A View Bearing on Judicial Activism in the U.S.

[3RA1N1AC]

Stock Market Crash of 29 and Franklin Roosevelt?

it'd have to be before that, since The War Of Northern Aggression and Abraham Tyrannus were considered by many to be a giant nail in the coffin of states' rights. John Wilkes Booth for example would've seen it as the demise of states' rights. so... Civil War or pre Civil War, i'm sure.

i find the question a bit vague. there's one and only one event which is to be credited/blamed for starting the U.S. on the path toward a more centralized gov't?

how about... John Adams' appointment of William Marbury to a DC court bench. John Marshall then presides over the case of Marbury vs Madison and it's the beginning of the end for states' rights.

[Everose]

[QUOTE=3RA1N1AC]it'd have to be before that, since The War Of Northern Aggression and Abraham Tyrannus were considered by many to be a giant nail in the coffin of states' rights. John Wilkes Booth for example would've seen it as the demise of states' rights. so... Civil War or pre Civil War, i'm sure.



Do you have a winner, J2? Yeah 3rainiac!!!!

[vidcc]

BTW-

Vid:

There is no hay to be made by pointing out that "Judicial activism" is a term, which in the main, was coined by the right.

It merely serves to indicate their notice of the arrogance exhibited by those whose lifetime appointment, augmented by a cowed legislature, makes them unaccountable.

The term is also used by the left to cause alarm over the prospect of Bush appointing a constructionist Justice to the court, and guarantees more Democrat filibustering.

I believe the hand is placed on the bible to swear to uphold the constitution...not the other way round.
As to the filibuster...how many judges have been approved and how many denied? We do not live in a dictatorship

[3RA1N1AC]

Who said "one and only one event"?

The critical event, surely.

perhaps that's a better way of putting it. my intention was along the lines of this: does the American timeline consist of an era where states' rights are the priority, then this critical event happens, and then the national gov't moves in to start trampling all over the rights of the states? or had there been an ongoing dispute from the very beginning, Federalism Vs Republicanism, which would linger for a while and inevitably be settled in favor of one doctrine or the other?

"Abraham Tyrannus"?

Booth's declaration after he jumped from the balcony of Ford's Theater, 'course. ;|

but yes. Lincoln has long been regarded as something of a hero for preserving the Union and moving to abolish slavery. however during his presidency there was a huge segment of the country (both in the North and the South) who felt that he'd thoroughly violated the rights of the southern states and transformed the gov't into much more of a top-down hierarchy. i'd reckon the abridged story, if someone wanted to tell such a story, of the decline of states' rights in the early U.S. might begin with Marbury Vs Madison and end with the conclusion of the Civil War... rather than begin with the Civil War.

[Biggles]

Would it be fair to say that Lincoln's enforced remainder of the Southern States into the Union effectively ended the dream of the original founding fathers?

It would seem that post Civil War (which was probably the first modern war as we know it) the US became a country governed more akin to what Europeans would consider a centralised bureaucratic entity.

[3RA1N1AC]

Would it be fair to say that Lincoln's enforced remainder of the Southern States into the Union effectively ended the dream of the original founding fathers?

i'm sure there are plenty of historians & political scholars who'd say this is precisely the case. and prolly a lot who'd say that's not the case at all. the founders of the U.S. were not all of the same mind, so it's difficult to attribute one dream to all of them. some of them favored the idea of a loosely knit federation, some favored the idea of a centralized gov't, some were primarily concerned with getting a guarantee of individual rights... and what they ended up with was a compromise that everyone was not necessarily completely satisfied with, but were willing to nevertheless give it a try.

[Rat Faced]

and what they ended up with was a compromise that everyone was not necessarily completely satisfied with, but were willing to nevertheless give it a try.

And if it didnt work, and they decided that they didnt want to be part of the "Federation", then that was tough...

I aways thought the American Civil War a little hypocritical..

I mean, the US states broke away from Britain because they didnt feel that they were represented properly.

The Southern States of the USA did the same thing, didnt they? (Slavery was only part of the argument, although well used for its propaganda value )

It did, however squash the theory that the US was a federation of Independant States as its impossible to leave the "Federation", hence have no sovereignity

[Tikibonbon]

Sorry, wrong window, wrong topic, I apologize.

[Mr JP Fugley]

And if it didnt work, and they decided that they didnt want to be part of the "Federation", then that was tough...

I aways thought the American Civil War a little hypocritical..

I mean, the US states broke away from Britain because they didnt feel that they were represented properly.

The Southern States of the USA did the same thing, didnt they? (Slavery was only part of the argument, although well used for its propaganda value )

It did, however squash the theory that the US was a federation of Independant States as its impossible to leave the "Federation", hence have no sovereignity

But what about the Prime Directive.

[Rat Faced]

But what about the Prime Directive.

The Human Race has never followed the Prime Directive and never will, except by not invading Denmark for the 100 years or so it had a standing army of only 7... Maybe we were still wary of that Viking Heritage then

We know we shouldnt, but theres always a smart arse around that does anyway.. fully justifying his right to interfere in the internal affairs of others, whilst defending like a lunatic the right to do what the f*ck he wants where he is; without anyone else criticising.

Hmmm, bet i get told that that was anti-american... and i wasnt even thinking of USA when i wrote it