.
iii. Marshall literally pulls it out of the hat. “The supreme court of the united states has no power to issue a mandamus to the secretary of state since this would be an exercise of original jurisdiction, warranted by the constitution.” You’re asking us to do something that we legally do not have the power to do. Marbury couldn’t get his pension at all from the courts because the courts do not have the power, so therefore, we need to make the power. Judicial Review is the only way to do its job, that was before not able to do. Congress has no power to grant the courts original jurisdiction except when stated in the constitution.
1. Here’s the problem. The judges are supposed to be apolitical, but have to participate in a practical political world. All political issues become legal issues in America. The judicial concept is to determine whether they were indefinitely right under the law! People confuse this principle by calling decisions liberal or conservative.

Fletcher v. Peck (1810) – gave the power to use Judicial Review to State Legislative Parties
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) – state government
Cohens v. Virginia (1821) – state courts
Prize Cases/Ex parte Milligan – how the hell can those two cases stand as precedent when they are contradictory to one another?
McCulloch v. Maryland - What is the question? Does the federal government actually have implied powers? It breathed life into the constitution. Implied power is as far as Congress’s imagination. There is no limit to what Congress can do. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, 3, and 18. Congress has the power to tax, regulate commerce, and everything else. This is pretty much all that Congress does. lawlz
US Term Limits v. Thornton – Federalism. Why should the rules be different for state legislators than federal legislators? The state does not have the authority to have the ability to limit the tenure of these legislators.
Arkansas Case – the Arkansas law was unconstitutional. We’re not violating the laws on how to elect someone, there are no rules into how many terms you can have in office.

Congress has the power to remove courts appellate jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court also has the duty to eliminate legal confusion. Note that exceptions to the rules stand as that, and forevermore cannot be treated as anything besides an exception, therefore the correct law no longer applies.

Note: Concise rule of law is the question for the courts, their answer, and lumping the two into a positive statement.

You cannot talk about commerce without understanding Federalism.

FDR’s thing, Golden Rule: We should do the greatest good for the greatest number.

Framers made one fundamental mistake. They thought that every generation would have the same intelligence capabilities as they. They had no backup plan.

We need to settle for the best, not for anything less, because then it’s a disservice. You know, race admittance just for admittance is a complete waste of talent.

...

The last parts of the notes are more or less ambiguous rambling that isn't sortable.

How to develop a speech coming up soon! Peace.
Chris Carl

"Taco Bell is delicious. Claim of Fact." - Dr. Dewberry