![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Сам себе судья
Mar. 1st, 2021 10:42 pmGovernment is the sole judge of its own actions
Верховный суд задумывался изначально далеко не в том виде, в каком он находится сейчас - а именно, когда государство является по сути для самого себя судей, такое непогрешимое Политбюро, решения которого обязательны, неоспоримы и являются высшим арбитражем для всех остальных.
Все это было взломано дружком Гамильтона, Джоном Маршаллом, т.е если хотите разобраться, вам придется гуглить по этим 2-м персонажам:
"Союзник Гамильтона Джон Маршалл стал четвертым председателем Верховного суда и использовал влияние Гамильтона, чтобы навсегда изменить наш конституционный порядок, когда чернила на документе (Конституции) едва высохли. Решение Маршалла по делу Марбери против Мэдисона предоставило Верховному суду право осуществлять судебный надзор, позволяя ему толковать Конституцию так, как он хочет. Он также постановил в деле Маккалок против Мэриленда, что федеральный закон стоит выше закона штата - полная мерзость по отношению к федеральной системе, которую установили основатели. Эти решения гарантировали, что Гамильтион добился своего - централизованная система с властью, которая не имеет никаких сдержек."
https://mises.org/wire/alexander-hamilton-centralist-and-nationalist
"But before Jefferson took office, DiLorenzo explains, Federalist President John Adams helped Hamilton's cause when he appointed hundreds of "midnight judges" to the federal judiciary in the last 19 days of his administration. Though Jefferson got rid of most of them, he overlooked the appointment of Hamilton idolater John Marshall, who served as chief justice from 1801–1835.
"In Marbury v. Madison [1803] John Marshall essentially asserted that he, as chief justice, had power over all congressional legislation," DiLorenzo writes. This was consistent with Federalist #78, where Hamilton said it belongs to the courts "to ascertain [the Constitution's] meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." Though Marbury v. Madison marks the birth of judicial review, the Hamiltonian idea that the government should be the sole judge of its own actions didn't prevail until it was imposed by force of arms — during the War between the States."
https://mises.org/library/hamiltons-counterfeit-capitalism
With the expected eulogies for Scalia among his supporters, we’re being berated with the idea that Scalia was an “originalist” who stuck doggedly to the clear text of the Constitution as imagined by its authors. In truth, Scalia was no originalist, since, if he had been one, he would have rejected the whole notion of judicial review, which is itself a total innovation and fabrication dreamed up by Chief Justice John Marshall. Absolutely nowhere does Article III of the Constitution (the part that deals with the court, and is half a page long) give the court the power to decide on what can be legal or not in every state, town, village or business of the United States. Moreover, as Jeff Deist notes today, the Court’s powers we so blithely accept as fait accompli are mostly made up:
The concept of judicial review is a fabrication by the Court, with no basis in Article III.
Constitutional jurisprudence is not constitutional law.
The Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts: it is not supreme over other branches of government.
Congress plainly has constitutional authority to define and restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts.
https://mises.org/power-market/abolish-supreme-court-not-second-amendment
Верховный суд задумывался изначально далеко не в том виде, в каком он находится сейчас - а именно, когда государство является по сути для самого себя судей, такое непогрешимое Политбюро, решения которого обязательны, неоспоримы и являются высшим арбитражем для всех остальных.
Все это было взломано дружком Гамильтона, Джоном Маршаллом, т.е если хотите разобраться, вам придется гуглить по этим 2-м персонажам:
"Союзник Гамильтона Джон Маршалл стал четвертым председателем Верховного суда и использовал влияние Гамильтона, чтобы навсегда изменить наш конституционный порядок, когда чернила на документе (Конституции) едва высохли. Решение Маршалла по делу Марбери против Мэдисона предоставило Верховному суду право осуществлять судебный надзор, позволяя ему толковать Конституцию так, как он хочет. Он также постановил в деле Маккалок против Мэриленда, что федеральный закон стоит выше закона штата - полная мерзость по отношению к федеральной системе, которую установили основатели. Эти решения гарантировали, что Гамильтион добился своего - централизованная система с властью, которая не имеет никаких сдержек."
https://mises.org/wire/alexander-hamilton-centralist-and-nationalist
"But before Jefferson took office, DiLorenzo explains, Federalist President John Adams helped Hamilton's cause when he appointed hundreds of "midnight judges" to the federal judiciary in the last 19 days of his administration. Though Jefferson got rid of most of them, he overlooked the appointment of Hamilton idolater John Marshall, who served as chief justice from 1801–1835.
"In Marbury v. Madison [1803] John Marshall essentially asserted that he, as chief justice, had power over all congressional legislation," DiLorenzo writes. This was consistent with Federalist #78, where Hamilton said it belongs to the courts "to ascertain [the Constitution's] meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." Though Marbury v. Madison marks the birth of judicial review, the Hamiltonian idea that the government should be the sole judge of its own actions didn't prevail until it was imposed by force of arms — during the War between the States."
https://mises.org/library/hamiltons-counterfeit-capitalism
With the expected eulogies for Scalia among his supporters, we’re being berated with the idea that Scalia was an “originalist” who stuck doggedly to the clear text of the Constitution as imagined by its authors. In truth, Scalia was no originalist, since, if he had been one, he would have rejected the whole notion of judicial review, which is itself a total innovation and fabrication dreamed up by Chief Justice John Marshall. Absolutely nowhere does Article III of the Constitution (the part that deals with the court, and is half a page long) give the court the power to decide on what can be legal or not in every state, town, village or business of the United States. Moreover, as Jeff Deist notes today, the Court’s powers we so blithely accept as fait accompli are mostly made up:
The concept of judicial review is a fabrication by the Court, with no basis in Article III.
Constitutional jurisprudence is not constitutional law.
The Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts: it is not supreme over other branches of government.
Congress plainly has constitutional authority to define and restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts.
https://mises.org/power-market/abolish-supreme-court-not-second-amendment
