8chan/8kun QResearch Posts (9)
#22788446 at 2025-03-19 16:49:59 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #27835: JFK Files N Moar Edition
>>22788407
The matter of the supremacy and influence of the Judiciary in a representative republic has been an issue of contention since this nation's inception as the Founders, while brilliant in their overall concept of government, erred greatly in the creation of an unaccountable judiciary by relying on a factious Congress to serve as a check and balance on a co-equal branch when necessary.
A major debate during the constitutional ratification process in 1788 concerned the structure, power, and control of the Judiciary. The issue was twofold: 1) the degree of independence and the level of accountability of federal judges and 2) Judicial review of laws and statutes passed by Congress.
This prompted Alexander Hamilton (a staunch defender of the current system), using the pseudonym "Publius" to write in Federalist Paper No. 78 that the Judiciary would be the weakest of the three branches as it would not be able to overpower the Congress, since it controlled the purse strings and the President controlled the enforcement of the court's decisions.
Thus, the courts would have to depend on these branches to uphold their judgements. Further, federal judges must have life tenure and thus independence; however, Congress could remove a sitting judge via impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. He also argued that the courts should be tasked with the duty of reviewing statutes passed by Congress to determine if they are consistent with the Constitution as a means of restraint on the legislature. Hamilton further stated that because of the court's inherent weakness in enforcing their judgements, the possibility of corruption affecting judicial reviews would be a non-issue.
Countering Hamilton's argument was Robert Yates, using the pseudonym "Brutus" in the Anti-Federalist papers, who contended that his primary concern was that judges would substitute their will for the plain text of the Constitution. He wrote:
There is no power above them [the Courts] to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.
Thomas Jefferson, a staunch opponent of a powerful central government, also recognized the potential abuse of power by an out-of-control Judiciary and a recalcitrant Congress. In a letter to a Mr. Jarvis in 1820 Jefferson wrote:
You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiter of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our Judges and their power are the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of judges from that is quite dangerous.
The entire ongoing judicial debacle relative to the Executive Orders and actions by President Trump is a giant leap forward into what all these men feared: that Federal District and Appellate Court judges, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, would substitute their will or political opinions for the text of the Constitution or statutes, thus, establishing an uncontrolled oligarchy resulting in potential chaos as future presidents would either ignore or acquiescence to their rulings.
By refusing to address this long-festering issue, Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court have given the green light to 856 District and Appellate judges to effectively determine, for example, if all self-declared refugees must be granted asylum and together with any visa holder can remain in the country regardless of national security considerations.
Therefore, the Judiciary, not the President or Congress, is in charge of the nation's sovereignty as the Courts would be declaring themselves to be the sole arbitrators of all immigration policy relating to either legal or illegal immigrants as well as refugees.
However, there are remedies if the Supreme Court continues to allow the inferior courts to usurp the powers of Congress and the president. Congress, if it could get over its fractious tribalism, can:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/03/the_founders_provided_remedies_for_a_runaway_judiciary.html
#11101342 at 2020-10-16 11:39:33 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #14198: Semi Magical Moments Coalesce with the Sunrise and Autumn Breeze Edition
>>11101311
and Alexander Hamilton was a Piece of Deep State shit muahahah!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton
Constitutional Convention and ratification of the Constitution
In 1787, Hamilton served as assemblyman from New York County in the New York State Legislature and was chosen as a delegate for the Constitutional Convention by his father-in-law Philip Schuyler.[87]:191[88] Even though Hamilton had been a leader in calling for a new Constitutional Convention, his direct influence at the Convention itself was quite limited. Governor George Clinton's faction in the New York legislature had chosen New York's other two delegates, John Lansing Jr. and Robert Yates, and both of them opposed Hamilton's goal of a strong national government.[89][90] Thus, whenever the other two members of the New York delegation were present, they decided New York's vote, to ensure that there were no major alterations to the Articles of Confederation.[87]:195
Early in the Convention Hamilton made a speech
proposing a President-for-Life;it had no effect upon the deliberations of the convention. He proposed to have an elected president and elected senatorswho would serve for life,contingent upon "good behavior" and subject to removal for corruption or abuse; this idea contributed later to the hostile view of Hamilton as a monarchist sympathizer, held by James Madison.[91] Ultimately Hamilton wanted totake the idea of self government out of the Constitution,claiming thatpower should go to the "rich and well born".This idea all but isolated Hamilton from his fellow delegates and others who were tempered in the ideas of revolution and liberty.[92]
According to Madison's notes, Hamilton said in regards to the executive,"The English model was the only good oneon this subject. The hereditary interest of the king was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad… Let one executive be appointed for life who dares execute his powers."[93]
Hamilton argued, "And let me observe that an executive is less dangerous to the liberties of the people when in office during life than for seven years. It may be said this constitutes as an elective monarchy… But by making the executive subject to impeachment, the term 'monarchy' cannot apply…"[93] During the convention, Hamilton constructed a draft for the Constitution based on the convention debates, but he never presented it. This draft had most of the features of the actual Constitution. In this draft, the Senate was to be elected in proportion to the population, being two-fifths the size of the House, and the President and Senators were to be elected through complex multistage elections, in which chosen electors would elect smaller bodies of electors; they would hold office for life, but were removable for misconduct. The President would have an absolute veto. The Supreme Court was to have immediate jurisdiction over all lawsuits involving the United States, and state governors were to be appointed by the federal government.[94]
POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE FEW, CORRUPT AND CONTROL
This is an ongoing notable battle, you might not understand kek
#11101311 at 2020-10-16 11:34:13 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #14198: Semi Magical Moments Coalesce with the Sunrise and Autumn Breeze Edition
>>11101280
tyb
Consider Anti federalism or I will find you! kek
ANTI-FEDERALISM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism
Anti-Federalism was a late-18th century movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the 1787 Constitution.
The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried,
among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy. Though the Constitution was ratified and supplanted the Articles of Confederation,
Anti-Federalist influence helped lead to the passage of the United States Bill of Rights.
Major points
They believed the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights.true
They believed the Constitution created a presidency so powerful that it would become a monarchy.Almost happened
They believed the Constitution did too little with the courts and would create an out-of-control judiciary.happened
They believed that the national government would be too far away from the people and thus unresponsive to the needs of localities.happened
They believed the Constitution would abrogate, at least in part, the power of the states.[1]happened
History
During the American Revolution and its immediate aftermath, the term federal was applied to any person who supported the colonial union and the government formed under the Articles of Confederation.
After the war, the group that felt the national government under the Articles was too weak appropriated the name Federalist for themselves. Historian Jackson Turner Main wrote, "to them, the man of
'federal principles' approved of 'federal measures,' which meant those that increased the weight and authority or extended the influence of the Confederation Congress."[2]
As the Federalists moved to amend the Articles, eventually leading to the Constitutional Convention, they applied the term anti-federalist to their opposition. The term implied, correctly or not,
both opposition to Congress and unpatriotic motives. The Anti-Federalists rejected the term, arguing that they were the true Federalists. In both their correspondence and their local groups,
they tried to capture the term. For example, an unknown anti-federalist signed his public correspondence as "A Federal Farmer" and the New York committee opposing the Constitution was called the
"Federal Republican Committee." However the Federalists carried the day and the name Anti-Federalist forever stuck.
Notable Anti-Federalists
Patrick Henry[8] Thomas Jefferson[8] Samuel Adams[9]
George Mason[8] Richard Henry Lee[10][11] Robert Yates[11]
James Monroe[8] Amos Singletary[12] Mercy Otis Warren[13][11]
James Warren George Clinton[14] Melancton Smith[8]
James Winthrop[8] Luther Martin[15] Samuel Bryan
The Ordeal of the Constitution: The Antifederalists and the Ratification
Struggle of 1787-1788
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Ordeal_of_the_Constitution.html?id=mqQj501JO18C
#11101161 at 2020-10-16 11:18:44 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #14197: Supreme Comfort Edition
>>11101121
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton
Constitutional Convention and ratification of the Constitution
In 1787, Hamilton served as assemblyman from New York County in the New York State Legislature and was chosen as a delegate for the Constitutional Convention by his father-in-law Philip Schuyler.[87]:191[88] Even though Hamilton had been a leader in calling for a new Constitutional Convention, his direct influence at the Convention itself was quite limited. Governor George Clinton's faction in the New York legislature had chosen New York's other two delegates, John Lansing Jr. and Robert Yates, and both of them opposed Hamilton's goal of a strong national government.[89][90] Thus, whenever the other two members of the New York delegation were present, they decided New York's vote, to ensure that there were no major alterations to the Articles of Confederation.[87]:195
Early in the Convention Hamilton made a speech proposing a President-for-Life; it had no effect upon the deliberations of the convention.He proposed to have an elected president and electedsenators who would serve for life, contingent upon "good behavior" and subject to removal for corruption or abuse; this idea contributed later to the hostile view of Hamilton as a monarchist sympathizer, held by James Madison.[91]Ultimately Hamilton wanted to take the
idea of self government out of the Constitution,
claiming that power should go to the "rich and well born".
This idea all but isolated Hamilton from his fellow delegates and others who were tempered in the ideas of revolution and liberty.[92]
According to Madison's notes, Hamilton said in regards to the executive,
"The English model was the only good one on this subject.
he hereditary interest of the king was so interwoven with that
of the nation, and his personal emoluments so great,
that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad… Let one executive be appointed for life who dares
execute his powers."[93]
#11101121 at 2020-10-16 11:13:56 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #14197: Supreme Comfort Edition
ANTI-FEDERALISM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism
Anti-Federalism was a late-18th century movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the 1787 Constitution.
The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried,
among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy. Though the Constitution was ratified and supplanted the Articles of Confederation,
Anti-Federalist influence helped lead to the passage of the United States Bill of Rights.
Major points
They believed the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights.true
They believed the Constitution created a presidency so powerful that it would become a monarchy.Almost happened
They believed the Constitution did too little with the courts and would create an out-of-control judiciary.happened
They believed that the national government would be too far away from the people and thus unresponsive to the needs of localities.happened
They believed the Constitution would abrogate, at least in part, the power of the states.[1]happened
History
During the American Revolution and its immediate aftermath, the term federal was applied to any person who supported the colonial union and the government formed under the Articles of Confederation.
After the war, the group that felt the national government under the Articles was too weak appropriated the name Federalist for themselves. Historian Jackson Turner Main wrote, "to them, the man of
'federal principles' approved of 'federal measures,' which meant those that increased the weight and authority or extended the influence of the Confederation Congress."[2]
As the Federalists moved to amend the Articles, eventually leading to the Constitutional Convention, they applied the term anti-federalist to their opposition. The term implied, correctly or not,
both opposition to Congress and unpatriotic motives. The Anti-Federalists rejected the term, arguing that they were the true Federalists. In both their correspondence and their local groups,
they tried to capture the term. For example, an unknown anti-federalist signed his public correspondence as "A Federal Farmer" and the New York committee opposing the Constitution was called the
"Federal Republican Committee." However the Federalists carried the day and the name Anti-Federalist forever stuck.
Notable Anti-Federalists
Patrick Henry[8] Thomas Jefferson[8] Samuel Adams[9]
George Mason[8] Richard Henry Lee[10][11] Robert Yates[11]
James Monroe[8] Amos Singletary[12] Mercy Otis Warren[13][11]
James Warren George Clinton[14] Melancton Smith[8]
James Winthrop[8] Luther Martin[15] Samuel Bryan
The Ordeal of the Constitution: The Antifederalists and the Ratification
Struggle of 1787-1788
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Ordeal_of_the_Constitution.html?id=mqQj501JO18C
#11080284 at 2020-10-15 06:29:04 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #14171: Edition
ANTI-FEDERALISM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism
Anti-Federalism was a late-18th century movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy. Though the Constitution was ratified and supplanted the Articles of Confederation, Anti-Federalist influence helped lead to the passage of the United States Bill of Rights.
Major points
They believed the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights.true
They believed the Constitution created a presidency so powerful that it would become a monarchy. =Almost happened==
They believed the Constitution did too little with the courts and would create an out-of-control judiciary.happened
They believed that the national government would be too far away from the people and thus unresponsive to the needs of localities.happened
They believed the Constitution would abrogate, at least in part, the power of the states.[1]happened
History
During the American Revolution and its immediate aftermath, the term federal was applied to any person who supported the colonial union and the government formed under the Articles of Confederation. After the war, the group that felt the national government under the Articles was too weak appropriated the name Federalist for themselves. Historian Jackson Turner Main wrote, "to them, the man of 'federal principles' approved of 'federal measures,' which meant those that increased the weight and authority or extended the influence of the Confederation Congress."[2]
As the Federalists moved to amend the Articles, eventually leading to the Constitutional Convention, they applied the term anti-federalist to their opposition. The term implied, correctly or not, both opposition to Congress and unpatriotic motives. The Anti-Federalists rejected the term, arguing that they were the true Federalists. In both their correspondence and their local groups, they tried to capture the term. For example, an unknown anti-federalist signed his public correspondence as "A Federal Farmer" and the New York committee opposing the Constitution was called the "Federal Republican Committee." However the Federalists carried the day and the name Anti-Federalist forever stuck.
Notable Anti-Federalists
Patrick Henry[8] Thomas Jefferson[8] Samuel Adams[9]
George Mason[8] Richard Henry Lee[10][11] Robert Yates[11]
James Monroe[8] Amos Singletary[12] Mercy Otis Warren[13][11]
James Warren George Clinton[14] Melancton Smith[8]
James Winthrop[8] Luther Martin[15] Samuel Bryan
The Ordeal of the Constitution: The Antifederalists and the Ratification
Struggle of 1787-1788
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Ordeal_of_the_Constitution.html?id=mqQj501JO18C
#11079118 at 2020-10-15 04:39:33 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #14169 Cozy Confirmations Ahead Edition
>>11078899
I never liked this video yet:
13:00 - 14:00
He should have used the term Anti Federalist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism
Patrick Henry[8]
Thomas Jefferson[8]
Samuel Adams[9]
George Mason[8]
Richard Henry Lee[10][11]
Robert Yates[11]
James Monroe[8]
Amos Singletary[12]
Mercy Otis Warren[13][11]
James Warren
George Clinton[14]
Melancton Smith[8]
James Winthrop[8]
Luther Martin[15]
Samuel Bryan
Shame that most do not "do" History.
#10694694 at 2020-09-18 16:53:55 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #13687: Be Inspired, Break The Chains Edition
Remember that Alexander Hamilton "I am listening to an ebook" and "fuck Thomas Jefferson" Notable from yesterday?
Good job, Idiot!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton
Constitutional Convention and ratification of the Constitution
In 1787, Hamilton served as assemblyman from New York County in the New York State Legislature and was chosen as a delegate for the Constitutional Convention by his father-in-law Philip Schuyler.[87]:191[88] Even though Hamilton had been a leader in calling for a new Constitutional Convention, his direct influence at the Convention itself was quite limited. Governor George Clinton's faction in the New York legislature had chosen New York's other two delegates, John Lansing Jr. and Robert Yates, and both of them opposed Hamilton's goal of a strong national government.[89][90] Thus, whenever the other two members of the New York delegation were present, they decided New York's vote, to ensure that there were no major alterations to the Articles of Confederation.[87]:195
Early in the Convention Hamilton made a speech proposing aPresident-for-Life;it had no effect upon the deliberations of the convention. He proposed to have an elected president and electedsenators who would serve for life,contingent upon "good behavior" and subject to removal for corruption or abuse; this idea contributed later to the hostile view of Hamilton as a monarchist sympathizer, held by James Madison.[91] Ultimately Hamilton wanted to take the idea of self government out of the Constitution, claiming that power should go to the "rich and well born".This idea all but isolated Hamilton from his fellow delegates and others who were tempered in the ideas of revolution and liberty.[92]
According to Madison's notes, Hamilton said in regards to the executive, "TheEnglish model was the only goodone on this subject. The hereditary interest of the king was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad… Let one executive be appointed for life who dares execute his powers."[93]
And the Left just loved their award winning Broadway play "Hamilton" whose leading role was portrayed by a Black dude.
GTFO of here!
Are you really that stupid?
Yes! Yes they are!
and those Federalist Papers!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
Because History and books and all that icky stuffs!
If it was up to HAMILTON and his ilk, we would not have a Bill of Rights.
No no, wait!
"Wiki is not a good source, Aynon!"
"Never heard of Church Miltant before, Aynon!"
Kek!
#10690401 at 2020-09-18 03:37:23 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #13681: OOOOH NOOOOO Mr. Bill Edition
Constitutional Convention and ratification of the Constitution
In 1787, Hamilton served as assemblyman from New York County in the New York State Legislature and was chosen as a delegate for the Constitutional Convention by his father-in-law Philip Schuyler.[87]:191[88] Even though Hamilton had been a leader in calling for a new Constitutional Convention, his direct influence at the Convention itself was quite limited. Governor George Clinton's faction in the New York legislature had chosen New York's other two delegates, John Lansing Jr. and Robert Yates, and both of them opposed Hamilton's goal of a strong national government.[89][90] Thus, whenever the other two members of the New York delegation were present, they decided New York's vote, to ensure that there were no major alterations to the Articles of Confederation.[87]:195
Early in the Convention Hamilton made a speech proposing aPresident-for-Life; it had no effect upon the deliberations of the convention. He proposed to have an elected president and elected senators who wouldserve for life, contingent upon "good behavior" and subject to removal for corruption or abuse; this idea contributed later to the hostile view of Hamilton as a monarchist sympathizer, held by James Madison.[91] Ultimately Hamilton wanted to take the idea of self government out of the Constitution, claiming thatpower should go to the "rich and well born".This idea all but isolated Hamilton from his fellow delegates and others who were tempered in the ideas of revolution and liberty.[92]
According to Madison's notes, Hamilton said in regards to the executive, "The English model was the only good oneon this subject. The hereditary interest of the king was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad… Let one executive be appointed for life who dares execute his powers."[93]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton
There are many reasons like this why the Left decided to make the hugely popular Broadway play "Hamilton".
And don't get me started on the Federalist Papers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism
Time for another Convention of the States?
Shame that only professional liars will be doing any of the talking if such an event were held today.