What is the purpose of a bill of rights anyways? To expand government? Or to limit it?

In parts 1 through 4 of this series (Scroll to the bottom for more detail about the parts) I have been examining progressivism and its relation (or lack therof) to the 1803 court ruling Marbury vs Madison.

Here in part 5, I just want to ask two questions. First, what is the purpose of a bill of rights? We could be talking about the Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution, or the Bill of Rights that exists in your State constitution. It doesn't matter really, where that bill of rights happens to exist.

What is it for: Is it there to expand the power of government and give them more power over jurisdictions which more local than itself? Or is said bill of rights there so that the people know what they should expect, and therefore to limit the power of government?

I'll state it plainly what I believe: I believe that a bill of rights exists for the purpose of setting limits to the government to which it is attached.

My follow up question is this: If a bill of rights, intended to limit government authority, is perverted into becoming an object that expands governmental power, is it no longer a bill of rights for the people? Does it then become a bill of rights for the government? As we come to the conclusion of this series, this is a very important question to cover.

In part 1 of this series, I asked one very simple question: Are progressives telling the truth about Marbury?

In part 2, I examined the gap between the activist cases of the early-mid 1900s and the 1803 ruling.

In part 3, the negative and positive aspects of how the Marbury ruling functioned were examined.

In part 4, the constitutionality of the judiciary act was examined.

Yes, this series is getting rather long, but I assure you it is going somewhere.

https://tinyurl.com/y89d4a5z

The Origin of Progressive Hostility

There's an article recently written on a website Quillette titled The Psychology of Progressive Hostility which is very well written, I highly recommend it. One part of the article asks the following question: "So how and why have these activists become so intolerant and horrible to deal with?"

It is questions like that that this blog are built around. Due to the progressives' complete dominance of academia(history) and media(journalism), I think it is safe to say that progressivism is the least understood ideology of modern history.

For what the article is and how it is set out to examine what it examines, I could not have written it this well. That simple, I could not even have come close. That's not to say it isn't without fault, for example, when I see someone quote Mill I immediately roll my eyes. However, my main goal is to highlight the origin of progressive history, which is conspicuously absent from the article.

In short, the origin of progressive history can be summed up into one single word: rejection. That is the origin of progressive hostility.

That's it. Rejection. Before being rejected, progressives loved and I mean LOVED America - at least, loved its government and what they could do with it. Read speeches from Woodrow Wilson or Theodore Roosevelt, there is no bitterness whatsoever to be found. Progressive ideology was at its height, they were open about being progressive, and nobody could stop them, and their tone reflects this.

That came to an end in the election of 1920. There is so, so much to learn from the election of 1920. The progressives were beaten so badly, that the only way progressives could become viable again is to put on a mask and usurp the word "Liberalism" as their new home. This happened by 1932.

Think about that. Who is your worst arch-nemesis? What if Rand Paul had to wear a mask of that guy - his next door neighbor who put him in the hospital, or if Steve Scalise had to wear a mask of James Hodgkinson? What if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had to wear a Benjamin Netanyahu mask? What if Donald Trump had to wear a Hillary mask?

You get the idea. Your rejection is so complete that you had to look like the exact opposite, otherwise face extinction. Yeah, that would piss you off too. That's what the progressives have had to deal with since the 1930s. That is the origin of progressive hostility.

And to top it all off? The progressives first time in 90 something years that the they start to take their "liberal" masks off and start calling themselves progressive again, as represented by the Hillary campaign. And they lost again. To Donald Trump of all people! (Who in the progressives' minds, is the lowest of the low)

Yeah. You'd be hostile too. This must mean that you need to wear a mask again for yet another 90 years. Who WOULDN'T be pissed and hostile about that? This is why their pitch gets so much worse after 2016. It's 1920 all over again! I challenge anybody, ANYBODY, go read Wilson's or TR's speeches, read their books. You will not find any bitterness. Contrast that with the progressives of today, and the comparison could not be more stark.

There's a strong link between rejection, bitterness, and ultimately hostility. And this is their history. The progressives own it.

https://tinyurl.com/ybdf3mnw

Marbury v. Madison: Was the 1789 Judiciary act actually unconstitutional?

In part 1 of this series, I asked one very simple question: Are progressives telling the truth about Marbury?

In part 2, I examined the gap between the activist cases of the early-mid 1900s and the 1803 ruling.

In part 3, the negative and positive aspects of how the Marbury ruling functioned were examined.

Here in part 4, we will look at the constitution and look at the judiciary act.

Since we know that progressives don't tell the truth about anything, then we have to start from square one. Why this is important, is progressives have long linked judicial activism to Marbury as the home of every scheme they've devised, but the more I look into it, the less I can see this is true. I'm quite certain you won't conclude that the progressives are being honest either. Why would anybody ever conclude that?

There are three major pieces here. First, here is section 13 of the judiciary act:

SEC . 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction. And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul, or vice consul, shall be a party. And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court, in all actions at law against citizens of the United States, shall be by jury. The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.

Then, here is a portion of article III, Sec. 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Finally, William Marbury filed his claim straight to the Supreme Court under section 13.

It does appear to me that the 1789 act grants extra-constitutional powers in regard to mandamus. That puts congress in the wrong here. It does not benefit the liberty of the people to have any branch of government stepping outside of its constitutional bounds, be it the courts, congress, or the president.

Understanding the constitution as well as the judiciary act itself does not vindicate judge Marshall. Maybe to you it does, but that's not why I'm doing this. Progressives use the courts to create new legislation in a positive way, wheras Marshall did no such thing. The constitution does not, in fact, give the legislature the right to say that the courts can originate mandamus.

That would require an amendment. Congress does not have the ability to amend the constitution on its own by simple legislation and neither do the courts. Looking at the text of what Marshall actually wrote, that was not his intent nor his result. The progressives have indeed pulled a fast one here.

https://tinyurl.com/yacezj9h