Since, they rule for the government, should the power of the Supreme and federal courts be limited to disputes between the states and federal matters?

[Adaeva]

There are exceptions but few far between.

[abc3643]

They already are... except that, by Constitutional amendment (ratified by at least 3/4 of the states), certain rights are deemed universal throughout all the states.

Here's an example.

You like the First Amendment, right? As a refresher to our non-American friends, the First Amendment is:

===

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

===

So, one thing that falls out of that is that Congress can't make a law establishing a national religion.

You wrote:

"the power of the Supreme and federal courts be limited to disputes between the states and federal matters".

If that was so, then that doesn't stop the states making state religions, right? Because that's saying that the First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government and not the states. So, for example, Utah is majority-Mormon so maybe the Utah state legislature and the governor ought to pass a law making The Church of Latter Day Saints (aka Mormonism) be the official religion of Utah.

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson in his famous letter exchanges with the Baptists Association of Danbury Connecticut (in which the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" comes from) implicitly was worried about the First Amendment not applying to the states and only to the Federal Government.

Ah, but then the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 soon after the Civil War:

===

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

===

Notice what that says in Section 1.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

"[No state shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 14th Amendment (along with the Supremacy Clause in Article VI) give the Federal Government the power over the states to make sure that no state can fuck over anybody. And in numerous Supreme Court cases since, the 14th Amendment basically meant that all of the rights in the Constitution are enjoyed by everyone everywhere in the country.

And keep in mind that the states ratified these meaning they agreed to it.

That's the way it is. And that's the way it should be. After all, you don't want to be forced to join the state's religion if it disagrees with the one you believe in, right? (That's what the Danbury Baptists were afraid of since Baptists are a minority in Connecticut.)

[abc3643]

Disagree all you want, but, if you're an American, be happy that thing are the way they are...
That is, unless your a profound asshole who wishes to oppress others.
But, remember this:
If you think it's OK for the majority to oppress the minority, keep in mind that, you are a minority in something. So, when you protect minority rights, you are actually protecting your own rights. And if you can oppress the rights of minorities, then, sooner or later, some other majority that you are not a member of can oppress yours.
That's the real world.

[Anonymous]

I really don't think that the US government can be reformed, at least not without a complete house cleaning.

It is so hopelessly, willfully and utterly corrupted, no one who plays any part in it even wants it to function properly.

The entire system is dysfunctional from the bottom to the top.

[monorprise]

You would have to strip power from the Federal goverment from the bottom. Otherwise the next set of politicians would simply retake the power.

If you don't strip that power you will have endless corruption fighting over it. Nearly all of which will be largely unaccountable to the people for the simple practical reason that we get but 1 vote ever 206 years on EVERY issue they have usurped to themselfs.

Which is to say no issue is really important to the people beyond broad outcomes, nor would any remain important and thus inevitably become available for sale again.

[Anonymous]

Ideally federal jurisdiction should be limited to disputes between states and the federal goverment.

Unfortunately the federal goverment like all goverment is typical run by power mad politician. That is people who are motivate to run for office precise to have and use power over other people.

So naturally they consistently put themself into conflict with anyone else claiming such power whether at home or abroad.

This would not be as much of a problem if no one man or group of men had the executive say over the meaning of the constitution as originally designed with 3 branches and 3 levels each having a different role and powers.

But using their hand picked court's as 'dispute resolution' they have rewritten the same constitution to give themself all power in effect, and approve the imprisonment of anyone who tries to hold them accountable.

This is why the way we appoint and hold judges accountable has broken our constitutional system.

[HavicZero]

This question has to be written by a Russian person because it just screams. How much they don't know how any justice system works

[abc3643]

I have a feeling she's from Arkansas.

[Anonymous]

I think it was that way originally but now that the Bill of Rights applies to the states, the court had jurisdiction over a lot of matters coming out of individual states.

[DWornock]

That is how it should be. The supreme court injects themselves into far too many things outside of the Constitution.

[QuietRunner]

Like the Constitution says

[SaoirseS]

Nope.