should congress impeach judges?

[DMF]

DMF I would sue the Jack boots off that thug!!!!!!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You happy now .....And no one wants to play with you 'cause it is thread drift bordering on thread hijack !!

It's certainly NOT thread drift, or anything close to hijack. I'm addressing the issue at hand. Case in point, you're against the Court creating law on their own, but it was impossible to sue a federal agent for damages if they violated your rights until 1972. The Supreme Court in 1972 created that ability on their own, without Congress, in the case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Federal Agents. They "set policy" or "made law to do something Congress did not intend."

Again, I think Bivens is a good ruling, but the point is, the Court did precisely what many here are whining about, despite the fact that most (if not all) are like you, and want the ability to sue a federal agent if he/she violates your rights. The same is true of the views on the exclusionary rule, and the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.

I'm pointing out hypocrisy, and people don't "want to play," because they know I'm right.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

But in those examples....

Judges were simply doing what they do. Making sure the Constitution applies to everyone equally . Where is the equal protection under the law if no civil remedy is allowed upon a Federal agent that has gone outside his oath and authority ? ... So basically it would not be the same as judicial activism in my mind. Sampleing laws outside of the limits the Founding Fathers laid down to get with the times in deciding cases is not part of the process inside the Constitution without an ammendment and does meet my idea of Judicial activism

 

[Rebar]

Congress does not have the authority to impeach judges because they deem the judges decision to be activist, which is what we are talking about here.

So, in other words, you cannot impeach a judge based on any ruling at all? I strongly disagree with that, and that Congress cannot do so.

There are plenty of rulings that are easily identified as activist, and those judges should be subject to impeachment hearings. It's part of the checks and balances built into the Constitution. One that has been ignored, and we are suffering the consequences of that right now with rediculously unconstitutional gun laws, violations of free speech (McCain-Fiengold, campus "hate speech" codes, etc.), and the list goes on and on.

The plain fact is, the judicial branch has been packed with left-wing activist judges, and they've been riding roughshod over the Constitution and our rights, without any checks whatsoever. If the Congress doesn't start impeaching these judges, then the representatives who are in charge of these committees should be impeached themselves.

 

[woerm]

Resume oops,

Byron,

while reading your post I mistook the comment about resumes to apply to the first group (sitting judges) instead of the constutional conv types.

sorry.

however,

that said the sitting judges need direct, nonabstract disipline.

the congress should provide that, impeachment, jurisdictional adjustment what ever sanctions can be applied must be applied.

when we can't get 4 justices on theSCOTUS to defend the constution against outright state and judical abuse.

in Silveira we couldn't get 4 justices to review a state eviscrating the second ammendment then the fed judicary ejects the second ammendment from the constution period. and the SCOTUS can't find time to hear arguement on if second ammendment is incorporated by the 14th ammd equal protection clause

7 reptile appointees, and we can't get 4 to say the 2nd ammd needs to be incorporated.

not to mention why are we even talking about incorporation at all the legislative history of the 14th specificaly states the right to keep and bear arms applied to all citizens and was to be protected from state action
the 14th was written in response to the black codes etc set up by the ex confederate states to keep the blacks from protecting themselves for the KKK and its affilated terror orgs.

the fed judicary is in sad need of a through overhaul.

r

 

[Fletchette]

For those that do not think Congress should be able to impeach justices I have a question. What is the "check and balance" for a corrupt/treasonous judge? How do we deal with a blatent example of corrupt judgement?

For example, what if we were in the late 1850's. The Supreme Court just made a very bad decision in the Dred Scott case.

What do we do?

 

[buzz_knox]

Actually, "judicial activism" seems to mean "I disagree with the court's ruling". I haven't read the term being used this much since reading up on the civil rights movement. Seems like lots of people were slinging the term "judicial activism" around when those nefarious left-wingers on the Supreme Court ruled on Brown vs. Board of Education.

More along the lines of a judge deciding to literally take the law into his/her own hands and do a bit of judicial equity to fulfill his/her beliefs and desires.

As for the citation to Brown v. Board, it's wholly misplaced. That was a proper implementation of the 14th Amendment, by determining that the "separate but equal" concept inherent segregated schools violated the 14th Amendment prohibition. If you want to talk activism, you have to look at "separate but equal" itself. There, the Court did not want to deal with the clear intent of the 14th Amendment, and decided to develop a bogus argument to justify segregation.

 

[DMF]

Judges were simply doing what they do. Making sure the Constitution applies to everyone equally . Where is the equal protection under the law if no civil remedy is allowed upon a Federal agent that has gone outside his oath and authority ? ... So basically it would not be the same as judicial activism in my mind. Sampleing laws outside of the limits the Founding Fathers laid down to get with the times in deciding cases is not part of the process inside the Constitution without an ammendment and does meet my idea of Judicial activism

No the Courts were "setting policy," and "making law," rather than holding to "the letter of the law, as Congress (or the constitution) intended it to read."

Congress allowed for torts against the government with the FTCA, and could have done the same with Constitutional Torts for individual agents of the government, but chose not too. So the Courts did it on their own.

While I like the rulings in Weeks, Silverthorne Lumber, Mapp, and Bivens, I also recognize those rulings do exactly what many here are whining about. Those rulings set policy, or made law, without following the letter of the law as the Constitution, or Congress intended.

To support those decisions, while at the same time saying the Court should not have the power to do what was accomplished with those decisions, is hypocritical.

Too many people here want to have their cake and eat it too. They think the Courts are out of control, except when they agree with the decision. They love the parts of the Constitution that conveniently support their view of the world, but ignore the rest if it gets in the way.

 

[gc70]

Yes, DMF, you are playing semantic games and splitting hairs.

You claim that the Supreme Court engages in "setting policy" or "making law." I will concede that, not in the way you imply, but as a necessary function of the court.

The only "justice" produced by the court is in the form of the remedies it orders along with its decisions. Without remedies, the court would hear cases and the decisions would sound like this: "We rule this law to be unconstitional, but we can't do anything to stop it - too bad." If the court only gave opinions on constitutionality, without dispensing remedies, it would be totally powerless.

Do you believe that the Supreme Court should be a powerless debating society?

 

[DMF]

gc70, I have NEVER said that the Courts should be powerless. Rather I am just pointing out the hypocrisy expressed here, and elsewhere, concerning the court rulings.

Apparently, you, I, ksnecktie, TMC, and GT are all in agreement. It is OK for the Court to "set policy" and "make laws" in ways that do not strictly adhere to "the letter of the law as defined by Congress", because we all have said the exclusionary rule, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, and Bivens Analogy are all good things. In those decisions the Court did in fact set policy, and "make law" rather than adhering to "the letter of the law, as Congress (or the constitution) intended it to read."

There were already remedies available under the law, in all the cases I have brought up. However, the Courts felt the remedies available under the law were not enough, and created their own. They were acting in exactly the manner many here have said they should not. You can't have it both ways. Either they must strictly adhere to "the letter of the law" or they should have the power to expand beyond that as they did in Weeks, Silverthorne, Mapp, Bivens, etc, etc, etc.

 

[gc70]

DMF, I don't recall agreeing with anyone.

My point is that prescribing remedies is an inherent part of the Supreme Court's functions. I do not see how the court can function without prescribing remedies. Nor do I see how the court's remedies can be reasonably controlled. Therein lies the perplexing issue of the court sometimes being perceived as having reached too far and "setting policy" or "making law."

Either they must strictly adhere to "the letter of the law" or they should have the power to expand beyond that as they did in Weeks, Silverthorne, Mapp, Bivens, etc, etc, etc.

I decline to choose either of your answers; one emasculates the court and the other grants it power beyond the Constitution. However, only providing the other party with a selection between untenable options is a classic debating tactic.

 

[DMF]

gc70, the point is the Court created remedies where remedies already existed. Because there were existing remedies, they went beyond the intent of the Constitution and Congress. Also, they created a "brightline" rule, or in other words "set policy" or "made law" that would apply to more than just relief in the specific case decided.

Also, please reference my earlier comment about punishments (remedies) as defined in the US Code. Congress has set penalties for violating the law. In the cases I mentioned the Supreme Court decided on their own to go beyond what Congress felt appropriate.

I decline to choose either of your answers; one emasculates the court and the other grants it power beyond the Constitution. However, only providing the other party with a selection between untenable options is a classic debating tactic.

So who decides which decisions go too far, and which are weak, and do nothing? Based on this last statement of yours, I suspect you and I understand there is a grey area here. Therefore we have 9 justices in the Supreme Court, so there is balance in the decisions. That is also the purpose for the checks and balances between the three branches of government, which plays a huge role in who becomes a federal judge.

All the whining about judicial activism is ridiculous, especially when people here will constantly be addressing the grey areas, and waffling on when the court must be held "to the letter of the law," and when they can expand to provide justice.

The whining about "judicial activism" is mostly illogical emotional BS. In the end all the people who are unhappy with the ruling will most likely refer to that decision as judicial activism, and those that agree with it will likely cheer it as a triumph of good over evil. The vast majority, on both sides, will ignore whether the decision had sound legal reasoning or not.

The above is true whether it's liberals, concervatives, libertarians, etc, etc, who are whining about judicial activism.

 

[Fletchette]

Too many people here want to have their cake and eat it too. They think the Courts are out of control, except when they agree with the decision. They love the parts of the Constitution that conveniently support their view of the world, but ignore the rest if it gets in the way.

Huh?!? That seems like a very broad statement. I am just asking that the Supreme Court stop loving only "the parts of the Constitution that conveniently support their view of the world".

For example, the Supreme Court should rule that the KKK can peacably assemble and speak their minds...despite the fact that I do not agree with the KKK.

Another example: The Supreme Court should have ruled that McCain Feinstein violates the First Amendment...even if that means idiot gun grabbers get to speak their minds.

My view of the world directly contradicts the KKK and gun grabber's view of the world, but I accept their right to freely speak under the First Amendment. I think I am being completely consitant here.

That said, the Supreme court does make serious mistakes. Like I said before, if it were 1857 and the Supreme Court just ruled on Dred Scott, shouldn't we try to impeach the judges?!?

We didn't ... and we know what happened.

 

[Byron Quick]

This clearly is a violation of his oath of office. That is most certainly an impeachable offense. Why? Because intentionally neglecting to uphold and defend the Constitution IS "adhering to their Enemies" of the United States.

Even if I stipulated that your construction of the meaning of this clause is relevant to that judge's actions(which I do not); trying him for treason would still be a very tentative prosecution. There is a reason that the US government has held so few treason trials in its history: the standards for conviction set forth in the Constitution are darn near unobtainable. Once again, there was good reason for the framers making the standards so strict: they had had their fill of almost any action against the British Crown being prosecuted as treason. They had had enough and were determined not to saddle themselves with that kind of legalistic junk ever again. I believe that if we could hold a seance with their ghosts that they would tell us that impeachment of judges under the standards brought forth in this thread would be a case of the cure being more deadly to liberty than the disease. The treason charge is one that they held to be so potentially deadly to the rights of citizens that they made it a crime almost impossible to successfully prosecute. Just think, the prosecution could have notes in your handwriting detailing exactly what you had done, and in the absence of two witnesses to overt action or your confession in open court...your handwritten notes detailing your treason could not be used to convict you.

 

[Byron Quick]

That said, the Supreme court does make serious mistakes. Like I said before, if it were 1857 and the Supreme Court just ruled on Dred Scott, shouldn't we try to impeach the judges?!?

Just went back and read the sections authorizing impeachment in the Constitution. Nowhere did it mention impeachment for making mistakes or failing to prevent wars. Just because it strikes a person or a group of people as being a wonderful idea today, doesn't mean it is a remedy endorsed by the Constitution.

Apparently some folks in Congress and in the legislatures of the Union thought that the Constitution as extant could not be an effective shield against slavery. They passed a couple of amendments to close that door.

Amendment XIII
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Amendment XIV explicitly renders any human born within US territory as a US citizen thereby making the Dred Scott decision moot. I doubt if the victors of the War Between the States would have bothered if they had not been concerned that the Dred Scott case had very possibly been decided within the constraints of the Constitution as it existed at that time.

 

[gc70]

Based on this last statement of yours, I suspect you and I understand there is a grey area here.

All the whining about judicial activism is ridiculous, especially when people here will constantly be addressing the grey areas, and waffling on when the court must be held "to the letter of the law," and when they can expand to provide justice.

In the end all the people who are unhappy with the ruling will most likely refer to that decision as judicial activism, and those that agree with it will likely cheer it as a triumph of good over evil.

NOW I am in agreement with someone, DMF - you.

 

[RealGun]

I don't think impeachment is appropriate for doing what is normal within the bar. You are asking lawyers to indict lawyers. Legal judgment becomes more and more bizarre as the years pass, so I would focus more attention on the profession, the culture that created this mess. Their sense of decorum, tradition, and power will prevent any voluntary fix from within.

To me the key issues would be Congressional productivity and nonpartisan voting. Right now all the decisions are made in caucus to keep the true debate off CSPAN. You will notice more and more bills and amendments that already have enough sponsors to pass a formal vote.

Congress and Presidents clearly want the Court to be political rather than objective defenders of the Constitution, which they don't have the resolve to amend. Justice will then not be served without the Court becoming increasingly abstract in their use of the existing Constitution for original jurisdiction. Are they making law or doing Congress's job for them? Cases beg for due process yet may have little obvious constitutional basis for a ruling.

I think the short term fight should be whether the Court takes jurisdiction that Congress has not granted to the Court. Of course, I might also challenge the Court for declining to hear cases for which they clearly have jurisdiction, and the cases appear to have merit. As an example, refer to declining strong gun cases like Silveira v Lockyer without comment.

Congress could also counter by setting aside precedent that is believed unfounded and which weaves a web that makes the Constitution almost irrelevant.

 

[Fletchette]

Apparently some folks in Congress and in the legislatures of the Union thought that the Constitution as extant could not be an effective shield against slavery. They passed a couple of amendments to close that door.

Ok, I believe what you are saying here (and I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am just saying this so we are on the same page), is that despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that a black man was "property", the Constitution did not explicitly outlaw slavery, and therefore felt compelled to add the 13th and 14th Amendments.

If that was your intent, then you may have a point. Unfortunately, without a method to impeach the judges we had a civil war and a whole bunch of people were killed.

To illustrate the necessity of a legal tool to impeach judges, allow me to expand my example. What if five of the Supreme Court judges ruled that a black man is property today, completely ignoring the 13th and 14th Amendments? With such a blatent example of not following the Constitution that that would be, should we not be able to impeach those judges?

 

[Byron Quick]

If that was your intent, then you may have a point. Unfortunately, without a method to impeach the judges we had a civil war and a whole bunch of people were killed.

Yes, but in your quoted example there is no constitutional remedy which is relevant to Dred Scott. The ruling was not a high crime or misdemeanour.

To illustrate the necessity of a legal tool to impeach judges, allow me to expand my example. What if five of the Supreme Court judges ruled that a black man is property today, completely ignoring the 13th and 14th Amendments? With such a blatent example of not following the Constitution that that would be, should we not be able to impeach those judges?

There is an extant mechanism to impeach judges in such a case which would fall under the Constitution.

Since you are drawn to extreme illustrations to make a point(and I like doing such myself) let me make one of my own: Congress proposes and passes a Constitutional Amendment stripping anyone who has ever used the internet handle "Flechette" of all right and protection under the Constitution, federal laws, state constitutions, and state law. He is to be outlawed and it is the legal duty of any US citizen to kill him on sight. A bounty of $1,000,000 wil be paid without being subject to any tax, fee, or duty. This amendment nullifies all conflicting sections of the Constitution with regards to individuals known on the internet as "Flechette." Congress sends it to the states and those idiots ratify the darn thing. Think that would be a good idea? Guess what? It would be constitutional by definition.

OK, the point of my over the top example is to relay just how dangerous monkeying around with the Constitution really is. The framers inserted checks and balances into our system. They've worked pretty well over time.
No, it doesn't correct course on a dime and it is not perfect. But to judge by our history to date, over time it gets where it should go.

Flechette, one question: do you really believe that if the Supreme Court had freed Dred Scott in 1857 that it would have averted the civil war? Given the temper of the times, it could be argued more reasonably that it would have started the war in 1857

 

[Control Group]

The big problem most people in favor of impeaching judges seem to be addressing is the issue of rememdy. If I'm reading these posts right, the thought process is that there should be some means of dealing with a rogue judiciary, or we face a situation where the judges are our de facto rulers.

What all the posts so far have seemed to miss is that there exists a remedy, and it isn't impeachment. It's passing clarifying laws or, if necessary, Constitutional amendments. If the SCOTUS has interpreted a law or portion of the Constitution in a way that is out of line enough in the opinions of enough people, a law or amendment specifically addressing the issue can be passed.

Is this a high bar to get over to rectify a ruling? Absolutely. But then, so is impeachment, and this one is Constitutional. If Congress takes it upon itself to start impeaching judges when they hand down rulings that Congress doesn't like, we've completely eliminated the judicial check on Congressional power: the judges will serve at the whim of the lawmakers.

Let's also not forget that the SCOTUS isn't actually capable of making law. While their ruling is utterly final in whatever case they're deciding, there's nothing stopping a lower court from ruling in contravention in subsequent cases. Presumably, if the case got appealed up to the SCOTUS, such a ruling would be overturned (which is why courts don't, as a rule, find in opposition to the supremes) - but if the SCOTUS ruling was outlandish enough, it's fairly likely that enough lower courts would find in opposition to either grind the system to a halt or force a change (I'm thinking in terms of elected representatives refusing to stand for re-election, and the like).

 

[ksnecktieman]

Who's duty is it to end a law that is "repugnant to the constitution"?

Am I the only one to think that the second amendment is totally ignored, by law makers, and law enforcement, and the courts?

Am I the only one that thinks "Mccain/Feingold" is in direct contempt of the first ammendment?

 

[Waitone]

No and No.

The second amendment is anything but ignored. Fact is all branches of government are engaged in neutering it.

Campaign Finance Control is as blatant an attack on personal freedom as I've found anywhere. And to think it could have just disappeared if Bush had exercised leadership as opposed to political gamesmanship.

 

[Byron Quick]

If I'm reading these posts right, the thought process is that there should be some means of dealing with a rogue judiciary, or we face a situation where the judges are our de facto rulers.

It depends on how you wish to define a rogue judge. The framers inserted a method of ridding ourselves of rogue judges,i.e, impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. However, they also defined the parameters that constitutionally define impeachable offenses. A judge ruling in a way that offends you ain't one of them. Think the framers might have had a reason for not listing that a judge disagreeing with Congress is an impeachable offense? Perhaps the people crying for impeachment in the face of no Constitutional authority to do so really think the framers were that naive, that ignorant, or that stupid.

I don't.

Congress has the constitutional authority to organize the federal court system below the Supreme Court. The Senate has the duty of advice and consent of presidentially appointed Supreme Court Justices. The House has the constitutional authority to impeachany US civil officer for high crimes and misdemeanors. The Senate has the authority to try impeached officers.

Under the Constitution as it stands today...trying to impeach a federal judge because he or she had a parking ticket would be constitutional. Trying to impeach one because he or she didn't kowtow to Congress...the framers set the judiciary up to be independent for good and sufficient reason.

Oh, yeah. Check your history. Check James Madison's biography and the biographies of the other people involved in drafting the Constitution. The checks and balances were not independent creations dreamed up on the spur of the moment during the drafting. Rather, practical checks and balances in a republic was a concept that had been debated for decades prior to the drafting of the Constitution. Once again, the framers had the example of the British Crown and a judiciary that was dependent for its tenure solely on the goodwill of the executive and legislative bodies. They decided they didn't like that.

Much of what folks of whatever political persuasion decry about the US Constitution can be answered with a brief perusal of English history. To find out why the framers disallowed this power or that power; all that is necessary is to see what Crown and Parliament did with the aforementioned power over several centuries.

Remember the George Santayana quote:"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The framers had learned from their history. Their history with the addition of a bit over two centuries is our history. But I'm afraid we're doomed to repeat it.

Trust Congress to rein in the judiciary? Check the amendments proposed in the last five Congresses. We've got idjits that want to repeal cruel and unusual punishment from the Bill of Rights. Guess they never read of being drawn and quartered. Or maybe they haven't learned from Germany's experience and believe that no Western, civilized nation could sink to such barbarities. They're ignorant idiots if they do, pure and simple.

 

[Fletchette]

There is an extant mechanism to impeach judges in such a case which would fall under the Constitution.

So are you saying that if the Supreme Court blatently ignores the Constitution, Congress could impeach?

Since you are drawn to extreme illustrations to make a point(and I like doing such myself) let me make one of my own: Congress proposes and passes a Constitutional Amendment stripping anyone who has ever used the internet handle "Flechette" of all right and protection under the Constitution, federal laws, state constitutions, and state law...

Given the present political environment, this is not an unbelievable example.

OK, the point of my over the top example is to relay just how dangerous monkeying around with the Constitution really is.

On this I whole-heartedly agree with you. I am very reluctant to mess around with the Constitution for this reason. However, I am equally concerned with Federal judges simply ignoring the Constitution.

Flechette, one question: do you really believe that if the Supreme Court had freed Dred Scott in 1857 that it would have averted the civil war? Given the temper of the times, it could be argued more reasonably that it would have started the war in 1857

No, I don't think it would have averted Civil War. It probably would have started in 1857. The difference would have been that we would not have the Supreme Court on record saying that people can be property. Semantics, perhaps, but a definite low in our collective history...

Quote:
If I'm reading these posts right, the thought process is that there should be some means of dealing with a rogue judiciary, or we face a situation where the judges are our de facto rulers.



It depends on how you wish to define a rogue judge. The framers inserted a method of ridding ourselves of rogue judges,i.e, impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. However, they also defined the parameters that constitutionally define impeachable offenses. A judge ruling in a way that offends you ain't one of them.

I understand and agree with your concern. I am not advocating impeachment based on a mere subjective disagreement, I am concerned that many of our judges are indeed "rogue judges" by your definition; they are blantently ignoring the Constitution.

Think the framers might have had a reason for not listing that a judge disagreeing with Congress is an impeachable offense? Perhaps the people crying for impeachment in the face of no Constitutional authority to do so really think the framers were that naive, that ignorant, or that stupid.

I don't.

No, I don't think that the framers were naive, ignorant or stupid. I also do not think that they could forsee a globalist future where judges en masse start ignoring the Constitution because they personally feel that it is obsolete and instead start ruling based on foreign law.

Trust Congress to rein in the judiciary? Check the amendments proposed in the last five Congresses. We've got idjits that want to repeal cruel and unusual punishment from the Bill of Rights. Guess they never read of being drawn and quartered. Or maybe they haven't learned from Germany's experience and believe that no Western, civilized nation could sink to such barbarities. They're ignorant idiots if they do, pure and simple.

No, I don't trust Congress, to put it bluntly. And yes, we do have a abundance of "idjits" that are ignoring the Constitution in other elected offices as well. However, you did agree that Congress could and should impeach rogue judges. The debate then moves to what, exactly, constitutes "ignoring the Constitution".

 

[Fletchette]

A few comments on this subject...

I am very reluctant to start messing around with the Constitution because I truly believe in the ideals that it sets forth. This respect for the Constitution is why I am so concerned with judges, and elected officials, simply ignoring the Constitution because they feel it is obsolete. If they were honorable, these officials would be honest and move to amend the Constitution to their liking (and we could oppose it) rather than surreptitiously changing it by establishing a precedent of ignoring it.

I suppose that it is impossible to have redundant checks and balances against every possibility, as there are a finite branches of government. If all three branches conspire to ignore the foundations of our nation in a conspiracy of arrogance, are there no alternatives than to openly rebel?

I suppose that is the reason the Second Amendment exists.

 

[Byron Quick]

No, I don't think that the framers were naive, ignorant or stupid. I also do not think that they could forsee a globalist future where judges en masse start ignoring the Constitution because they personally feel that it is obsolete and instead start ruling based on foreign law.

This, on its face, appears to be a reasonable example. Further reflection, however, reveals it to be the same argument some of the gun-grabbers use to call for a collectivist interpretation of the Second Amendemnt:"the framers could not have foreseen the development of AK-47's aand other evil, black rifles with pistol grips, bayonet lugs, and high capacity magazines."

Both arguments have the same logical flaw,i.e,it is irrelevant that the framers could not foresee the future with precision. What they did was, in my view, superior: they wrote the Constitution to withstand the tendencies of governments to gather to themselves ever more power and to misuse that power. And to withstand the drive to excess power that drives many men. Their knowledge of human nature as it relates to government was their true genius.

Oh, the thing you mentioned about the Dred Scott case being a low point in our history? Irrelevant. The issue is written indelibly into the US Constitution. The slave trade will end by 1807. Negroes will count as 3/5 of a whilte person for purposes of apportionment for representation. Congress had sullied our history before the gavel opened the initial Supreme Court hearing.