#Cheif Justice John Marshall

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/findidng-the-golden-mean/

Findidng The Golden Mean

My U. S. Senator voted against the Ukrainian-Istreal aid package that Congress passed recently.  He said he opposed it because of  Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct in the Gaza war.  I like my Senator. Nonetheless, I sent him an email that accused him of being long on principle, but short on common sense.  The bill he rejected included aid for the people of Gaza, victims forced to live in tents under a barrage of bombs.  We live in an imperfect world, so life requires compromises. People with pollen allergies, for example, accept that bees need clover fields to survive.       Sometimes, imperfection can […]

#Article 111 of Constitution #Benjamin Netanyahu #Cheif Justice John Marshall #court stripping #Donald Trump #Golden Mean #Justice Clarence Thomas #Justice Neil Gorsuch #Maybury v. Madison #presidential immunity #Roe v Wade #Speech & Debate in U. S. Constitution #Supreme Court code of ethics #Ukrainian-Isreal aid

[berniesrevolution]

I wonder how fast Tumblr would slide and support with Elizabeth Warren on the Native American blood issue and hate the Cherokee Nation if they learned that the Cherokee nation sided with the Confederates during the Civil War? In fact, Stand Watie (a slave-owning Native American Chief) was the very last Confederate General to surrender in the Civil War.

YOU KNOW WHAT, I HAVE ANSWERED THIS BULLSHIT BEFORE. I AM JUST GOING TO COPY AND PAST THE LAST ANSWER TO THIS IGNORANT ASS SHIT.

(If you are interested in the last ask I answered, just click this link)

I mean, it was a little more complicated than that.

I will just assume that space was limited, so you were unable to include all the details you would have liked.

So, the year is 1830, President Andrew Jackson had just signed the Indian Removal Act. This further shrank the Cherokee’s land, allowing white Americans to come and claim it as their own.  The reasoning given by the United States Government was:

“An Almighty hand has stamped upon every creature a particular genius, propensity and leading traits of character. The polish of education may improve, but cannot change, for the imperishable seal is there; bars and dungeons, penitentiaries and death itself, have been found insufficient, even in civilized society, to restrain man from crime, and constrain him to the necessity of moral and virtuous action. How then are we to look for, or expect it, in a community made up of savage and illiterate people?”(x)

That same year, The Cherokee Nation sued the State of Georgia in the US Supreme Court over removal orders. After doing some mental gymnastics to say the Cherokee Nation is both a Foreign State and Not a Foreign State, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in the Opinion of the Court, concludes:

If it be true that the Cherokee Nation have rights, this is not the tribunal in which those rights are to be asserted. If it be true that wrongs have been inflicted, and that still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future.

The motion for an injunction is denied.

Then in 1838, The US Government swept in and removed all Cherokee from Tennesee, Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama and forcibly removed them to their new home in Indian Territory. This became known as the Trail of Tears.  

As you would imagine, there was some built up anger towards the US Government.

Then in 1860, while campaigning on behalf of Abraham Lincoln, William Seward said that Lincoln would open the Indian Territory for white settlement.

Only 22 years after the Trail of Tears, the US Government was saying that they were going to force them to leave their land, once again. This obviously angered many Cherokee. At the time that secession began, Cheif John Ross insisted that the Union had not been dissolved. Stand Watie, on the other hand, began recruiting an army to support the Confederacy. By 1862, The brand new splinter nation called the Southern Cherokee Nation elected Stand Watie as their Chief.

This new nation fought on behalf of the Confederacy, although only in the Indian Territory. Which seems to tell me that they were working for their own independence in conjunction with the Confederacy.

While this still does not give a full story, since history is always messy and complex, this may give us a better idea of exactly why a portion of the  Cherokee succeded from the Cherokee Nation and fought on behalf of the Confederacy.

- @theliberaltony

[taylorscottbarnett]

A brief rundown of Political Parties in the United States

They were forming long before Washington even took office, and have been a core of American life since our founding. (And Washingon while officially non-partisan, was heavily sympathetic to the Federalist Party and its ideals).

Political parties trace their roots back to the original two-party fight over ratification of the US Constitution between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. (and in turn, Democrats can trace many of its core tenets back to Hamilton's Federalists. Republicans can do the same with Jefferson's Anti-Federalists/Democratic-Republicans)

For much of the same reason we have them now -- In the first party system, Hamilton wanted a strong central government who would push his policies like a national bank and wanted the Central Government to push more economic policies.

Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans favored a loose assortment of state's and wanted farmers to be the core of the new United States.

As hey and their supporters built and expanded and figured out the roles of The US Senate, and the US House of Representatives and the US Supreme Court were shaped to be effective and really only able to function with at minimum one-party rule, at the maximum two-party rule.

As a result, our entire system of government isn't set up to work without anything less than a one-party system and can't function with anything more than a two-party system.

Federalist v Anti Federalists/Democratic-Republicans,

The Federalists Party blew apart largely due to a split between Adams and Hamilton. (although survived in the Federal Court system for decades -- Cheif Justice John Marshall largely kept the era of Federalists alive and firmly established a two-party system as a fact of American life, savagely striking down and frustrating Democratic-Republicans for decades.  Without John Marshall, the modern-day Democratic Party probably wouldn’t exist and many core tenants of American life likely wouldn’t exist either. The Constitiunallity of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and many other federal programs probably wouldn’t have survived court challenges had John Marshall not set Federalists Precedents.

The Democratic-Republicans split into the Whig Party (adopting many of the ideals the former Federalist Party held along the way) and the Democratic Party. The Whig Party split between it's northern and southern factions to become the Republican Party in the north and joining the Democratic Party in the south -- largely over slavery. (Henry Clay's death didn't do the party any favors either).

#political parties #US History

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/findidng-the-golden-mean/

Findidng The Golden Mean

My U. S. Senator voted against the Ukrainian-Istreal aid package that Congress passed recently.  He said he opposed it because of  Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct in the Gaza war.  I like my Senator. Nonetheless, I sent him an email that accused him of being long on principle, but short on common sense.  The bill he rejected included aid for the people of Gaza, victims forced to live in tents under a barrage of bombs.  We live in an imperfect world, so life requires compromises. People with pollen allergies, for example, accept that bees need clover fields to survive.       Sometimes, imperfection can be a positive force. Donald Trump’s flawed presidency has taught us that our 235-year-old Constitution may do more than guarantee equality for all.  If the Supreme Court upholds Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, it will mean our head of state is a monarch able to commit any crime without fear of consequences.  The High Court considered Presidential immunity concerning civil conduct three decards ago. A case in 1982 involving Richard Nixon ended with a decision that gave a sitting President a degree of absolution. The  Constitution makes no mention of that, but the judges based their findings on the Speech or Debate section of the document.  It grants civil immunity to members of Congress.  Trump pushes the envelope when he argues that immunity extends to Presidential crimes.  If the integrity of some jurists deciding Trump’s case weren’t also in disrepute, all might be well. But the High Court has been slow to promulgate rules of conduct for itself and members like  Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have shown little inclination to police themselves. A citizen may wonder how these appointed jurists came to hold their sweeping authority over the Executive and Legislative branches of government.  Article 111 of the Constitution restricts them to disputes between the states or those arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers. Their expanded authority arose from Maybury v. Madison. In 1801, before leaving office,  President John Adams commissioned William Maybury to be a justice of the peace.  Adams’s successor, James Madison, refused to deliver the appointment, so Marbury sued.  Taking the Federal government to court was novel, so before hearing the argument, the Supreme Court had to determine if it had jurisdiction. Chief Justice John Marshall decided that Maybury’s petition raised a legal question, so the Court could rule. That opinion which was never challenged was far-reaching.  The Constitution, being silent on the matter, Marshall and his cohorts chose to reserve for themselves extraordinary power over the two other branches of government.    Article 111 does offer a defense against an overreaching judiciary.  Court-stripping permits Congress to limit or reduce a state court’s jurisdiction in federal matters except for those originally granted.  The remedy poses complications that I’m not qualified to discuss. What matters is that besides Court-stripping, Congress has only one other way to assert its authority.  It can write new legislation.  If a bill fails, the judicial ruling stands. Because the High Court chooses the cases it hears, its involvement can seem political.  For example, when it overturned Roe v. Wade   with its almost 50-year-old standing, members of the public were outraged and called for a change in that body’s  composition, either by adding to the number of members or imposing term limits Times of social and political upheaval can encourage extremism. Some people become heated enough to demand a scorched earth policy and let democracy be damned.  Those of us standing in the middle watch in awe.  Fortunately, enough of us exist to enforce the Golden Mean. At once a mathematical and philosophical construct, the Golden Mean, which also exists in nature,  calls for a middle way–living without the extremes of excess and deficiency. It teaches that compromise enables inclusion.  In ancient thought, it defined a moral life. When my Senator rejected aid for Gaza because the package was imperfect, he abandoned the middle way.  He also forgot two important truths. First, he forgot that Israel is our ally and the only democracy in the Middle East. Its citizens deserve our support regardless of Netanyahu’s crimes.  He will answer for his conduct in his country’s next election and, eventually, at the International Criminal Court in Haag. Second, my Senator forgot that imperfection attends to every human endeavor.  Purity is the posture of angels and those who imagine they are.

#Article 111 of Constitution #Benjamin Netanyahu #Cheif Justice John Marshall #court stripping #Donald Trump #Golden Mean #Justice Clarence Thomas #Justice Neil Gorsuch #Maybury v. Madison #presidential immunity #Roe v Wade #Speech & Debate in U. S. Constitution #Supreme Court code of ethics #Ukrainian-Isreal aid

[berniesrevolution]

American Civil War History trivia: The Cherokees sided with the Confederacy because Willaim Seward, the secretary of state for Abraham Lincoln, promised to the Union that Native American Territory would would opened up for white settlement. Also, Stand Watie, the leader of the Cherokee Nation, was the last general of the confederacy to surrender in the war, two months after Robert E. Lee surrendered.

I mean, it was a little more complicated than that. 

I will just assume that space was limited, so you were unable to include all the details you would have liked. 

So, the year is 1830, President Andrew Jackson had just signed the Indian Removal Act. This further shrank the Cherokee’s land, allowing white Americans to come and claim it as their own.  The reasoning given by the United States Government was:

“An Almighty hand has stamped upon every creature a particular genius, propensity and leading traits of character. The polish of education may improve, but cannot change, for the imperishable seal is there; bars and dungeons, penitentiaries and death itself, have been found insufficient, even in civilized society, to restrain man from crime, and constrain him to the necessity of moral and virtuous action. How then are we to look for, or expect it, in a community made up of savage and illiterate people?”(x)

That same year, The Cherokee Nation sued the State of Georgia in the US Supreme Court over removal orders. After doing some mental gymnastics to say the Cherokee Nation is both a Foreign State and Not a Foreign State, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in the Opinion of the Court, concludes:

If it be true that the Cherokee Nation have rights, this is not the tribunal in which those rights are to be asserted. If it be true that wrongs have been inflicted, and that still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future.

The motion for an injunction is denied.

Then in 1938, The US Government swept in and removed all Cherokee from Tennesee, Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama and forcibly removed them to their new home in Indian Territory. This became known as the Trail of Tears.  

As you would imagine, there was some built up anger towards the US Government. 

Then in 1860, while campaigning on behalf of Abraham Lincoln, William Seward said that Lincoln would open the Indian Territory for white settlement.

Only 22 years after the Trail of Tears, the US Government was saying that they were going to force them to leave their land, once again. This obviously angered many Cherokee. At the time that secession began, Cheif John Ross insisted that the Union had not been dissolved. Stand Watie, on the other hand, began recruiting an army to support the Confederacy. By 1862, The brand new splinter nation called the Southern Cherokee Nation elected Stand Watie as their Chief. 

This new nation fought on behalf of the Confederacy, although only in the Indian Territory. Which seems to tell me that they were working for their own independence in conjunction with the Confederacy.

While this still does not give a full story, since history is always messy and complex, this may give us a better idea of exactly why a portion of the  Cherokee succeded from the Cherokee Nation and fought on behalf of the Confederacy. 

- @theliberaltony

#politics #trail of tears #cherokee #civil war #confederacy #Anon #the liberal answer