The problem is, this opens things up to a tyranny of the majority. If the people in a particular area decide to enact a grossly unconstitutional law that they like and you challenge it but the judge is like most of the people in the area and doesn't give a fuck about that particular constitutional protection, you have nowhere else to go because you can't appeal it to a higher court.

I said in the original thread that I used to be a Paul supporter. I still like several of his ideas. But that doesn't mean that this proposal isn't batshit crazy. And I tend to like to check the box "not batshit crazy" on my politician checklist before voting for them.

Ding ding ding ding ding  ding ding ding ding  ding ding ding ding  ding ding ding ding  ding ding ding ding  ding ding ding ding  ding ding ding ding  ding ding ding ding  ding ding ding ding  ding ding ding ding  ding ding ding ding  ding ding ding ding  ding ding ding ding  ding ding ding ding!

Badgenome gets the "Sixth Grade US Law" Merit Badge! High fives!

Sadly enough, that badge is not being awarded nearly as frequently as it should be in this thread. 

Even with this law (which I don't think is really that bad, I must be missing the point) Paul is still a country mile ahead of any of his competitors. Obama will just be 4 more years of involvement in the middle east, debt spending (and debt ceiling raises), Patriot act, Obamacare and no change to the failing social security system...and Romney wouldn't be much better. 

The point is that the Supreme and Federal courts are the "last in the chain" of legal entities that are in place to protect the Constitution. This law removes part of their ability to do that by saying they can't rule on part of the First Amendment. That leaves no one above the state level with the ability to rule on that part of the Constitution. It's a terribly dangerous idea. Do you know who appoints state judges? The governor. And half the time, he hasn't even met that judge and doesn't really know a damned thing about them beyond what can be read on a piece of paper. Are those the people you want defending the Constitution?

It's akin to saying that the President can't use the military or move their assets in favor of allowing one governor to decide what to do with the armed forces. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

I agree with pretty much all you said in this thread apart from this paragraph. The problem is that, while the Constitution is over 200 years old, and been amended relatively few times, it's just not really listened to, anymore. Neither the executive or the legislature do more than pay lip service to the Constitution, and each party only pulls it out the bag when it supports them... which, for both parties, nowadays, just isn't very often. The Judiciary is okay... but even then, can be iffy. Besides, only a small portion of the laws end up going all the way through to the Supreme Court.

Take the most obvious example, the Patriot Act. This bill is so clearly unconstitutional that the politicians almost don't bother denying it. And yet, it was introduced/sign by the Bush administration, passed through the Congress with strong bipartisan support, and extended by Obama. The Act has been found unconstitutional numerous times in low-level courts. The Feds never appeal these rulings, because they're afraid of higher courts also finding it unconstitutional, and yet the law still exists.

And so you have a Constitution that either allows the Patriot Act, or was powerless to stop it.

---

@bolded - a side point, I believe several founders (including Mr. Jefferson) actually supported the idea of there being many, smaller Unions of States. Arguing that a too-larger union would cause the Feds to be able to disregard many people. In many ways, he was probably right. I've made this a side-point rather than the main point of my post, as it was just something I've heard/read somewhere, and have no idea where. So, it could be easily refutable/from an non-credible source.

You won't get any argument from me that too few in government show the proper respect for the Constitution. I loathe the Patriot Act to my very core and think it's one of the worst things done in government in my lifetime. I hated it when it was proposed and somehow, I think I manage to hate it even more now.

As for responding to my bolded, the Constitution did save the government from fracturing into oblivion. Taken in the context of responding to the (insert derogatory term here) I was talking to in that conversation, the Constitution breathed life back into this country after the Articles of Confederation nearly destroyed it. I was merely pointing out how his brilliant idea of a toothless federal government has already been tried and it nearly destroyed this country before it even got off the ground. That doesn't mean I don't believe in a smaller federal government or that I don't believe in giving more power back to the states. I certainly believe both are a good idea.

But there needs to be a clear, strong entity at the top of any government of states, particularly in matters of defense, civil rights, and protection of individual liberty. I'm sure you already know this, just kind of rambling on because I still can't believe that poster said something so bloody stupid and ignorant of history.

I mean really if we want an example of a toothless federal government in modern times... I'd use Europe as an example.

That's really what the Europeon Union is.

It's the articles of confederation more or less.

Big difference being that the articles of confederation let indivdual states keep there own money... (I think?)

Without looking it up, I'm about 95% sure that under the Articles, states still printed their own money. I think that was one of the main driving forces for the Constitution.

Very true that the EU is basically a re-worked Articles. The key difference being that most of the countries of Europe has a long-standing history of being successful, independent nations. Their economies are still hard-wired that way and could revert back to it should the EU fall on its face. It would be painful, but definitely possible. Obviously, the US states were in a very different situation. Many had no stable currency, no framework of economic success, and the turmoil of the post-Revolution era was still weighing heavily on each of them.

I'd say a more similar hypothetical situation was if the EU formed in 1946. There is nearly a zero chance it would have been successful at that point. Hell, if you ask Greece the question right now, I think they'd make a fine case arguing that it isn't successful today.

Historically, the Supreme Court's ability to overturn federal law has always been a double edged sword.

Has the Supreme Court upheld minority rights and beliefs in the past? Yes, yes they have. In Brown vs. Board of Education they demanded that states integrate their schools. In Gaines v Canada and other cases, they struck down segeragated universities, law and grad schools.

But lets think for a minute, how these institutions became segregated in the first place: in 1896, the Supreme Court completely gutted the Civil Rights act of 1866 as well as the 14th Ammendment with Plessy v. Ferguson, which created the concept of "seperate but equal", allowing public and private institutions the legal right to discriminate in the first place, under the notion that "seperate, equal" services would be provided. I can tell you they knew damn well that that was bullshit and they knew it, and it wouldn't begin to be successfully challenged in ANY way until Gaines v. Canada. It took them over 60 years to completely reverse the damage caused by that one Supreme Court decision, which was UNCONSTITUTIONAL in and of itself and effectively turned African Americans into legally second class citizens for decades.

And before Plessy v. Ferguson, we also had the Dredd Scott decision, which stated that slaves had no protection under the constitution. So no, the Supreme Court has not always protected minorities, and in many cases has ruled against their interest.

And of course, in this day and age we have the most politicized Supreme Court since the 1830s. We have justices making judgements BLATANTLY contradicting their own precedent, taking "donations" from companies being affected by their decisions, and then not recusing themselves from these decisions. Remember Citizens United, which has allowed our political system to be completely corrupted by private donations, because of this silly notion the Supreme has held for over a century that corporations are people (they aren't) and money is speech (it isn't. It's property. You don't own speech)? A 5-4 Supreme Court decision. I garuntee you that the upcoming Health Care law ruling will be 5-4, and that decision will probably involve one long time member of the Supreme Court going against their own precedent for political or monetary reasons.

The Supreme Court has nothing to check it, It's members do not need to follow any rules, the other branches cannot regulate or check it in any immediate way because this branch of the government was not supposed to be political, or HAVE this much power to begin with. The Supreme Court gave itself this power in 1805, and people have just accepted it. As a result, these people are practically monarchs, unchecked and untouchable, because centuries ago they deemed it so.

This is one of numerous instances where liberals and libertarians can agree: unchecked Supreme Court power needs to go. It does at least as much harm as it does good, and it has no place in a democracy.