Canada: a socialist hell hole?

[Samson Corwell]

The soft tyranny ...see Alexis de Tocqueville and Mark Levin...

"Soft tyranny"? What nonsense. Levin is too hyperbolic for his own good.

Sampson:

The phrase soft tyranny was Alexis de Tocqueville's phrase. Here is the Wiki...

Soft tyranny is an idea first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1835 work titled Democracy in America.[1] In effect, soft tyranny occurs whenever the social conditions of a particular community hinder any prospect of hope among its members.[2] For Tocqueville, hope is the driving force behind all democratic institutions.[3] As such, whenever this all-encompassing hope is taken away from the people, liberal democracy fails. Examples of this failure can be seen in the Weimar Republic of Germany during the 1930s, in the French Third Republic around 1940 or arguably throughout western democracies since the economic collapse of 2008.

Apparently you did not see that name in the post.

Have you read de Tocqueville?

Secondly, have you read any of Mark Levin's books?

A...

I own a copy of Liberty & Tyranny. Couldn't get through the first few pages. I've also seen his proposed amendments. His amendment to give Congress to overturn SCOTUS decisions is positively fucking insane. It would leave Congress and the Executive unchecked as well as give states the power to enact authoritarian laws.

[Selene]

Apparently you did not see that name in the post.

Have you read de Tocqueville?

Secondly, have you read any of Mark Levin's books?

A...

[quote}

His amendment to give Congress to overturn SCOTUS decisions is positively fucking insane. It would leave Congress and the Executive unchecked as well as give states the power to enact authoritarian laws.

Sampson:

Apparently, you selectively distort and selectively retain what suits you.

Let's recap.

The phrase "soft tyranny" was originally created by Alexis de Tocqueville.

You seem to refuse to address that and prefer to wed the phrase with Mark Levin who has resurrected the phrase with proper attribution.

Second, Mark Levin's proposed amendments are to be processed by the State conventions to propose Amendments to the Constitution as per the "escape clause" provided by the Founders as stated in Article V.

Whether his suggested amendment to permit 3/4 of Congress to overturn a Supreme Court decision has a

specific and narrow time limit to act.

Therefore, you were disingenuous in explaining that proposed amendment.

The Founders did not envision a "Supreme Court" that acts as a legislative body that creates laws and penumbras and all sorts of fundamental changes that are in the purview of the other branches.

His proposed amendment would put a brake on a judiciary that has grown out of control.

Finally, have you ever read Alexis de Tocqueville?

A...

[Samson Corwell]

Apparently you did not see that name in the post.

Have you read de Tocqueville?

Secondly, have you read any of Mark Levin's books?

A...

[quote}

His amendment to give Congress to overturn SCOTUS decisions is positively fucking insane. It would leave Congress and the Executive unchecked as well as give states the power to enact authoritarian laws.

Sampson:

Apparently, you selectively distort and selectively retain what suits you.

Let's recap.

The phrase "soft tyranny" was originally created by Alexis de Tocqueville.

You seem to refuse to address that and prefer to wed the phrase with Mark Levin who has resurrected the phrase with proper attribution.

Second, Mark Levin's proposed amendments are to be processed by the State conventions to propose Amendments to the Constitution as per the "escape clause" provided by the Founders as stated in Article V.

Whether his suggested amendment to permit 3/4 of Congress to overturn a Supreme Court decision has a

specific and narrow time limit to act.

Therefore, you were disingenuous in explaining that proposed amendment.

The Founders did not envision a "Supreme Court" that acts as a legislative body that creates laws and penumbras and all sorts of fundamental changes that are in the purview of the other branches.

His proposed amendment would put a brake on a judiciary that has grown out of control.

Finally, have you ever read Alexis de Tocqueville?

A...

If SCOTUS "legislates from the bench" then I don't suppose you wouldn't mind telling me what bills they've written. The Supreme Court has done none of those things and this is the sort of crap I'd expect to hear from a Bircher, not someone intelligent like you.

[Brant Gaede]

SCOTUS modifies or eliminates laws or tells us what the Constitution really means first by affirming "separate but equal" then denying it in 1954. If it affirms any regulations promulgated by bureaucrats but not actually made in a law passed by Congress it has effectively created a law out of whole cloth so de facto becomes de jure but not through an act of Congress. There are four branches of government. The over-whelming number of federal rules and regulations that rule our lives are not properly laws at all. Think in terms of like 99% of them. It may actually be 90% or 99.99%. My only point here is suggest a different, more proper perspective. Then there is the Chief Executive arbitrarily modifiying law to suit its purposes as it has done with "Obamacare."

The entirety of the Federal Government is out to enslave us one way or another for its own good. Laws are taffy in its hands. One can get side-tracked by conflating "original intent" with present consequences.

--Brant

[Samson Corwell]

SCOTUS modifies or eliminates laws or tells us what the Constitution really means first by affirming "separate but equal" then denying it in 1954. If it affirms any regulations promulgated by bureaucrats but not actually made in a law passed by Congress it has effectively created a law out of whole cloth so de facto becomes de jure but not through an act of Congress. There are four branches of government. The over-whelming number of federal rules and regulations that rule our lives are not properly laws at all. Think in terms of like 99% of them. It may actually be 90% or 99.99%. My only point here is suggest a different, more proper perspective. Then there is the Chief Executive arbitrarily modifiying law to suit its purposes as it has done with "Obamacare."

The entirety of the Federal Government is out to enslave us one way or another for its own good. Laws are taffy in its hands. One can get side-tracked by conflating "original intent" with present consequences.

--Brant

But it later overturned "separate but equal". And what you're saying about affirming=legislating is just nonsense. If the courts didn't have judicial review, then federal regulation couldn't be challenged to begin with. That they made a mistake with Wickard does not discredit the rest of their decisions. Incorporation of the BoR was the best damn thing to ever happen in this country and I'll be damned if I ever let anyone put that at risk.

[Brant Gaede]

Samson, you have some justification for calling what Adam wrote "crap," if only because he somewhat wrote down to you. I'm giving you a pass for calling what I wrote "nonsense" because it might have been a spillover. Such illogical nomenclature, however, is just laying down smoke. If you get any value from my feedback, please stop it. If you don't want it note that I'm just replying to the smoke and that you have been successful.

--Brant

strike one!

[Selene]

Samson:

Have you read Alexis de Tocqueville?

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Samson:

Have you read Alexis de Tocqueville?

A...

Adam, courtesy suggests you tell why you are asking the question*. If you have previously, my apologies.

--Brant

*as such it's akin to cross-examination, likely of a hostile witness, but we aren't in court

[Wolf DeVoon]

what you're saying about affirming=legislating is just nonsense.

The U.S. Supreme Court has a propensity to create neo-constitutional "rights" and elastic government powers.

No judicial review of legislation as such. Cases come from U.S. appellate and state supreme courts.

[Selene]

Samson:

Have you read Alexis de Tocqueville?

A...

Adam, courtesy suggests you tell why you are asking the question*. If you have previously, my apologies.

--Brant

*as such it's akin to cross-examination, likely of a hostile witness, but we aren't in court

No problem Brant.

de Tocqueville is the individual who warned American citizens about the "soft tyranny."

Mark Levin has resurrected his words and warning in several of his books, specifically the Liberty Amendments.

Samson, upon information and belief elected to proceed on a rant against Mark Levin, who is a libertarian consetrvative in the Burke tradition.

I amn just trying to make this discussion about the "soft tyranny" and not about his hatred of Mark Levin.

I think it matters to be clear that this is about liberty and it's roots in the American psyche.

Hope that answers your question.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

what you're saying about affirming=legislating is just nonsense.

The U.S. Supreme Court has a propensity to create non-constitutional rights and elastic government powers.

Wolf,

Agreed.

The most recent being one of the weirdest rationalizations on record--the Obamacare mandate.

It's one thing to say they the government has a right take your stuff according to what it says it needs, but it's another to demand you buy something, otherwise they'll take your stuff.

Progressive is called progressive because it creeps along like cancer. It does not stand up and fight in one whack.

I'm all for putting a check and balance on the Supreme Court. Levin did a brilliant job of coming up with a suggestion. I saw him speak about this and he said he is open to hearing other suggestions. He is not open to allowing the Supreme Court to keep it's position of final authority. Neither am I.

May checks and balances based on individual rights reign so long as humans feel the tug of power over others in their loins.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

I'm all for putting a check and balance on the Supreme Court. Levin did a brilliant job of coming up with a suggestion. I saw him speak about this and he said he is open to hearing other suggestions. He is not open to allowing the Supreme Court to keep it's position of final authority. Neither am I.

The basic trouble is political appointment of Justices (and Federal district judges). It would be nice to require unanimous decisions instead of 5/4 simple majorities and limit them to the actual text and strict construction of the U.S. Constitution -- but that ain't gonna happen. We have a similar problem in Congress. Term limits would help. Congress will never vote in favor of it.

Levin's convention of the States could easily backfire, trigger a civil war between Large States and Small States.

Hmm. All of a sudden, that sounds pretty good. I'd vote for secession ... might even campaign for it

[Brant Gaede]

Samson:

Have you read Alexis de Tocqueville?

A...

Adam, courtesy suggests you tell why you are asking the question*. If you have previously, my apologies.

--Brant

*as such it's akin to cross-examination, likely of a hostile witness, but we aren't in court

No problem Brant.

de Tocqueville is the individual who warned American citizens about the "soft tyranny."

Mark Levin has resurrected his words and warning in several of his books, specifically the Liberty Amendments.

Samson, upon information and belief elected to proceed on a rant against Mark Levin, who is a libertarian consetrvative in the Burke tradition.

I amn just trying to make this discussion about the "soft tyranny" and not about his hatred of Mark Levin.

I think it matters to be clear that this is about liberty and it's roots in the American psyche.

Hope that answers your question.

A...

Thanks for the recap of your context. This discussion needed to be reset so it doesn't choke up on semantic trivialities.

--Brant

[Selene]

Wolf:

It is not "Levin's convention of the States," it is the brilliance of the Founders who feared both Legislative tyranny and Executive tyranny.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Notes for this article:

Note

Amending the Constitution

State Amendment Ratifications - Grid

Ratification Conventions

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf:

It is not "Levin's convention of the States," it is the brilliance of the Founders who feared both Legislative tyranny and Executive tyranny.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Notes for this article:

Note

Amending the Constitution

State Amendment Ratifications - Grid

Ratification Conventions

A...

...on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments

...ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof

Impossibly high bar. Good bar fight, though. Head for the exits!

[Selene]

Impossibly high bar. Good bar fight, though. Head for the exits!

Yes, it is a high bar.

Their reasoning, if you read Madison's and other's notes on the Conventtion in Philadelphia, was that there had to be a civil procedure to avoid a hot revolution, or, the a mass hysteria, i.e., the Kuramatsu Case in WW II, absolute Exectutive bribery a la the PPACA, see Claire McCaskel, the corrupt Senator from Missouri, even secession.

A...

[Samson Corwell]

what you're saying about affirming=legislating is just nonsense.

The U.S. Supreme Court has a propensity to create neo-constitutional "rights" and elastic government powers.

No judicial review of legislation as such. Cases come from U.S. appellate and state supreme courts.

I'm just going to have to disagree.

[Samson Corwell]

Samson:

Have you read Alexis de Tocqueville?

A...

Adam, courtesy suggests you tell why you are asking the question*. If you have previously, my apologies.

--Brant

*as such it's akin to cross-examination, likely of a hostile witness, but we aren't in court

No problem Brant.

de Tocqueville is the individual who warned American citizens about the "soft tyranny."

Mark Levin has resurrected his words and warning in several of his books, specifically the Liberty Amendments.

Samson, upon information and belief elected to proceed on a rant against Mark Levin, who is a libertarian consetrvative in the Burke tradition.

I amn just trying to make this discussion about the "soft tyranny" and not about his hatred of Mark Levin.

I think it matters to be clear that this is about liberty and it's roots in the American psyche.

Hope that answers your question.

A...

I'm starting to get the feeling that "libertarian" is just a little more of a slippery label than I used to believe. I see Levin as a "conservative". I think the man is a total ass with his rants about "judicial activism" and Islamic jihad. An angry, spiteful populist.

[Selene]

I'm starting to get the feeling that "libertarian" is just a little more of a slippery label than I used to believe. I see Levin as a "conservative". I think the man is a total ass with his rants about "judicial activism" and Islamic jihad. An angry, spiteful populist.

Samson:

Interesting.

OK so this is not about de Tocqueville's soft tyranny, it is about your disliking Mark Levin.

I thought that was what this was about.

OK

Let's deal with Levin and only Levin.

Are you aware that he speaks highly of Ayh and her works? Yes or No.

Are you aware that he is heavily active in the Animal Rescue movement, including giving of his time and money to rescue adoptions and no-kill shelters? Yes or No?

Are you aware that he funds his own Landmark Legal Foundation? Yes or No?

Landmark Wins Discovery in EPA FOIA Case!

August 14, 2013

Federal District Judge Royce C. Lamberth today ordered that Landmark may conduct discovery to determine the extent to which EPA made a good faith effort to search senior officials' offices in response to Landmark's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information relating to the possible politicizing of the Agency's rulemaking process. Judge Lamberth's order was accompanied by a denial of the EPA's motion for summary judgment in the case.

Judge Lamberth's Opinion

Judge Lamberth's Order

I am not sure who you admire, however, this man is not an "ass" in my not hunmble opinion.

Out of curiosity, what are you doing with your life?

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

I'm just going to have to disagree.

You can disagree all you want. The Supreme Court can't proactively review legislation, period. Cases come from lower courts.

[Selene]

The U.S. Supreme Court has a propensity to create neo-constitutional "rights" and elastic government powers.

No judicial review of legislation as such. Cases come from U.S. appellate and state supreme courts.

I'm just going to have to disagree.

Sampson:

Which of Wolf's statements do you disagree with?

1) SCOTUS [supreme Court of the United States] has no Constitutional power to review legislation sua sponte

[by it's own action];

2) The U.S. Supreme Court has a propensity to create neo-constitutional "rights" and elastic government powers; or

3) all cases come from the lower/inferior courts.

A...

[Selene]

The U.S. Supreme Court has a propensity to create neo-constitutional "rights" and elastic government powers.

No judicial review of legislation as such. Cases come from U.S. appellate and state supreme courts.

I'm just going to have to disagree.

Sampson:

Which of Wolf's statements do you disagree with?

1) SCOTUS [supreme Court of the United States] has no Constitutional power to review legislation sua sponte

[by it's own action**];

2) The U.S. Supreme Court has a propensity to create neo-constitutional "rights" and elastic government powers; or

3) all cases come from the lower/inferior courts.

A...

**Latin for "of one's own accord; voluntarily." Used to indicate that a court has taken notice of an issue on its own motion without prompting or suggestion from either party.

As a general rule, where grounds for dismissal exist, an action is subject to dismissal on a court's own motion. A trial court has the power to dismiss an action sua sponte for want of prosecution, or failure to comply with the rules of civil procedure or a court's orders. A court may sua sponte enter a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction even though both parties have agreed to appear in the court.

See, e.g., Carlisle v. United States, 517 US 416 (1996) and Trest v. Cain, 522 US 87 (1997).

[BaalChatzaf]

The U.S. Supreme Court has a propensity to create neo-constitutional "rights" and elastic government powers.

No judicial review of legislation as such. Cases come from U.S. appellate and state supreme courts.

I'm just going to have to disagree.

Sampson:

Which of Wolf's statements do you disagree with?

1) SCOTUS [supreme Court of the United States] has no Constitutional power to review legislation sua sponte

[by it's own action**];

2) The U.S. Supreme Court has a propensity to create neo-constitutional "rights" and elastic government powers; or

3) all cases come from the lower/inferior courts.

A...

**Latin for "of one's own accord; voluntarily." Used to indicate that a court has taken notice of an issue on its own motion without prompting or suggestion from either party.

As a general rule, where grounds for dismissal exist, an action is subject to dismissal on a court's own motion. A trial court has the power to dismiss an action sua sponte for want of prosecution, or failure to comply with the rules of civil procedure or a court's orders. A court may sua sponte enter a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction even though both parties have agreed to appear in the court.

See, e.g., Carlisle v. United States, 517 US 416 (1996) and Trest v. Cain, 522 US 87 (1997).

Except for their rather rare original jurisdiction the Supreme Court in its appeals function can only consider -cases- of fact and law. There is no general power granted to the court to judge the constitutionality of acts of congress. Justice Marshall stretched the power of the court somewhat by indicating certain laws to be applied unconstitutionally in particular cases. That plus Stare Decisis gives the court someone of a power to rule about the constitutionality of laws. But they need -cases- to apply that power.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Samson Corwell]

The U.S. Supreme Court has a propensity to create neo-constitutional "rights" and elastic government powers.

No judicial review of legislation as such. Cases come from U.S. appellate and state supreme courts.

I'm just going to have to disagree.

Sampson:

Which of Wolf's statements do you disagree with?

1) SCOTUS [supreme Court of the United States] has no Constitutional power to review legislation sua sponte

[by it's own action];

2) The U.S. Supreme Court has a propensity to create neo-constitutional "rights" and elastic government powers; or

3) all cases come from the lower/inferior courts.

A...

The first two. The third is obviously true because cases can only reach SCOTUS through an appeals process. Substantive due process, or what you call "creating rights out of thin air" (strange complaint to hear from a natural rightser), is a good thing that's perfectly in line with the constitution and it will be removed when it's pried from my cold, dead hands.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm vague on this, but I think there is a special case or two, if not more, where the legal situation goes immediately to the SCOTUS.

--Brant