“Contrary to all correct example, [the Federal judiciary] are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate.” Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson on the federal courts
January 17, 2016
4 Comments | 
Federal Government | 
Permalink
Posted by Brutus
Defining supreme
January 15, 2016Since the case of Marbury v. Madison many have held that our supreme court has the power to overturn national laws that it says violate the intent of the constitution.
Determining intent is not done consistently but instead the method changes depending upon what the justices need to justify their ruling. Sometimes the plain words of the constitution are used and other times they use “clauses” that not contain verbs like “general welfare” to try to justify their positions.
John Marshall was the chief justice of the court that ruled in Marbury. Marbury had been appointed justice of the peace by outgoing president John Adams in an effort to stack the judiciary with “midnight judges”. Congress had approved of the appointment.
The written commission needed to be delivered by the secretary of state, John Marshall. Marshall failed to deliver it.
Thomas Jefferson, the incoming president refused to recognize Marbury’s appointment. Marbury took it to court.
Incredibly the chief justice of the supreme court (John Marshall) who at the same time was the secretary of state who failed to deliver the commission agreed to sit on the case. Most of us would say that at the least he should have recused himself.
Instead Marshall took the opportunity to craft law and now, because enough good people stood by and did nothing, we have a situation where people that are not elected get to tell the country what the law is.
The framers of our constitution did not include language that gave the supreme court that kind of power. In fact the supreme court was thought to be so insignificant that it did not even have it’s own building until 1935, almost 150 years after the adoption of our constitution. The original justices were given the responsibility of traveling within their respective districts to hear cases for eight months out of each year. Even during the Marshall era of the court the justices only met together for two months each year.
Some will argue that the court has overstepped its bounds. Others will say that the actions were necessary.
Either way, wouldn’t we be better off if we amended our constitution to define what powers the justices do and do not have?
We deserve better
Brutus
7 Comments | Federal Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
A time for change?
January 13, 2016Our Texas governor has called for a convention of states to suggest amendments to our national constitution.
Article V of our U.S. constitution provides two methods to propose changes to the constitution.
The only one that has been used in our history is the one where 2/3 of the members of both the house of representatives and the senate vote to send a proposed amendment to the states for approval or rejection. Once sent to the states approval takes an affirmative vote by 3/4 of the states.
A second method in the constitution has never been used. It provides that 2/3 of the legislatures of the states voting together can call for a national constitutional convention, the purpose of which would be to propose constitutional amendments. Once proposed approval of an amendment would again take an affirmative vote by 3/4 of the states.
Who votes for the states?
Here congress retains significant power. Without regard to which method (direct submission by congress or a constitutional convention) is used, congress must choose to put the issue either to the individual state legislatures or to state conventions of the people. In the case of a state convention it is up to each state to chooses how the representatives to the convention are chosen.
We have a constitution that is over 200 years old that contains provisions that did not contemplate our current condition. We also have seen various factions work to claim the ability to override the constitution without having to make their desired changes within Article V.
Some claim that calling a constitutional convention would open the door to mayhem but they are not giving due credit to the requirement that any proposals that come out of a convention must be approved by 3/4 of the states.
“We the people of the United States” are the words that begin our constitution.
What would be wrong with letting the people decide what needs to be done here?
We deserve better
Brutus
6 Comments | Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
More thoughts about school funding
January 10, 2016Our post Paying for our schools–competition saw some diverse comments the other day.
One point that was raised was that our local school boards are self governing.
I may be under a mistaken impression in that I believe that the curriculum and testing regimens are dictated by the state and that locally we have no choice but to do what they say.
I hope that one of our readers can fill us in on this issue.
If it turns out that we have little control locally when it comes to curriculum then I ask the question again. Wouldn’t we be better off if we determined what and how to teach on a local level? Would that not create a situation where homeowners decided which school district to live in (and pay taxes in) based upon their individual perception of the quality and value of the education being offered?
Another comment suggested that with local control we might have to give up the state and feral funding that we now receive. The state and national governments get their money from us. If they stopped taking it from us we would not have to depend upon them to “give” us own money back through funding.
Let’s keep up the discussion.
We deserve better
Brutus
1 Comment | El Paso Independent School District, Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
Paying for our schools–competition
January 7, 2016Most of us that live in El Paso pay almost half of our property taxes to a local school district. Whether you live in a home that you own or a rental property, you are paying school taxes.
This post is not meant to argue that schools don’t need to be paid for.
Why is it that we pay for our schools through property taxes though?
Is there some other source that could be used?
The original purpose of public education was to develop citizens.
Now we hear about education training children to satisfy the needs of business.
Several alternatives to property taxes exist.
Without regard to how we might change how we pay for schools, shouldn’t we first return control of our schools to our local governments?
If education is in fact a large component of the environment that businesses need, wouldn’t we be better off if we created an education environment that featured competition and differentiation?
Wouldn’t the free market reward those school districts that produced effective workers and shun those that did not?
We deserve better.
Brutus
14 Comments | El Paso Independent School District, Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
elpasospeak 
You must be logged in to post a comment.