Senator Lee hmm did you guys not notice what went on here! No clearly not the senator ask a question and then he goes on and says John Jay Hamilton's 10 yrs on the bench was short lived neverthess and he goes on and laughs the senator, Corruption is before your eyes the States are overthrowing our Central Government they've dismantled the judicial branch if people dont wake up and realize how stupid they have become in this country idk. I can say ask yourself this when was the last time you got a book and actually read it not an article or magazine or a fb post or a comment or news but a book to read prob has been a long time huh then you havent learned shit
@@minesemails1118 He stated the obvious. 10 years was a short lived life in the role he was in. Lee is really great. He'd be a great replacement for Justice Ginsberg, may the good Lord Bless her soul & family. Despite the fact he has not served on the bench but he knows the law inside out. But i think Trump will continue appointing Catholics for roles in high places including the bench. So he's not looking for someone crooked who will be always Trumps guy, but by looking at how a Catholic has lived, commented & wrote during their public life will tell you if they will or wont ever vote against their conscience. A Catholic can sniff a fake or small c Catholic in a minute. Trumps war room is made up of mostly Catholics & they will want to get another Catholic through to SCOTUS.
Been watching you tube vids for quite some time. Just watch him like this for the first time. Now I am hooked on really learning what this man is about. I always believed in his reputation but I never really listened to the man speak and his presentation of views with humor.
Excellent back and forth by two great Americans. It's clear that Scalia was an excellent Supreme Court Justice and that Senator Mike Lee would make an excellent one.
Two things make me cry; hearing the Gospel and the hymns, and listening to Justice Scalia reassure me our framers ensured we live in the best place on earth.
@@doorran get tf out of here with that conspiratorial bullshit. Even if there was a conspiracy to murder Justice Scalia, it has been to the overwhelming benefit of conservative policy. Sit down
Oh man, his dissent in Olson is still some of the greatest legal writing of the modern age. Add to that that Scalia was right, both on law and what would happen, and his dissent in Olson is almost perfect.
Watching this post RBG and w/ confirmation process of ACB and man, I miss Scalia. The man was smart and articulated the constitution such that the common man understood it. He was not boring to listen to but rather like that funny conservative uncle who still calls you "Kiddo" even though you're 22. Rest in Peace Justice Scalia. Thank you for posting this @SenatorMikeLee
Teddy :: Do you have any idea of Scalia's well- documented racism ? His decision on the Voting Rights Act :: ( He considered "Racial Entitlement" ). His opinion that Blacks attending prestigious universities :: ( He said they would be better-off attending "slower-track schools" ). Teddy ! Man ! Do your Homework before "missing" a known racist who sat on The Supreme Court !
We have both. Words change meaning over time. Nobody means the total population being the legislative body when they say "democracy" unless they are talking about ancient Athens.
YUP!......As he says congress has the first cut....... and WHEN they make a law that is CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION the courts don't strike the law. THEY JUST IGNORE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AS IF IT NEVER EXISTED. And we the people SHOULD DO THE SAME!
And when the courts pass laws then the executive branch should ignore them as well. And tell the american people that they can ignore them. The judges are v only supposed to follow the laws and help explain them in a practical way. Not add their own agenda and personal opinions into the existing law there by changing the laws. That is unlawful. Ironic but true.
What was his roll January 6th. He was one of the first calls trump made January 6th. Lost all respect for this man when he tried to compare trump to a truly great, honest man.
*_No disrespect but as an Immigrant, I bet I could smack most congressmen/women down when it comes to knowledge of the constitution. I spent 2 years at home in Ireland studying the bill of rights, etc_*
It's because they aren't trying to appeal to a base because they aren't trying to be reelected to anything. They aren't trying to push an agenda. They are simply trying to inform and I really love it.
Ben Sasse alluded to this issue during the Kavanaugh hearings, and it shows the lengths to which Congress has abdicated its Article I powers to the Executive Branch.
Amy Coney Barrett is of the Scalian school of constitutional law. As I type this an articulate originalist is going through the process of becoming a Justice. Our country might actually have a chance.
"to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy. "... "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." Thomas Jefferson
Agreed. I went to some private lectures he gave years ago while active duty Navy. Once again is it not apparent that speaking ‘aloud’ truths puts you in harms way? And no one will stand up and say enough is enough. What has happened is exactly what the forefathers warned us of and the problem originates directly from what they were running from!
The balance of powers is correctly addressed by the Justices. The delegation of the US Sentencing Guidelines to the Sentencing Commission is Unconstitutional. The Executive branch has too much unaccountable power to deprive people of their constitutional liberties. Perfect example as to what’s going on on with state and federal delegated rule making on civil liberties. Another prime example is the BLM and the Bundy ranch insistent. Excellent foretelling of what abuses are prevalent.
Telling it like it is: "We don't strike down your laws, we just ignore them. Where your law does not comport with the constitution, we ignore them. As we say, The Statute Notwithstanding."
In part it sounds like the Congress was wrong when they delegated the issuance of the United States currency to a foreign group of people was and is not Constitutional. Pay for the printing and issuance and high Interest on our own money seems as stupid as having some outside group house, washing the clothes and feeding our military out in the war zones. This cost us far more money than if there was a section of military personnel who did these things for their own branches of the armed forces. Why does the government allow wasteful spending on US script aka currency and military production when the US can handle these duties itself? Corruption maybe? Kick backs etc.? We have an owner's manual but it is disregarded. That must stop.
He says "more efficient" with such a smug smirk. By design, it's SUPPOSED to be difficult to pass laws. If you want to delegate it to anyone, delegate it to the states; not some unaccountable body essentially operating / circumventing the constitution.
Very cunning and wise is this senator i wonder where he gets this very old wisdom, it can withstand it's course through hail storms and brimstones of fire in it's misdt
And yet,... When laws and Presidential Acts are unconstitutional but somehow agreed on then I guess it's just ok... For instance, the patriot act... and hundreds more. The constitution, though wonderful in concept, is obviously not strong enough to keep the government honest. they appear honest but behind closed doors they are in agreement. we are subjects and they are rulers. When we do nothing, then we are making a binding agreement that its ok...
The Patriot Act gave George Bush unlimited power. The Act subverts Congress' power to declare war,like he did in Irak AND IN THE UNITED STATES. The war against US citizens is the SURVEILLANCE over all individuals by the Intelligence agencies.The designer of the Act was a Filipino legal intellectual. He believes in dictatorship like the Phillipines presidency. Regards
We are not a democracy, this country is a constitutional republic. The commentator, congressman/senator, already described "our constitutional republic". The democracy is a corporation that has nothing to do w/the people. See "their" United States Code, Title 28 section 3002 (15)(A). Knowing the difference is paramount to our freedom.
Could the supreme court do away with an amendment? Scotus is only supposed to interpret the constitution, but does that mean if they unanimously decided to do away with free speech granted by the 1st Amendment, could they?
safarigoo no since it's up to the court to interpret the law. Constitution is the supreme law. Statutes and executive orders can be struck down by the courts since those can be in conflict with the constitution. For instant, the 13th amendment prohibits slavery. If congress passed a statute allowing slavery, it would be struck down since the supreme law, the constitution is in conflict with the statute
Yes, that's the argument against a living Constitution. Judges could take away rights (such as free speech) that the majority could one day decide to do away with.
RUN WITH IT, MIKE! START PASSING LAWS THAT REPEAL LAWS, EOs, AND GET RID OF ABC AGENCIES. SCALIA'S PRETTY MUCH TOLD YOU THAT'S YOUR ONLY CHOICE. SMART! HE WON'T STAND IN AN ELECTED OFFICIALS WAY
I come back to this clip every so often. Scalia would be liberal on today's court. He would have had a conniption over Trump v. United States. Also, the difference in how confirmed justices talk to Congress versus nominees is unbelievable.
I can't believe no one seemed to laugh at Mike Lee's joke about "dogs engaged in commerce"... I thought that was a brilliant and acerbic joke. Hilarious.
All fine.. except judges are blatantly partisan and propped up by one party or the other seeking to stuff the courts. Couple that with 'jury' system... basically judges play to the gallery. For a truly independent judiciary, they must be outside of strong political affiliations.
Justice Scalia was in fact one of the best in American history now we have to see Justice Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court what's going in our legal system
He remains very much a firm believer in the supremacy of the executive, to be sure, but it really is strictly a matter of philosophy, because in the end how much power the president has is truly influenced by what the people are willing to allow (and disallow). Presidential power has grown dramatically since our country was founded, yet this hasn't stifled the other branches of government, so it simply shows how much larger our country is today, in many ways.
The rule of the courts should NOT be to declare acts of the Congress CONSTITUTIONAL because that's what in effect there doing when they don't declare it unconstitutional
The Courts are themselves a part of the government. As such, they do not see their duty to "strike down" legislation but to uphold it as much as possible and they will bend over backwards and do cartwheels (they've literally made up words and definitions in the past in order to "justify" upholding crappy legislation!) to do so. Stare Decisis is a TROJAN HORSE BIGLY!
@@rkba4923 if they would take into account that since 1972 congresses approval rating has been below 35% more often than above it meaning we are being ruled by a minority view and sense the constitution is for the protection of the minority against arbitrary goverment everything is ass backwards
but congress does delegate legislative authority all the time.. with their appointment of unelected Blue Ribbon Panels. taxation with out representation has returned in many cases.
"We The People are at the Heart of Legislative Power, but aren't the holders of positions, so it is balanced or by it's meant design, balances, while all priviledges and rightful significant honors and efforts, preserved, reveals aspects of it's genius, though it's furtherance of meant manifestation ideal goal is the more enhancements of populational participative contribution to improvement, and resolutional pools of adverse categories, for it's overall betterment, was at the spirited heart of the forefathers' agendas, though prosperity increases an focal of a form of virtue goals of virtues, though with the ensured protection of the wealthy's per point of efforts along per's path, per differing as their point along the path, though a midst topics surpasses just the likes of such an topic, and it's more importance being the foundational principles, that could make it all possible for the masses, or greater majority, as well, not limited to it, the vast enhancements".
Alphabet soup agencies don't 'legislate' they regulate so that's how Congree and the President get around deligating their constitutional authority. So Scalia's saying don't come to me because there was no Doc. of Delegation of Constitu. Legislative Authority in the first place! Right! Its called Regulation, not Legislation. Reminds me a lot of Greenspans 'Fed Speak'
The alphabet soup bureaucracy regulation power has become unwieldy and intrusive in many cases becoming a super legislature . And CFR more voluminous than the US code.
Scalia is a saint, and as such we should do well to separate the man from the myth, and while we are this task, in the spirit of a modern day Federalist or a Renaissance Humanist, go 'back to the sources' and have us a look, for in the foundations of things lies the not only the strength of the edifice but the likely problems that may lead to its downfall. The Constitution may be compared to the Bible, if I may carry this analogy of American history to Christianity, particularly the Reformation period further. Certainly, in the mind of Americans it carries enormous weight. It is revered, even when it is not understood. Appeal is made to it from anti-abortion advocates to atheist secularists. Not without reason, as it is called the "supreme law of the land." The Rule of Law is believed to be a matter of sheer reason, incontrovertible. Most everybody finds comfort in the idea that no one is above the law. But what if we're wrong, and what if law is not the defining principal of government and not the highest principle in the thing that we call the United States. If I may go into heretical territory for a moment, what if the Constitution isn't really what we think? Let's go back to the Bible analogy. Every Evangelical claims to believe the Bible and to uphold it with all his heart, yet no two of them agree upon it's exact meaning. While it is put forth as final authority, the division widens every more. It is believed to be sufficient, and then every possible effort is made to back it up with history, archeology, theology, anthropology, etc. So to with the Constitution. "Federalists" like Scalia put themselves in an odd position. They strongly emphasize the supremacy of the Constitution, but need a critical framework to support their conclusions. They call their theology Originalism, Textualism, Strict Constructionism. They argue on the merits of each, and are not afraid to split a hair when necessary. Even the name Federalist is ironic and telling. The Civil War put state's rights to rest more or less and cemented the federal system we have today, but it wasn't that way in the beginning, and it's not that Federalism from which they derive their name. They are talking about the Federalism of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. The Federalism of "the Federalist Papers," the collection of arguments printed and disseminated at the time of the ratification of the Constitution to convince states, particularly those states were anti-Federalism was strongest such as New York to ratify the document. So the Federalism of Scalia and others isn't really opposed to state's rights, grass roots populism, small government, individual liberties including gun rights and all the things that the anti-Federalists were for. Scalia and others argue in favor of these very things when it suits their conservative agenda. They appeal to the Founding Fathers, the founding documents, even the "founding generation," but are very much people of our time. They pick and choose which traditions they like and ignore or actively oppose the others. Back again to the Bible. People believe in the Bible but don't obey the Bible. People love the Bible but are ignorant of the Bible. People think the Bible is the 'word of God,' and know little about it's real authors and their history. Some who really know the Bible find it's impossible to understand it without some external narrative. As a lover of the Constitution, Scalia rightly found himself in this last category. He needed, and we need what Bible student's call "helps," lexicons, histories, commentaries, textual analyses, anything and everything that will shed some light on the subject. I don't know where I'm going with this, but I think it's into uncharted waters. The Christian faith has a much longer history than the United States. Last time I checked, Christianity was still divided. There are two parties if you're a Westerner--Catholic and Protestant. Two parties if you're an Easterner--Orthodoxy and everyone else. Three parties if you're more nuanced--Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and the Reformation traditions. While Christianity was never meant to be divided, at least if you believe the words of Jesus in the Bible, America has always been divided. We are the United States, a blatant oxymoron. Scalia was in fact a partisan. That's not a bad thing, if you believe that one party is better. He was a textualist when the text said something he liked. He was a historian when history gave him better evidence. Scalia was a Catholic but thought like an American, like a Protestant. The rallying cry of the Protestant (and America is a Protestant as most thinkers have pointed out) was "Sola Scriptura." The rallying cry of the Federalist is something like it, back to the Constitution. But it's disingenuous. There was in fact a time when the Bible was ignored and needed to be rediscovered. The Constitution has never been put in that ignominious position. Here is the place where my analogy ceases to work. The Constitution is literally thin, fours sheets of paper (parchment). The Bible is thick. But the historical angle is always interesting.
5:00 And when the agency becomes the patient, shall the Constitution witness the executive's Bible or Handbook for Mercenaries, or his dictionary, or what? Nothing is precedent when you're right; is that clear, now? Who needs branches in the first place? No consent for George, maybe; or just no advice. The lawyers will all advocate what's right, then.
"Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the World." Percy Shelley, Defense of Poetry. But Scalia ranks with Samuel Johnson for the English lexicon? The sophist rules the wit, then, of any free will.
7:30 You just ignored rational principles in favor of empirical facts. That leaves out any possibly-true opinions. Do these hypothetical problems arise locally or globally?
8:15 They become indefinite in order to be interpreted without bias one way or another. Federal law should be definite as it assumes its jurisdiction in (its Constitutional, not a political) conception.
9:30 Thus the power drains conscience from the Senate to the Head, which may attack other powers for the people or other heads for the Senate. War is automatic in being profitable (something the founding fathers doubtless could agree on), which is nobody's responsibility through the separation of church and state, not through the separation of executive from legislative functions from judicial authority.
Justice Scalia used the term, "Supreme Court Law". There is no such thing. The constitution stipulates in Article VI, Clause 2 what "constitutes" the "... Law of the Land ..." and Court Opinions are NOT listed! It does, however, stipulate that "... the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, ...". That's strange because they seldom act as if they are! The other two key phrases in Cl 2 are "... made in Pursuance thereof ..." and "under the Authority of the United States, ...", of course!
Justice Scalia is the most reasonable constitutional thinker I've heard.
Yeah, I think so too! But I have no idea what he just said, but it sure sounds reasonable!
I learned more about our government and the constitution from watching Justice Scalia’s speeches and Q and A’s than all my years in school.
Scalia was one of the rare individuals who used the Constitution and logic as his guide for all he did as a SCOTUS. He will be missed!
Scotus is a recent acronym for Supreme Court of the United States. Scalia was a justice of said Court.
Incredible rhetorical strength from Scalia. Smart and swift.
I so greatly admire Senator Lee for his unyielding love for discussion and pursuit of truth.
Senator Lee hmm did you guys not notice what went on here! No clearly not the senator ask a question and then he goes on and says John Jay Hamilton's 10 yrs on the bench was short lived neverthess and he goes on and laughs the senator, Corruption is before your eyes the States are overthrowing our Central Government they've dismantled the judicial branch if people dont wake up and realize how stupid they have become in this country idk. I can say ask yourself this when was the last time you got a book and actually read it not an article or magazine or a fb post or a comment or news but a book to read prob has been a long time huh then you havent learned shit
@@minesemails1118 He stated the obvious. 10 years was a short lived life in the role he was in. Lee is really great. He'd be a great replacement for Justice Ginsberg, may the good Lord Bless her soul & family. Despite the fact he has not served on the bench but he knows the law inside out. But i think Trump will continue appointing Catholics for roles in high places including the bench. So he's not looking for someone crooked who will be always Trumps guy, but by looking at how a Catholic has lived, commented & wrote during their public life will tell you if they will or wont ever vote against their conscience. A Catholic can sniff a fake or small c Catholic in a minute. Trumps war room is made up of mostly Catholics & they will want to get another Catholic through to SCOTUS.
We took the same oath to uphold the constitution. Scalia a legend
Really sad we do not have his wisdom anymore. And certainly that we don't have his view of how to explain/define, law.
We need judges like the honorable Scalia.
...and Senator's like Lee!
The National Liberty Alliance is sifting them out. Get involved and help make change.
What was "honorable" about a racist judge on The S. C. ?
@@myratsalad :: Look at his record -- before making asinine assumptions !
@@myratsalad True🤣🤣🤣
Thank you for this important congressional moment.
Been watching you tube vids for quite some time. Just watch him like this for the first time. Now I am hooked on really learning what this man is about. I always believed in his reputation but I never really listened to the man speak and his presentation of views with humor.
Excellent back and forth by two great Americans. It's clear that Scalia was an excellent Supreme Court Justice and that Senator Mike Lee would make an excellent one.
yea right 😅
Two things make me cry; hearing the Gospel and the hymns, and listening to Justice Scalia reassure me our framers ensured we live in the best place on earth.
Delegate power= The People LOSE power
Such is the administrative state.
There are so many things that I disagree with Justice Scalia (like his dissent in Olson), but my god he was absolutely brilliant.
there were startlingly few things I disagreed with him on. I suspect his death was not natural.
@@doorran get tf out of here with that conspiratorial bullshit. Even if there was a conspiracy to murder Justice Scalia, it has been to the overwhelming benefit of conservative policy. Sit down
@@aurora_stream oh how wrong you are
Oh man, his dissent in Olson is still some of the greatest legal writing of the modern age. Add to that that Scalia was right, both on law and what would happen, and his dissent in Olson is almost perfect.
Watching this post RBG and w/ confirmation process of ACB and man, I miss Scalia. The man was smart and articulated the constitution such that the common man understood it. He was not boring to listen to but rather like that funny conservative uncle who still calls you "Kiddo" even though you're 22. Rest in Peace Justice Scalia. Thank you for posting this @SenatorMikeLee
wow,,im getting a real education from the comments here..Thank you and thanks to all others who are sharing also..
Scalia is so god damned brilliant. May he rest in peace.
Senator Lee is quite enigmatic as to keep the two justices on the edge in an engaging exchange! Oh and Scalia, we miss him. RIP!
Teddy ::
Do you have any idea of Scalia's well- documented racism ?
His decision on the Voting Rights Act :: ( He considered "Racial Entitlement" ).
His opinion that Blacks attending prestigious universities :: ( He said they would be better-off attending "slower-track schools" ).
Teddy ! Man ! Do your Homework before "missing" a known racist who sat on The Supreme Court !
That’s because Mike lee clerked for Scalia. His dad Rex lee likely knew Scalia as solicitor general while Scalia was a circuit court judge
Good Grief ,We don't have a democracy ,we have a Republic
Haha yep! It's treason otherwise!
❤
It's a democratic republic
It's a liberal democratic republic .
We have both.
Words change meaning over time.
Nobody means the total population being the legislative body when they say "democracy" unless they are talking about ancient Athens.
Paul Robert except teachers try to teach that America needs to be like that
YUP!......As he says congress has the first cut....... and WHEN they make a law that is CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION the courts don't strike the law. THEY JUST IGNORE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AS IF IT NEVER EXISTED. And we the people SHOULD DO THE SAME!
And furthering that point: DO NOT WILLINGLY CONTRACT within those laws. Then you have no obligations to fulfill the conditions of the contract.
And when the courts pass laws then the executive branch should ignore them as well. And tell the american people that they can ignore them.
The judges are v only supposed to follow the laws and help explain them in a practical way. Not add their own agenda and personal opinions into the existing law there by changing the laws.
That is unlawful. Ironic but true.
Pretty much Marbury v Madison
What was his roll January 6th. He was one of the first calls trump made January 6th. Lost all respect for this man when he tried to compare trump to a truly great, honest man.
*_No disrespect but as an Immigrant, I bet I could smack most congressmen/women down when it comes to knowledge of the constitution. I spent 2 years at home in Ireland studying the bill of rights, etc_*
I like to listen to people who know what they are talking about, because they can say it simply and without complicated words.
It's because they aren't trying to appeal to a base because they aren't trying to be reelected to anything. They aren't trying to push an agenda. They are simply trying to inform and I really love it.
I wish congressional hearings were this respectful in 2024
Ben Sasse alluded to this issue during the Kavanaugh hearings, and it shows the lengths to which Congress has abdicated its Article I powers to the Executive Branch.
Thank you for posting this, senatormikelee.
Sen. Mike Lee Judiciary Committee, Judges Scalia and Briar that was a very fascinating show, and fun to watch without any doubt in my mind.
Mike Lee is great on the law. I hope he is great on supporting the prez elect. Republicans I pray you stop ceding to Those you should not cede to.
sandynyc1 Trump is not even a conservative. Rubio and Cruz were the conservatives in the race.
Amy Coney Barrett is of the Scalian school of constitutional law. As I type this an articulate originalist is going through the process of becoming a Justice. Our country might actually have a chance.
Senator Lee you make us proud to be American,after someone like you leading our country.
"to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy. "...
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." Thomas Jefferson
Agreed. I went to some private lectures he gave years ago while active duty Navy. Once again is it not apparent that speaking ‘aloud’ truths puts you in harms way? And no one will stand up and say enough is enough.
What has happened is exactly what the forefathers warned us of and the problem originates directly from what they were running from!
The balance of powers is correctly addressed by the Justices. The delegation of the US Sentencing Guidelines to the Sentencing Commission is Unconstitutional. The Executive branch has too much unaccountable power to deprive people of their constitutional liberties. Perfect example as to what’s going on on with state and federal delegated rule making on civil liberties. Another prime example is the BLM and the Bundy ranch insistent. Excellent foretelling of what abuses are prevalent.
Telling it like it is: "We don't strike down your laws, we just ignore them. Where your law does not comport with the constitution, we ignore them. As we say, The Statute Notwithstanding."
I gotta admit, absolutely brilliant
"You have the first cut; the most important cut."
We need more judges like this again
We need article 3 courts, period. But they're all article 1 military courts instead. Public vs Private. See High Frequency Radio UA-cam channel
In part it sounds like the Congress was wrong when they delegated the issuance of the United States currency to a foreign group of people was and is not Constitutional. Pay for the printing and issuance and high Interest on our own money seems as stupid as having some outside group house, washing the clothes and feeding our military out in the war zones. This cost us far more money than if there was a section of military personnel who did these things for their own branches of the armed forces. Why does the government allow wasteful spending on US script aka currency and military production when the US can handle these duties itself? Corruption maybe? Kick backs etc.? We have an owner's manual but it is disregarded. That must stop.
Beautifully put
Scalia was the GOAT
your ma
Justice Scalia a man of right law. A good for humanity person
the role of Supreme Court Justices under the Constitution God Bless Justice Scalia Family also Senator Mike Lee
1 sec in, nothing said
-liked video
I know this will be good
Is there a written transcript to this video? I would like to use this for my research paper
There typically is a transcript of all nonclassified hearings.
He says "more efficient" with such a smug smirk. By design, it's SUPPOSED to be difficult to pass laws. If you want to delegate it to anyone, delegate it to the states; not some unaccountable body essentially operating / circumventing the constitution.
The criminal Congress of the U.S. is "essentially operating/circumventing the constitution" with every piece of legislation they produce.
I miss Justice Scalia. What a stud.
Very cunning and wise is this senator i wonder where he gets this very old wisdom, it can withstand it's course through hail storms and brimstones of fire in it's misdt
And yet,...
When laws and Presidential Acts are unconstitutional but somehow agreed on then I guess it's just ok...
For instance, the patriot act... and hundreds more.
The constitution, though wonderful in concept, is obviously not strong enough to keep the government honest. they appear honest but behind closed doors they are in agreement. we are subjects and they are rulers. When we do nothing, then we are making a binding agreement that its ok...
The Patriot Act gave George Bush unlimited power. The Act subverts Congress' power to declare war,like he did in Irak AND IN THE UNITED STATES.
The war against US citizens is the SURVEILLANCE over all individuals by the Intelligence agencies.The designer of the Act was a Filipino legal intellectual. He believes in dictatorship like the Phillipines presidency.
Regards
Colleges and schools need to put court system, laws process should be in their curriculum
We are not a democracy, this country is a constitutional republic. The commentator, congressman/senator, already described "our constitutional republic". The democracy is a corporation that has nothing to do w/the people. See "their" United States Code, Title 28 section 3002 (15)(A). Knowing the difference is paramount to our freedom.
How about questioning the justices about why they want to ignore the eiligibility issue..??
Could the supreme court do away with an amendment? Scotus is only supposed to interpret the constitution, but does that mean if they unanimously decided to do away with free speech granted by the 1st Amendment, could they?
safarigoo No Scotus cannot do away with an amendment. That's the legislature's job.
safarigoo no since it's up to the court to interpret the law. Constitution is the supreme law. Statutes and executive orders can be struck down by the courts since those can be in conflict with the constitution. For instant, the 13th amendment prohibits slavery. If congress passed a statute allowing slavery, it would be struck down since the supreme law, the constitution is in conflict with the statute
This is why it's much harder to pass an amendment - only been 27 (17 excluding the bill of rights)
well if you're a living constitutionalists. You could.
Yes, that's the argument against a living Constitution. Judges could take away rights (such as free speech) that the majority could one day decide to do away with.
RUN WITH IT, MIKE! START PASSING LAWS THAT REPEAL LAWS, EOs, AND GET RID OF ABC AGENCIES. SCALIA'S PRETTY MUCH TOLD YOU THAT'S YOUR ONLY CHOICE. SMART! HE WON'T STAND IN AN ELECTED OFFICIALS WAY
IF THEIR IS NOT A LAW THAT PROHIBITS MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT TO ACCEPT GIFTS, DONATIONS OR TRADES OF ANY KIND, THIS IS THE TIME TO PASS THEM.
I come back to this clip every so often. Scalia would be liberal on today's court. He would have had a conniption over Trump v. United States. Also, the difference in how confirmed justices talk to Congress versus nominees is unbelievable.
I can't believe no one seemed to laugh at Mike Lee's joke about "dogs engaged in commerce"... I thought that was a brilliant and acerbic joke. Hilarious.
"We just ignore the law and look at the rest of the law as not withstanding." When we are in heaven we will not need a court sytem.
". . we just ignore them". Ain't that the truth
you dont give opinion based on normal times on what the supreme courts law has said.. its what the federalist papers say
Social work curriculum should have read, and deal with this topic.
All fine.. except judges are blatantly partisan and propped up by one party or the other seeking to stuff the courts. Couple that with 'jury' system... basically judges play to the gallery. For a truly independent judiciary, they must be outside of strong political affiliations.
Good men.
What does all this mean? That we really do not need government at all? Not at all?
"We don't strike down your laws gentlemen. We just ignore them!"
lol
Justice Scalia was in fact one of the best in American history now we have to see Justice Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court what's going in our legal system
I didn't like Kav at first but he is a believer and a man of God who was Borked because of his faith
He remains very much a firm believer in the supremacy of the executive, to be sure, but it really is strictly a matter of philosophy, because in the end how much power the president has is truly influenced by what the people are willing to allow (and disallow). Presidential power has grown dramatically since our country was founded, yet this hasn't stifled the other branches of government, so it simply shows how much larger our country is today, in many ways.
It's amazing to me how an originalist like Scalia can believe that the SCOTUS can overturn a law. Where does it say that in the Constitution?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States
The Constitution says what the SCOTUS says it says....
Hey Stevie, it's not your place to step in and interrupt your Senior Justice.
We just ignore them ! Yeah man !
9:51 proves why we have a tripartite review of constitutionality...
5:10 & 10:05 that kinda talk could get a man killed..... "YOU CANT DELEGATE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY".... "WHERE YOUR LAW DOES NOT COMPORT"...
Scalia's words are inspiring
The rule of the courts should NOT be to declare acts of the Congress CONSTITUTIONAL because that's what in effect there doing when they don't declare it unconstitutional
The Courts are themselves a part of the government. As such, they do not see their duty to "strike down" legislation but to uphold it as much as possible and they will bend over backwards and do cartwheels (they've literally made up words and definitions in the past in order to "justify" upholding crappy legislation!) to do so. Stare Decisis is a TROJAN HORSE BIGLY!
@@rkba4923 if they would take into account that since 1972 congresses approval rating has been below 35% more often than above it meaning we are being ruled by a minority view and sense the constitution is for the protection of the minority against arbitrary goverment everything is ass backwards
but congress does delegate legislative authority all the time.. with their appointment of unelected Blue Ribbon Panels. taxation with out representation has returned in many cases.
Mike Lee belongs on the Supreme Court.
@MrPloppy1 Yes, there are far too many attorneys in Congress for that to be a valid claim, anyhow.
Abraham Lincoln movie...i think i must have come on to the wrong site..this time
The US Supreme Court might as well be the American House of Lords.
Scalia was Harvey Specter Mentor!!!!!
"We The People are at
the Heart of Legislative
Power, but aren't the holders
of positions, so it is balanced
or by it's meant design, balances, while all priviledges and rightful significant honors and efforts, preserved, reveals aspects of it's genius, though it's furtherance of meant manifestation ideal goal is the more enhancements of populational participative contribution to improvement, and resolutional pools of adverse categories, for it's overall betterment, was at the spirited heart of the forefathers' agendas, though prosperity increases an focal of a form of virtue goals of virtues, though with the ensured protection of the wealthy's per point of efforts along per's path, per differing as their point along the path,
though a midst topics surpasses just the likes of such an topic, and it's more importance being the foundational principles, that could make it all possible for the masses, or greater majority, as well, not limited to it, the vast enhancements".
CANDY..by Robbie Williams..Ray..charles..etc..i dont know the words
Sen. Lee's "dog breeding" example....hmmm, ATF? Except that they're known to not like dogs.
I miss Genius Justice Scalia.
Justice Scalia possessed a brilliant legal mind. Sorely missed.
Alphabet soup agencies don't 'legislate' they regulate so that's how Congree and the President get around deligating their constitutional authority. So Scalia's saying don't come to me because there was no Doc. of Delegation of Constitu. Legislative Authority in the first place! Right! Its called Regulation, not Legislation.
Reminds me a lot of Greenspans 'Fed Speak'
The alphabet soup bureaucracy regulation power has become unwieldy and intrusive in many cases becoming a super legislature . And CFR more voluminous than the US code.
I am sorry Antonia Scalia is no longer a justice. He is very knowledgeable on the Constitution.
Scalia is a saint, and as such we should do well to separate the man from the myth, and while we are this task, in the spirit of a modern day Federalist or a Renaissance Humanist, go 'back to the sources' and have us a look, for in the foundations of things lies the not only the strength of the edifice but the likely problems that may lead to its downfall. The Constitution may be compared to the Bible, if I may carry this analogy of American history to Christianity, particularly the Reformation period further. Certainly, in the mind of Americans it carries enormous weight. It is revered, even when it is not understood. Appeal is made to it from anti-abortion advocates to atheist secularists. Not without reason, as it is called the "supreme law of the land." The Rule of Law is believed to be a matter of sheer reason, incontrovertible. Most everybody finds comfort in the idea that no one is above the law.
But what if we're wrong, and what if law is not the defining principal of government and not the highest principle in the thing that we call the United States. If I may go into heretical territory for a moment, what if the Constitution isn't really what we think?
Let's go back to the Bible analogy. Every Evangelical claims to believe the Bible and to uphold it with all his heart, yet no two of them agree upon it's exact meaning. While it is put forth as final authority, the division widens every more. It is believed to be sufficient, and then every possible effort is made to back it up with history, archeology, theology, anthropology, etc. So to with the Constitution. "Federalists" like Scalia put themselves in an odd position. They strongly emphasize the supremacy of the Constitution, but need a critical framework to support their conclusions. They call their theology Originalism, Textualism, Strict Constructionism. They argue on the merits of each, and are not afraid to split a hair when necessary.
Even the name Federalist is ironic and telling. The Civil War put state's rights to rest more or less and cemented the federal system we have today, but it wasn't that way in the beginning, and it's not that Federalism from which they derive their name. They are talking about the Federalism of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. The Federalism of "the Federalist Papers," the collection of arguments printed and disseminated at the time of the ratification of the Constitution to convince states, particularly those states were anti-Federalism was strongest such as New York to ratify the document. So the Federalism of Scalia and others isn't really opposed to state's rights, grass roots populism, small government, individual liberties including gun rights and all the things that the anti-Federalists were for. Scalia and others argue in favor of these very things when it suits their conservative agenda. They appeal to the Founding Fathers, the founding documents, even the "founding generation," but are very much people of our time. They pick and choose which traditions they like and ignore or actively oppose the others.
Back again to the Bible. People believe in the Bible but don't obey the Bible. People love the Bible but are ignorant of the Bible. People think the Bible is the 'word of God,' and know little about it's real authors and their history. Some who really know the Bible find it's impossible to understand it without some external narrative. As a lover of the Constitution, Scalia rightly found himself in this last category. He needed, and we need what Bible student's call "helps," lexicons, histories, commentaries, textual analyses, anything and everything that will shed some light on the subject.
I don't know where I'm going with this, but I think it's into uncharted waters. The Christian faith has a much longer history than the United States. Last time I checked, Christianity was still divided. There are two parties if you're a Westerner--Catholic and Protestant. Two parties if you're an Easterner--Orthodoxy and everyone else. Three parties if you're more nuanced--Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and the Reformation traditions. While Christianity was never meant to be divided, at least if you believe the words of Jesus in the Bible, America has always been divided. We are the United States, a blatant oxymoron.
Scalia was in fact a partisan. That's not a bad thing, if you believe that one party is better. He was a textualist when the text said something he liked. He was a historian when history gave him better evidence.
Scalia was a Catholic but thought like an American, like a Protestant. The rallying cry of the Protestant (and America is a Protestant as most thinkers have pointed out) was "Sola Scriptura." The rallying cry of the Federalist is something like it, back to the Constitution. But it's disingenuous. There was in fact a time when the Bible was ignored and needed to be rediscovered. The Constitution has never been put in that ignominious position. Here is the place where my analogy ceases to work. The Constitution is literally thin, fours sheets of paper (parchment). The Bible is thick.
But the historical angle is always interesting.
All dogs go to heaven even a coke dog named Charlie.
5:00 And when the agency becomes the patient, shall the Constitution witness the executive's Bible or Handbook for Mercenaries, or his dictionary, or what? Nothing is precedent when you're right; is that clear, now? Who needs branches in the first place? No consent for George, maybe; or just no advice. The lawyers will all advocate what's right, then.
"Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the World." Percy Shelley, Defense of Poetry. But Scalia ranks with Samuel Johnson for the English lexicon? The sophist rules the wit, then, of any free will.
7:30 You just ignored rational principles in favor of empirical facts. That leaves out any possibly-true opinions. Do these hypothetical problems arise locally or globally?
8:15 They become indefinite in order to be interpreted without bias one way or another. Federal law should be definite as it assumes its jurisdiction in (its Constitutional, not a political) conception.
9:30 Thus the power drains conscience from the Senate to the Head, which may attack other powers for the people or other heads for the Senate. War is automatic in being profitable (something the founding fathers doubtless could agree on), which is nobody's responsibility through the separation of church and state, not through the separation of executive from legislative functions from judicial authority.
10:05. Lol.
NO, no, no,,this i do not believe..
On a another note they are using my spirit the government giving me alot of spiritual deaths.
Catholics
Justice Scalia used the term, "Supreme Court Law". There is no such thing. The constitution stipulates in Article VI, Clause 2 what "constitutes" the "... Law of the Land ..." and Court Opinions are NOT listed! It does, however, stipulate that "... the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, ...". That's strange because they seldom act as if they are! The other two key phrases in Cl 2 are "... made in Pursuance thereof ..." and "under the Authority of the United States, ...", of course!
Contrast these high minded discussions with fast food slogans from AOC and Jihadi Talib. Wow.
Why the partisan thinking on this video
@@zaaraahmed4087 uh, because its it's relevant.
Cause of Judge Scalia's Death? Can anybody say: The Podesta Brothers?
No
SCALIA WAS MURDERED !!!!!
Lee Mark Young Jason Smith Jeffrey
Breyer stayed as close as he could to Scalia to look as smart but doesn't speak with substance.
I don't know you