COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Kyle-MI

    That is, judicial liberal activism at its worst. Even though it was decided in 1982, I had not heard about it until reading about Alabama’s new immigration law in the following article:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110610/ts_yblog_thelookout/alabama-immigration-law-pressures-schools-to-check-immigration-status

    The ruling is Plyler v. Doe which essentially says that not only can you not punish illegal immigration, the Constitution says that you must pay for government service to them – in this particular case public education. So, they are breaking the law and yet we MUST fund the education of their children. It is not just a matter to be decided by the legislatures. It is in the Constitution and can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment.

    • dajeeps

      It’s a very interesting story how there is very little trace of correspondance between Jefferson and Madison for the time from between 1798-1799. Madison spent quite a bit of time at Jefferson’s residence during that period of time, mostly because they were being harassed by the Adams administration with the Sedition Act. Jefferson was quite upset about this, as it was being used in attempts to silence him and so he drew up the Kentucky Resolution and asked a friend of his to deliver it to the Kentucky legislature.

      One of the points of the Kentucky Resoultion is that it makes absolutely no sense for the Federal government to be the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation because it will always find within itself to expand its power. He said it is up to the states to enforce the distribution of power and keep the Federal government in check.

      We are never more than one judicial opinion away from losing everything when we allow the Federal judiciary to make the last call and follow it even though we know it is wrong, and is serving its own agenda rather than reading our constitution that was written in plain English for a reason (so it couldn’t get all mucked up with legalese to where the average person would not know what it means). This habit we have, addicts to rule of law and Federal judges over all else betrays us; and after so many decades we look around and find that no one really cares what our original document even says – it’s just one of those worthless relics that Obama has printed up on WH toilet paper.

      • Kyle-MI

        What is to stop liberal activists from using nullification on originalist judicial rulings? In the end the Constitution only has as much power as the majority who agree to abide by it. If a majority choose to ignore it, then who will enforce it? The trick that the liberals have figured out is to subtly ignore it through deconstructionism, i.e. twisting the meaning of the words to get to their ends.

        • dajeeps

          And who makes that choice as a regular paractice. Of course liberals have and do regularly nullify, just not in such direct manner as it has been done in the past. They use the courts to accomplish that which they otherwise could not get from the people and it sticks because we believed we played the game fairly and choose to abide by it rather than have a showdown.

          Frankly, I do not see anyway to force fedzilla back into its cage other than for states to start standing up for themselves. You know when ballots fail us, and we are pillaged and tyrannized because countless Federal courts have said it’s just fine, there is very little other recourse than to have a showdown – that is if we are really interested in liberty. Otherwise, we should just lay down right here and right now and let Obama have his way with us.

    • Menlo

      The individuals siding with the majority opinion are the same who did so in Roe.

      The irony is that they saw fit to base the decision on the assertion that such children are “persons” just as they had denied that reality with regard to the unborn.

      Of course as with all “Constitutional law” today, and as my quote below makes clear, such opinions and rulings have nothing to do with the constitution, a document that has in practice been little more than a relic.