if you gove one federal branch veto power, or partial veto power, over another, that does not increase the net power of the federal government.

So if the president can veto the legislature, that takes power from one branch and gives it to another.

Likewise, judicial review is like a veto power, it is simply trandferring power from the executive & legislative, and putting it into the judicial branch.

Veto power does not increase overall federal power. Rather, it probably decreases it, as it is more difficult for the federalbeanch to do things.

I am talking about judicial review of federal laws. Judicial review of state laws is a separate issue.

PS

james madison wrote the 10th amendment.

You really hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. I agree with that 100%.

Thanks for engaging and asking tough questions here!

Once the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton did not argue for life terms for the congress or president.

I think Hmailton butchered the “necessary and proper” clause, a lot more than the general welfare clause.

Also, the problems faced by the federal goevernment in the late 1700s are far far greater than anything remotely faced by today’s government.

It is my belief that these problems had an adverse influence on Hamilton’s thinking (and others). Once we were an established nation, by the 1820s, things were a lot different.

If Hamilton were alive today, under today’s conditions, I feel that Hamilton would vote and act very similar to Ron Paul.

And if Ron Paul were thrown into the situation of the 1790s, he might not be as pure either.

The root of the problem today is the low level of knowledge of the people. Most people have never read the Bill-of-Rights, the Constitution, the Federalist papers, Common Sense, or the Declaration of Independence. Even fewer have read their state Constitutions.

When most people are totally ignorant of the foundation of the government, it is hard to imagine any government working.

He wanted a president, senators and judges with life terms….an effective monarchy. And, he wanted governors appointed by the president, not chosen by the people in their area.

To claim that Ron Paul holds these kinds of core beliefs is patently false.

3. Resolved, that a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme judicial, legislative and executive.

You do make some important points here, though – that I strongly agree with. Here’s a couple:

1. Each of the three branches are supposed to be – and should be – co-equal.
2. Rule by fiat, whether legislative, executive OR judicial, is something I oppose

On the other hand, there’s a few points you made that should be addressed:

1. Your view on Hamilton and Ron Paul. It was Hamilton himself who was first to propose the view that the general Welfare clause was a plenary grant of spending power. This is the one that has been the accepted course of the government since 1936, in a court ruling US v Butler – the courts and the congress since then have been wielding massive unconstitutional power against your liberty on that basis. This is one of the essential principles in how the government functions today, and it’s something that seriously distinguishes him from Ron Paul, who views the entire Constitution in its limiting nature. Hamilton viewed it as a sweeping grant of power and Paul views it opposite.

Also, I wouldn’t be in favor of strengthening the judicial branch – and see it as adding to the problem. Accepting it on its face for the sake of argument – that the other 2 branches of government are far stronger than the judicial branch, I still wouldn’t support giving more power to that branch to make them equal as a solution.

What needs to be done to create the “co-equality” of the branches is not to perpetuate the ever-growing expansion of national power, but instead, reduce the power of the the other two branches to bring them back down to the level of the judiciary.

The problem, though, is that none of the three branches have much respect for the Constitution, or your liberty. And when that’s the case, calling for more power in any of the three branches of government, as so many LP activists seem to do these days, is only going to make our problems worse.

Jefferson, Madison and other great founders proposed different solutions when 2 or more branches conspired against our liberty. Working through state governments to resist that overreach is one prominent recommendation from the founding generation.

It’s the one we most strongly support here.

* The Virginia was not soundly defeated at the Constitutional convention. In fact it passed with only two states dissenting at the beginning of the convention. The vote was 6-2 in favor, with one state divided, and the rest not present or lacking a quorum.

* The Supreme court has just as much of a right & duty to interpret the Constitution as any other branch of government. If a law or executive action violates the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to weigh in with their opinion and judicial power.

That is not judicial fiat, that is following the Constitution.

Under your logic, people who have their rights violated could not go to court. What is the alternative? Under your logic, the Bill-of-Rights has no teeth, and we don;t have a free society.

Do you then believe in executive fiat of legioslative fiat?

You simply don’t understand the system of checks and balances.

Another thing, the judicial branch is clearly the weakest branch of three federal branches, so a stronger judicial branch divides power more and preserves mor eliberty.