• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

An Introduction to Constitutional Law. 100 SCOTUS cases everyone should know

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
557
This multimedia platform combines a book and video series that will change the way you study constitutional law. An Introduction to Constitutional Law teaches the narrative of constitutional law as it has developed over the past two centuries. All students even those unfamiliar with American history will learn the essential background information to grasp how this body of law has come to be what it is today. An online library of sixty-three videos brings the Supreme Court's one hundred most important decisions to life. These videos are enriched by photographs, maps, and even audio from the Supreme Court. The book and videos are accessible for all levels: law school, college, high school, home school, and independent study. Students can read and watch these materials before class to prepare for lectures or study after class to fill in any gaps in their notes. And, come exam time, students can watch the entire canon of constitutional law in about twelve hours.
. NOT FREE. $20 - $30
 
Last edited:

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
The trouble is starting with Marbury vs Madison where the court granted itself powers it waa NOT granted by the COTUS, SCOTUS has turned our system of constitutional law into an unrecognizable perversion of itself.

Using terms like precedent, which is simply following one bad decision with otherss, reasonable restrictions and other made up terms .
 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
557
Stare decsis comes to US from our legal heritage in English common law.

American jurisprudence is much more mature than anonymouse Ghost... You don’t have to like or understand M v. M any more than your speeding ticket or class failure, but guess what, sux to be you!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,417
Location
White Oak Plantation
And you don't have to understand that precedent should be treated, these days, by judges just as judges use QI to forgive the most egregious behavior by cops/prosecutors because no exact situation has come before it...no precedent should be used for any proceeding...if one respects the plain reading of the US Constitution. But, this is not reality.

Nor would we have Heien...used quite frequently by cops...read that 4A.com website and do a search on qualified immunity, you will see Heien invoked and accepted by judges

It is precedent that gave us Kelo, Terry's cancer on our 4A, the ignoring of Heller...no, the ignoring of the plain reading of the 2A and 10A to name just two...I could go on but these points, and others, are archived in the digital catacombs of this site.

Precedent is used far more to erode individual liberty than to restore individual liberty...else M v. M would have been respected...ya know, that repugnant part...about 200 years ago...don't even get me started on one US district no recognizing the precedent of a sister US district...

REASONS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE RULE.-The polic:y of the courts, and the principle upon which rests the authority of judicial decisions as precedents in subsequent litigations, is embodied in the maxim, Stare decisis et non quieta movere-to abide by the precedents and not to disturb settled points. Its meaning is, that when a point of law has been once solemnly and necessarily settled by the decision of a coμipetent court, it will no longer be considered open to examination, or to a new ruling, by the same tribunal or those which are bound to follow its adjudications.

The American Law Register, December 1886, The Principle of Stare Decsis.
This is why the Supremes will not rule to overturn Terry and Kelo nor have the executive/congress critters respect the 2A....via Heller...I mean they got no guns to enforce their precedents now do they...
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Stare decsis comes to US from our legal heritage in English common law.

American jurisprudence is much more mature than anonymouse Ghost... You don’t have to like or understand M v. M any more than your speeding ticket or class failure, but guess what, sux to be you!

Our legal system is laid out by our constitution.

It should have remained that way instead of old men in black night shirts and wigs interjecting "English common law" concepts we fought a war to be free of.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,826
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Our legal system is laid out by our constitution.

It should have remained that way instead of old men in black night shirts and wigs interjecting "English common law" concepts we fought a war to be free of.
We did not fight the Revolutionary War to be free of English Common Law. We fought it to be free of the tyrannical abuse of it. The English Bill of Rights, an act that the Parliament of England passed on December 16, 1689, creates separation of powers, limits the powers of the king and queen, enhances the democratic election and bolsters freedom of speech. It also allowed Protestants the right to keep and bear arms, and specifically prohibited that to Catholics (there were constant religious wars between England v Scotland, France & Spain driven by these two ideologies). State constitutions adopted many of these concepts and (eventually) eliminated the religious preference.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,417
Location
White Oak Plantation
English common law is not all that and a bag of chips...it relies far too much on the benevolence of the all powerful state. The (a written) constitution is the antithesis of English common law...even though some English common law principles are the foundation of the BoR.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,383
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Stare decsis comes to US from our legal heritage in English common law.

American jurisprudence is much more mature than anonymouse Ghost... You don’t have to like or understand M v. M any more than your speeding ticket or class failure, but guess what, sux to be you!
The problem with stare decisis is that the lower courts convert dictum into judicial doctrine.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
We did not fight the Revolutionary War to be free of English Common Law. We fought it to be free of the tyrannical abuse of it. The English Bill of Rights, an act that the Parliament of England passed on December 16, 1689, creates separation of powers, limits the powers of the king and queen, enhances the democratic election and bolsters freedom of speech. It also allowed Protestants the right to keep and bear arms, and specifically prohibited that to Catholics (there were constant religious wars between England v Scotland, France & Spain driven by these two ideologies). State constitutions adopted many of these concepts and (eventually) eliminated the religious preference.
I know why we fought to be free of England.
An abusive central gov. Sound familiar?

If its in our Constitution great. If not , pulling up and pointing to " English Common law" that isn't included is a red herring argument used way to much to defend the indefenseable done by courts and gov.

Precedence , is a cooked up legalese concept that should not exist.

A court case should be tried in its own merits. Not on some previous , probably wrong, court opinion, tradition, or how long an unconstitutional law has been allowed to stand.
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,464
Location
Dallas
English common law is not all that and a bag of chips...it relies far too much on the benevolence of the all powerful state. The (a written) constitution is the antithesis of English common law...even though some English common law principles are the foundation of the BoR.
You've got Nigel Farage in the England right now making this very same point - do away with the House of Lords and replace it with a Senate. English Parliament ignored the vote of the people in 2016 to LEAVE the EU. PM David Cameron said results of Referendum w/b final and binding....except when the British electorate voted to LEAVE....

I don't care to learn about 100 SCOTUS cases that lead into penumbras and emanations - away from the deliberated intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Would rather spend more time on the debates for Madison's Constitution, the arguments to get states to ratify it as well as Geo Mason's 12 Bill of Rights. Much more relevant to me as a descendant of citizens that fought for Liberty as Englishmen - to understand the reasoning our Founders used to create our 2nd form of Government - that has been bastardized by SCOTUS attempts to dominate the other branches, using stare decisis among other contrivances......most recent finding Obamacare constitutional to FORCE citizens to buy something - pretzel logic.
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,464
Location
Dallas
Here’s an excerpt from Nick Bunker’s book on Franklin (in 1729 where Benjamin Franklin was writing in his Pennsylvania Gazette. about the late NY royalist Governor Burnett’s anti-liberty tendencies):
...calling Burnet a man of “arts and menaces… cunning and politicks,” bent on the subversion of freedom. A radical Whig to his toes, Franklin praised the men of the Bay Colony for their stand against the governor. They had displayed, he wrote, “that ardent spirit of liberty… which has in every age distinguished BRITONS and ENGLISHMEN from all the rest of mankind.”
The corrosive effects of power to corrupt men into despots is still an issue today as it was 300 years ago in our country. Accretions of deviations/errors by SCOTUS from the original intent of founding documents - through stare decisis - not through Constitutional Amendment - because the latter path is ‘too hard (read would never pass)’ - is the weakness of 9 judges in black robes that imperfectly attempt to govern over 350 million citizens, and to try and dominate the other two Co-Equal branches of government.
 
Last edited:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I will vote. In our representative republic.

Until you learn the basics like what type of gov we have , probably should stick to using English when attempting to rewrite the COTUS.
Sorry about being a bit late to the discussion.

It is a bit hard for people to understand that what is called 'Constitutional Law' today, is actually 'anti-Constitutional Law'. It's the culmination of all of the jargon passed off as excuses to bypass the amendment process.

Ghost1958 I appreciate your responses here. You can refer those that have assumed our government is a 'democracy' to Art 4 Sec 4 of the Constitution. If it is a democracy then it is illegal. We are guaranteed a Republican form of government.
 
Top