3 ms·

"But the US founding fathers saw this situation: Someone with 'standing' brings a legal case, and eventually the case makes it to the Supreme Court of the US"

"But the US founding fathers saw this situation: Someone with 'standing' brings a legal case, and eventually the case makes it to the Supreme Court of the US" Thomas Jefferson opposed the creation of the supreme court in Marbury vs. Madison. Madison was his secretary of state. Here is his reasoning: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves" It's difficult to consider the counter-factual of the court not being created and common law having been continued, but it's useful to understand that there was opposition, and why, so that if you support it, you can use this knowledge to make it better. In more modern times, partisanship does seem to be a problem, with many of the most important decisions are made 5-4 on party lines. As you have brought up, another problem is that, contrarily, that it may be that the supreme court isn't actually not be powerful enough. If the U.S. is using the U.K. to spy on Americans, isn't that a blatant end-run around the constitution? But where can standing be, if legal opinions are based on secret courts, and gag orders are imposed on everything? At the same time, it's not "Just the supreme court's" job to uphold the Constitution. Ultimately, it's the people's, and our most direct representatives are the House. They take an oath to uphold the responsibility, and they can't simply subcontract it, it doesn't work that way.

graycat 13y ago
Thanks. I had not seen Jefferson's remarks. Bright guy. And now apparently to cover up the flaws of "honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps" the court is awash in pretense of impeccable objectivity, competence, and final authority! If we take Jefferson seriously, then for the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, etc., the SCOTUS is not really a superior arbiter and not the last word but just one stop on the way to the voting citizens. Sounds like time to revise the letter I have under draft, waiting for the SCOTUS to make their unique contribution to the constitutionality, quit deferring to and waiting on the SCOTUS, warm up my FAX modem, send to my Representative and two Senators, and tell them that the final arbiter here is the voting citizens, that I vote, and that my decision on the constitutionality of the Patriot Act and whatever else the NSA has been using and generally the means, direct or indirect through London or wherever, is "No" -- not constitutional, and, thus, I expect them to correct the situation with legislation. So, as a voting citizen, the attitude for me to take here is not to quibble over fine points of law or the precise wording of the First or Fourth Amendments but just to state, from my power and authority as one voting citizen, that this NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, whatever Federal Government under the table, around the world backwards and into the back door, spying on my Internet usage, my USPS usage, my FedEx or UPS usage, my license plate locations, my favorite French or Italian wines, my cell phone tower usage, the items I buy at A&P, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, the items I charge on a credit card, my purchases at Amazon, who visits me, whom I visit, my Internet posts, my garbage items, what my kitty cats eat, etc. is unconstitutional and, besides, unacceptable as in torques me off, and I herewith demand that they pass laws that will shovel out the stalls of the NSA, FBI, etc. and stop that stuff where stuff is not the only word I have in mind. They can't "subcontract", send the ball, or hot potato, to the SCOTUS, and have to do some real work themselves -- find ways to protect the US within the Constitution. "But where can standing be, if legal opinions are based on secret courts, and gag orders are imposed on everything?" Apparently someone thought that that was a cute Catch 22, but I don't think it will wash. So, if the FBI shows up at my Web site server farm (when and if I get it built!), hands me a double secret, triple top secret, national security letter (NSL), where the first rule of NSL is never to talk about NSL, I just say: "I have not told anyone about your NSL; still, I've already consulted with my lawyer about any such thing, and he advised me to say that we will see you in open court. Have a nice day. I've got to get back to work. Oh, gee, it looks like my kitty cat has made a mess on your nice NSL -- here, you can have it back." Maybe by the next 4th of July we will have this mess cleaned up.

graycat 13y ago

Thanks. I had not seen Jefferson's remarks. Bright guy. And now apparently to cover up the flaws of "honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps" the court is awash in pretense of impeccable objectivity, competence, and final authority! If we take Jefferson seriously, then for the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, etc., the SCOTUS is not really a superior arbiter and not the last word but just one stop on the way to the voting citizens. Sounds like time to revise the letter I have under draft, waiting for the SCOTUS to make their unique contribution to the constitutionality, quit deferring to and waiting on the SCOTUS, warm up my FAX modem, send to my Representative and two Senators, and tell them that the final arbiter here is the voting citizens, that I vote, and that my decision on the constitutionality of the Patriot Act and whatever else the NSA has been using and generally the means, direct or indirect through London or wherever, is "No" -- not constitutional, and, thus, I expect them to correct the situation with legislation. So, as a voting citizen, the attitude for me to take here is not to quibble over fine points of law or the precise wording of the First or Fourth Amendments but just to state, from my power and authority as one voting citizen, that this NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, whatever Federal Government under the table, around the world backwards and into the back door, spying on my Internet usage, my USPS usage, my FedEx or UPS usage, my license plate locations, my favorite French or Italian wines, my cell phone tower usage, the items I buy at A&P, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, the items I charge on a credit card, my purchases at Amazon, who visits me, whom I visit, my Internet posts, my garbage items, what my kitty cats eat, etc. is unconstitutional and, besides, unacceptable as in torques me off, and I herewith demand that they pass laws that will shovel out the stalls of the NSA, FBI, etc. and stop that stuff where stuff is not the only word I have in mind. They can't "subcontract", send the ball, or hot potato, to the SCOTUS, and have to do some real work themselves -- find ways to protect the US within the Constitution. "But where can standing be, if legal opinions are based on secret courts, and gag orders are imposed on everything?" Apparently someone thought that that was a cute Catch 22, but I don't think it will wash. So, if the FBI shows up at my Web site server farm (when and if I get it built!), hands me a double secret, triple top secret, national security letter (NSL), where the first rule of NSL is never to talk about NSL, I just say: "I have not told anyone about your NSL; still, I've already consulted with my lawyer about any such thing, and he advised me to say that we will see you in open court. Have a nice day. I've got to get back to work. Oh, gee, it looks like my kitty cat has made a mess on your nice NSL -- here, you can have it back." Maybe by the next 4th of July we will have this mess cleaned up.