Login Email Password Login Forgot Password?

[nikoloslvy1041]

or book”s”…

[nikoloslvy1041]

Yes he did.The real question in this (McCulloch v. Maryland) case wasn’t so much whether the federal government could open a bank but wether this bank was really federal. The government only had 20% of stock in the Maryland bank. The question was, is this really a federal bank for it didn’t really operate like one. Should a private bank be allowed to escape state taxes simply because it claimed to be federal? Marshel didn’t even address those arguments in his opinion. he appears to have changed his mind from McCulloch v. Maryland…

http://i47.tinypic.com/3469rgh.png

page 11

Stanford Law Review
Vol. 9, No. 4 (Jul., 1957)
contains: McCulloch v. Maryland Right Principle, Wrong Case
Harold J. Plous and Gordon E. Baker
pp. 710-730 (21 pages)

[nikoloslvy1041]

from the professor..

[nikoloslvy1041]

While I admire your outside reading of obscure history professors, I’m not sure Prof. Gutzman fully understands Prof. Friedman’s argument. The Supreme Court is a representative institution in that it attempts to do what is right for the nation as a whole. No member of Congress has a national constituency, only the President does, but deferring to him all the time would give him tyrannical power. The Court is able to take a long-run, national view of the Constitution in a way that no elected official can since he must pander to the masses who elect him and the contributors who fund his candidacy. The Constitution was designed to establish a republic, not a democracy, and its savior is the fact that the Court can do what is best for the nation as opposed to what is best for its electoral interest. The Federalists disdained rule by the mob and attempted to establish a republic led by wise men who could rise above politics. Sadly, the last vestige of their vision is the Supreme Court.

My preference is that you do the assigned reading first and then do outside reading if you wish. I will expect you to be well versed on Gibbons v. Ogden next Wednesday.

[nikoloslvy1041]

Chapter 5 of the politically incorrect guide by Gutsman talks about it..reviewing now.

[nikoloslvy1041]

I have to write a legal brief for Mcculloch-v-State-of-Maryland as outlined here.

Are those the facts? Which part of the lecture series deals with this case? The Marshel court lecture?

What if anything should i know that was not coverd in the lecture as far as further details?

[nikoloslvy1041]

This was my admittedly poor response to his first class.. https://vimeo.com/58920409

[nikoloslvy1041]

And thats why I love liberty classroom and facebbok…where else can I have a back and fourth with Thom and Kevin. I salute and thank you gentleman.

I all ready own the guide sir and was just listening to the audio book today actually to prepare for class.

I’m not a scholar but I guess to be a really good student (we/) I can read this atrocity and try to argue the point in my papers and in class since the professor says he agrees with 90% of the book.(Nice guy…lets me make my point without judgment or shouting me down…for now.)

From todays class: ” The notion that judicial review in Marbury v. Madison was a big deal is just not the case. Judicial review had already been set up in Bayard v. Singleton.”

http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/117/entry

[nikoloslvy1041]

yuck…the professor thinks this is a great read:
Barry Friedman’s The Will of the People (2009, New York: Farrar, Strauss and Girouz.

In recent years, the justices of the Supreme Court have ruled definitively on such issues as abortion, school prayer, and military tribunals in the war on terror. They decided one of American history’s most contested presidential elections. Yet for all their power, the justices never face election, and hold their offices for life. This combination of influence and apparent unaccountability has led many to complain that there is something illegitimate—even undemocratic—about judicial authority.

In The Will of the People, Barry Friedman challenges that claim by showing that the Court has always been subject to a higher power: the American public. Judicial positions have been abolished, the justices’ jurisdiction has been stripped, the Court has been packed, and unpopular decisions have been defied. For at least the past sixty years, the justices have made sure that their decisions do not stray too far from public opinion.

Friedman’s pathbreaking account of the relationship between popular opinion and the Supreme Court—from the Declaration of Independence to the end of the Rehnquist Court in 2005—details how the American people came to accept their most controversial institution and, in so doing, shaped the meaning of the Constitution.

[nikoloslvy1041]

Thank you!

[nikoloslvy1041]

bump..

[nikoloslvy1041]

Hello im what you guys would call a neo con.

I am subscribed to the Peter Schiff show, I have read Delorenzo’s- Hamiltons Curse over 30 times( one of the most importnt history books ever written). I love the Von Misses site and I think that Thomas Woods is one of the most important thinkers/writer of our day.

I find libertarian thought fascinating and highly educational. I’m a firm believer in the Austrian school and wish to continue to grow and learn.

Although not a libertarian myself (my libertarian friends call me a conservative my conservative friends call me a libertarian…liberals just call me names…around here I guess I would be a Reaganite,) one can not be any kind of conservative without a strong libertarian background on economics.

so here I am.

[nikoloslvy1041]

Well after watching the vid again i kind of understand it…i guess this is a wasted thread…

[Author]

Posts