US Constitutional Law - Revision history

Markus Brummer: Typos and formatting

2025-11-27T11:53:54Z

Typos and formatting

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:53, 27 November 2025
Line 11:		Line 11:
	== What is the problem ==		== What is the problem ==

	The US Constitution does not say who has the final say over ~~that~~ the Constitution actually means, or in other words, who has the power to interpret the Constitution.		The US Constitution does not say who has the final say over what the Constitution actually means, or in other words, who has the power to interpret the Constitution.

	For example, the Roman Catholic Church has declared the Pope and his fellow bishops are the only ones who can correctly interpret the Bible, which means they have the monopoly on formulating church doctrine.		For example, the Roman Catholic Church has declared that the Pope and his fellow bishops are the only ones who can correctly interpret the Bible, which means they have the monopoly on formulating church doctrine.

	The Supreme Court has declared that they have the power to interpret what the Constitution actually means. And, by legal drift, other branches have accepted the ''tradition'' that the US Supreme Court is the '''only''' branch that can do this. This means, ~~that~~ the Supreme Court has the final say over what the Constitution actually means.		The Supreme Court has declared that they have the power to interpret what the Constitution actually means. And, by legal drift, other branches have accepted the ''tradition'' that the US Supreme Court is the '''only''' branch that can do this. This means that, de facto, the Supreme Court has the final say over what the Constitution actually means.

	'''This has no basis on the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not say who has the power to interpret its contents.'''		'''This has no basis on the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not say who has the power to interpret its contents.'''
Line 29:		Line 29:
	The articles are written in order of importance, and hence, claim to legal power. Here is what should actually happen.		The articles are written in order of importance, and hence, claim to legal power. Here is what should actually happen.

	Congress makes laws, in good faith, we at least pretend they know what they are doing and are faithful to the Constitution.		* Congress makes laws, in good faith, so people at least pretend that they know what they are doing and are faithful to the Constitution

	Supreme Court reviews, and gives an opinion, when they think Congress has made a mistake~~. So far as before.~~		* Supreme Court reviews, and gives an opinion, when they think Congress has made a mistake, which is the current practice

	'''The President can correct and strike down a Supreme Court opinion.'''		* '''The President can correct and strike down a Supreme Court opinion when they have made a mistake in interpreting the Constitution'''

	Congress can impeach the President, if he is acting in bad faith, and not defending the Constitution~~. The~~ last word then actually stands with Congress on how to interpret the US Constitution.		* Congress can impeach the President, if he is acting in bad faith, and is not defending the Constitution

			By the order of importance reasoning, and why the power of impeachment was given to Congress, and not to the President or the Supreme Court, the last word then actually stands with Congress on how to interpret the US Constitution.

			If Congress is acting badly, the solution is free elections

	= Independent Agencies =		= Independent Agencies =

	The US has tens of different agencies that formulate policies and create regulations that have the power of law. This means, of course, that failure to comply with a given regulation can result in legal proceedings, a fine or even jail for not following them.		The US has tens of different agencies that formulate policies and create regulations that have the power of law. This means, of course, that failure to comply with a given regulation can result in legal proceedings, a fine or even jail time for not following them.

	Independent agencies are a political tool, jointly used by the Congress and the President, to run from responsiblity. They can publicly say that "this or that agency made the decision to do this very uncomfortable and unpopular regulation" while they appoint members in the same agencies to make the decisions.		Independent agencies are a political tool, jointly used by the Congress and the President, to run from responsiblity. They can publicly say that "this or that agency made the decision to do this very uncomfortable and unpopular regulation" while they appoint members in the same agencies to make the decisions. That is why they were created, and why nobody wants to reform them, because it is convenient in politics to maximize power and minimize accountability.

	== What is the problem ==		== What is the problem ==

	Article one of the Constitution defines legislative power that is given to Congress. And, following John Locke, this power cannot be further delegated since it was already delegated to Congress by the Sovereing, the People.		Article one of the Constitution defines legislative power that is given to Congress. And, following John Locke, this power cannot be further delegated since it was already delegated to Congress by the Sovereing, or the People.

	Any rule or regulation that has the power of law therefore must be somehow passed ~~or accepted by~~ the US Congress. Any such regulation, passed by any agency, is unconstitutional.		Any rule or regulation that has the power of law therefore must be somehow passed through the US Congress. Any such regulation, passed by any agency, is otherwise unconstitutional.

	== What is the solution ==		== What is the solution ==
Line 69:		Line 73:
	== What is the problem ==		== What is the problem ==

	This holding means that, by default, any printing of classified documents by the press is '''legal''', until the US government can show that damage has been done, and as such, '''the Supreme Court voided all national security laws regarding classified documents passed by Congress.'''		This holding means that, ''by default'', any printing of classified documents by the press is '''legal''', until the US government can show that damage has been done, and as such, '''the Supreme Court voided all national security laws regarding classified documents passed by Congress.'''

	== What is the solution ==		== What is the solution ==

	Strike down the Pentagon Papers ruling, because the government can sometimes have good cause to make documents Top Secret.		Strike down the Pentagon Papers ruling, because the government can sometimes have good cause to make documents Top Secret.

Markus Brummer: Pentagon Papers

2025-11-25T22:35:02Z

Pentagon Papers

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 25 November 2025
Line 58:		Line 58:

	I say '''of course it is political, the US is a republic, where the government is accountable for their actions to the public, the voters, and the People'''.		I say '''of course it is political, the US is a republic, where the government is accountable for their actions to the public, the voters, and the People'''.

			= The Pentagon Papers =

			The New York Times published in 1971 some materials from classified documents known as the Pentagon Papers, which analyzed the Vietnam War. The Nixon administration went to the Supreme Court with the case.

			The holding was:

			"To exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that publication of the material would cause a "grave and irreparable" danger."

			== What is the problem ==

			This holding means that, by default, any printing of classified documents by the press is '''legal''', until the US government can show that damage has been done, and as such, '''the Supreme Court voided all national security laws regarding classified documents passed by Congress.'''

			== What is the solution ==

			Strike down the Pentagon Papers ruling, because the government can sometimes have good cause to make documents Top Secret.

Markus Brummer: Independent Agencies

2025-11-25T22:19:24Z

Independent Agencies

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 25 November 2025
Line 36:		Line 36:

	Congress can impeach the President, if he is acting in bad faith, and not defending the Constitution. The last word then actually stands with Congress on how to interpret the US Constitution.		Congress can impeach the President, if he is acting in bad faith, and not defending the Constitution. The last word then actually stands with Congress on how to interpret the US Constitution.

			= Independent Agencies =

			The US has tens of different agencies that formulate policies and create regulations that have the power of law. This means, of course, that failure to comply with a given regulation can result in legal proceedings, a fine or even jail for not following them.

			Independent agencies are a political tool, jointly used by the Congress and the President, to run from responsiblity. They can publicly say that "this or that agency made the decision to do this very uncomfortable and unpopular regulation" while they appoint members in the same agencies to make the decisions.

			== What is the problem ==

			Article one of the Constitution defines legislative power that is given to Congress. And, following John Locke, this power cannot be further delegated since it was already delegated to Congress by the Sovereing, the People.

			Any rule or regulation that has the power of law therefore must be somehow passed or accepted by the US Congress. Any such regulation, passed by any agency, is unconstitutional.

			== What is the solution ==

			Abolish the notion of there even being anything "independent" in government. All power used by the government must be defined trough the Constitution, and that makes Congress, the President and Supreme Court ultimately responsible for what they do, and what their underlings do.

			The President should be, by default, the head of any "independent agency", and can fire anyone he likes, and they can only make recommendations for regulations, which must be voted on by Congress.

			You say '''this is political'''.

			I say '''of course it is political, the US is a republic, where the government is accountable for their actions to the public, the voters, and the People'''.

Markus Brummer: Marbury v Madison

2025-11-25T22:03:08Z

Marbury v Madison

New page

= Marbury v Madison =

US Supreme Court decision in Marbury v Madison (1803) provided a precedent that the Supreme Court can strike down laws passed by Congress on the basis that they are unconstitutional.

This is perhaps the most influential decision in the history of US constitutional law, and it is actually flawed, in a very subtle way.

== What is true ==

The US Constitution is the highest law of the land, and it supercedes laws passed by Congress. Laws can be struck down on the basis of being against the US Constitution.

== What is the problem ==

The US Constitution does not say who has the final say over that the Constitution actually means, or in other words, who has the power to interpret the Constitution.

For example, the Roman Catholic Church has declared the Pope and his fellow bishops are the only ones who can correctly interpret the Bible, which means they have the monopoly on formulating church doctrine.

The Supreme Court has declared that they have the power to interpret what the Constitution actually means. And, by legal drift, other branches have accepted the ''tradition'' that the US Supreme Court is the '''only''' branch that can do this. This means, that the Supreme Court has the final say over what the Constitution actually means.

'''This has no basis on the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not say who has the power to interpret its contents.'''

== What is the solution ==

The article one defines legislative power, given to Congress.

The article two defines executive power, given to the President.

The article three defines judicial power and the responsibilities of the Supreme Court.

The articles are written in order of importance, and hence, claim to legal power. Here is what should actually happen.

Congress makes laws, in good faith, we at least pretend they know what they are doing and are faithful to the Constitution.

Supreme Court reviews, and gives an opinion, when they think Congress has made a mistake. So far as before.

'''The President can correct and strike down a Supreme Court opinion.'''

Congress can impeach the President, if he is acting in bad faith, and not defending the Constitution. The last word then actually stands with Congress on how to interpret the US Constitution.