Talk:American History Lecture Four

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

This needs a title that more specifically tells what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IamALiberalDealWithIt (talk)

I'm wondering if these lectures should be moved out of the mainspace, maybe to Lecture:American History Lecture 4 or something like that. Jrssr5 13:43, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Might I request that someone sticks a category on this? The lock is messing with my categorization binge.--Jimmyz 00:13, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Marshall Court: Agree on Principle, Disagree on Specifics

Aschlafly, I came across this site by way of the "evolution" article. I liked it, and I've since found that we share a lot of views; I just signed up for an account, now, and I'm glad to be here.

However, I do disagree with your characterization of the Marshall Court. Surely Marshall's creation of judicial review later came to be abused by today's judiciary (Scalia's dissent in Boumediene was possibly the best "calling out" we'll get against the activist bench; too bad it was only a dissent), but I think you're wrong on two points. First, Marshall didn't so much create judicial review as activate it. It's arguably well-founded in the Constitution (otherwise, the Supremacy Clause would be nothing more than a dead letter) and the Framers in debates seemed to recognize that the Supreme Court would be able to look after the Constitution. And second, the Supreme Court has long had checks & balances on it, apart from political figures simply ignoring it (which I cannot approve, no matter which party does it). Namely, the Court can have its jurisdiction withdrawn by the Exceptions clause, subject to Article III's internal & external limitations, and the Court, of course, can only adjudicate issues which present a "case or controversy." The Standing limitation & the exceptions "check," at least, present two Congressional balances on judicial authority.

That said, if the Court's judicial review power was correct ab initio, we don't disagree that it's run amok in recent years :).

I'd be happy to add information to the Marbury section if you'd like. The history behind it is really quite fascinating, as you no doubt know.-CMarius

CMarius, thanks for your insights. I welcome your contributions, and I don't disagree with your comments above. Marbury is not very objectionable. However, I think the pattern of Marshall's decisions, and their aggressiveness at establishing federal power (particularly power by the federal judiciary), are objectionable. And his tenure of 35 years? If 8 years was enough for George Washington, I don't see how Marshall justified being in charge for 35.--Aschlafly 19:32, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
There's no doubt that 35y is quite a while, and that the founding generation created, by their actions, the precedent future generations would follow (like Washington's two-term retirment becoming an unspoken constitutional rule until liberal FDR came along). But Marshall had some justification for that: the Constitution explicitly gave him the right; the Constitution did not limit the President's terms or suggest the lack of a limit, and while Washington could've stayed on, fears of creating a de facto monarchy were less important than fears of creating a lifetime Article III judiciary. Also, of course, life tenure defrays concerns of politicization in the judiciary. Or, well... it was supposed to :).
Pleased to make your acquaintance :). I'll have to draw up a section and put it here to see if you want it added.-CMarius 19:41, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Though I stand by my original constructive criticism (that there were some Constitutional checks on the early Court), I am enjoying watching your additions to the lecture. It takes me back to high school (I always loved history!). I like the remark at the end of the Marshall Court section, "there will be more on Justice Taney..." You better believe it. Dred Scott still brings a tear of sorrow to my eye, and righteous rage to my heart.-CMarius 23:07, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks. This lecture still needs about 10,000 bytes (about 2,000 words), especially on slavery-related issues from 1800-1840. Help welcome!--Aschlafly 23:08, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Tomorrow I'll do what I can.... I don't remember so much of slavery.... but I'll try!-CMarius 23:10, 29 September 2008 (EDT)