|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f4947/f494752693b0cfe1abb3436e15af46dc15469b4e" alt=""
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2004 : 23:32:50 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote: The 14th amendment says no such thing, Dave. Better read it again, quote it and explain to me just how it says what you say it says..I don't read anything like that in it.
Okay, if you want to backtrack in the thread, that's fine by me: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 ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Making some kids do things that other kids don't have to do, based upon religious preferences, denies the former group equal protection under the First Amendment. The Murray decision, which you claimed to have studied, talks about this.
Now, how about some tit-for-tat, in which you answer my questions for a change? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
Tim
SFN Regular
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75a15/75a1525ef42e97f3846f6bb42dd1c466c0832789" alt=""
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2004 : 05:23:07 [Permalink]
|
Doomar...You may find it to your interest to go to the source and actually read the Court's various decisions. Try this site; http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/ And then, actually read the real thing rather than taking the word of those predisposed to share your personal opinions because of a similarly held belief system.
If you actually read the case you are interested in, you will see that the Justices, (in the vast majority of the instances), present their majority opinions. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for another Justice to present a dissenting opinion.
I've always wondered why people never actually read the Court's decisions before they begin to argue a case. Unfortunately, I've found myself guilty of the same mistake on several occaissions.
There are a couple of particulars I would like to clear up, though. Early in this thread, I believe Dave mentioned that the Fed trumps the State in court decisions. This is not precisely accurate. In fact, only those parts of the Bill of Rights incorporated against the States via the 14th actually trump the State court decisions. Not all Ammendments have been incorporated against the states. Luckily, the First has in prior decisions.
Also, Doomar, you are incorrect in believing that the Founding Fathers did not wish for a clear separation of religion and gov't. While some were very adamant about the need for having God considered in the writing of our law, fortunately, for all of us, (including you), they lost the debate. This was one example of James Madison in particular fighting with his considerable talent and his clout, and winning! Madison strongly believed that religion and gov't both functioned better independntly.
But, just maybe, Doomar, you would be happy as a lark to pay a considerable portion of your tax money to support the Congregational Church, because quite frankly, that would have been the official religion of our Founding Fathers. The poor Baptists saw this comung. They raised seven kinds of hell in support of separation of religion and gov't. This is where we got the phrase "separation of church and state" from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to these Baptist folk in Connecticutt promising the weight of his office to help ensure all would be free to worship as they please, or not!
It's funny how those poor Baptist folk are now leading the charge to get religion, er...their religion, into our gov't.
Furthermore, Mr. Doomar, my friend, you are familiar, I'm sure, with the instances throughout history where absolute democracy has led to catastrophic, heinous and extremely undesirous results. With your apparent contempt of communism, wouldn't you put the Russian Revolution way up there. I won't mention another instance of tyranny by the majority shortly after that one. Plus, we need to be careful that we not forget our own majority problems with slavery and the problems inherent in 'Manifest Destiny'.
Finally, Doo...If you believe that the Court is activist, and going beyond the scope of their Constitutional powers, (which they may*), what do you think of the Executive using its priviledge to usurp the powers of both the Court and the Congress. The key phrase here is 'executive order'. One example would be the suspension of the 'Presidential Papers Act' and the 'Freedom of Information Act'. I believe, the former, if not both, was suspended even before the events of 9/11. Does the president have the power to make or to suspend legislation?
Could the sitting president have an interest in protecting his father from the questions of Iran-Contra arising from Reagan's papers which should have already been made public in accordance with previous legislation upheld as law by our court system?
Yes, I agree that Justices sometimes let their ideology get in the way of their jobs, but that's why there are nine, and why they're appointed by an elected official with legislative oversight. This has worked quite well at keeping the Court balanced. But, just in case you don't know, the majority of these sitting Justices were appointed by Republican presidents.
*Since my notes and copy of the Constitution are on my other computer where my wife is now sleeping, I do not have my proper references handy. However, if I remember correctly, I think that there may be some question as to how far the Constitutional powers of the Supreme Court extend over legislation. I will try to read my copy of the Constitution when I return from work tomorrow morning. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f4947/f494752693b0cfe1abb3436e15af46dc15469b4e" alt=""
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2004 : 10:26:40 [Permalink]
|
Tim wrote:quote: There are a couple of particulars I would like to clear up, though. Early in this thread, I believe Dave mentioned that the Fed trumps the State in court decisions. This is not precisely accurate. In fact, only those parts of the Bill of Rights incorporated against the States via the 14th actually trump the State court decisions. Not all Ammendments have been incorporated against the states. Luckily, the First has in prior decisions.
I wrote:quote: Thirdly, the US Constitution generally trumps all state and local law. If it did not, the case would have never made it out of New York State, as SCOTUS would not have had jurisdiction.
which was, admittedly, quite a broad statement. For which Amendments (and/or clauses) does the 14th apply? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
Renae
SFN Regular
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/65bdc/65bdc8b10642365cbd405880322577dc37ae883c" alt=""
543 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2004 : 16:44:03 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, to try to answer your question...
I think I believe in the fluidity of law. The law is, in a sense, a living, breathing thing--as is culture. Values change over time. Fortunately, we now have laws to protect minorities, women, and the disabled (The Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act, as examples.) I'm glad that America has evolved to show a greater tolerance and understanding. Aren't you?
"Activism" is a hard word to swallow coming from a religious, conservative type, to be honest. What you may consider "activist" may just be good law to me, and vice versa.
Although I may not agree with every legal decision in America, I think the process, on the whole, is a good one.
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
Tim
SFN Regular
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75a15/75a1525ef42e97f3846f6bb42dd1c466c0832789" alt=""
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2004 : 21:09:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave...Not much time, but here's a link to a cute little website that discusses Judicial Review and Incorporation. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html (links about one-quarter of the way down the page)
It ain't the Harvard Law Review, but then again, I ain't no scholar. I couldn't afford membership anyway! But just in case... http://www.harvardlawreview.org/
Personally, I haven't much of a problem with either Judicial Review or Incorporation. Since Article III of the Constitution gives at the least appellate jurisdiction over all matters of law and fact under the Constitution, and since the Justices are appointed by the Executive and disposed to Legislative regulation I find the checks to be very well designed.
Edited to retract my statement concerning the possibility of Executive Order 13233 being given before 9/11/2004. It was released a month and a half after 9/11. http://www.archivists.org/statements/stephenhorn.asp I apologize if I misled anyone. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
Edited by - Tim on 03/14/2004 21:20:21 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/79753/79753ab4d00606952fbe60bbd2727f38fcec068e" alt=""
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2004 : 08:17:32 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by Doomar
quote: Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
[quote]Originally posted by Doomar [In early America up to the early 1900's the Bible was used as a reader in the classroom. Those were the days when there were no shootings or stabbings or terroristic takeovers in schools. One didn't have to wait for a life threatening occurance in school to be compelled to pray. Teachers and schools daily invoked the Almighty's blessing upon there learning. Guess it must of worked, cause when the Supreme Court kicked prayer out of school, all forms of trouble in school escalated and that's a fact, Renae, that's a fact.
What statement was fallacious?
Wow. What a fallacious statement. According to your definition, the Ohio schools must have been in all kinds of trouble when their Supreme Court kicked institionalized prayer out of school in 1872.
"In early America up to the early 1900's the Bible was used as a reader in the classroom. Those were the days when there were no shootings or stabbings or terroristic takeovers in schools. One didn't have to wait for a life threatening occurance in school to be compelled to pray. Teachers and schools daily invoked the Almighty's blessing upon there learning. Guess it must of worked, cause when the Supreme Court kicked prayer out of school, all forms of trouble in school escalated"
This part. It implies that there is a causal relationship between the removal of institutionalized prayer and school violence. However, one only need look at Ohio state school to provide refuation for such a fallacious statement. Institutionally led prayer in Ohio was banned by the 1872 ruling, yet their school only suffered the advent of school violence at the same time the rest of the country. This tends to indicate a difference in the societal environment. Primarily, the civil rights movement and the systemic rise in class sizes. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/79753/79753ab4d00606952fbe60bbd2727f38fcec068e" alt=""
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2004 : 08:23:01 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by Doomar
Dave said, Yeah, and we all know that the goal of both religion and government is efficiancy. Sarcasm aside, the 14th Amendment says that everyone needs to be treated equally with regard to First Amendment rights. If you make one set of kids go out of their way for their religious beliefs, you've got to make all the kids go out of their way, to the same extent. The 14th amendment says no such thing, Dave. Better read it again, quote it and explain to me just how it says what you say it says..I don't read anything like that in it.
The case law below firmly establishes the rights in the First Amendment to be protected as fundamental rights and liberties transferrable to states.
Marsh v State of Alabama (1946) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=326&invol=501 Lovell v City of Griffin, GA (1938) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=303&invol=444 Gitlow v New York (1925) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=652
TERRETT v. TAYLOR, 13 U.S. 43 (1815) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/13/43.html
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=92&invol=542
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f4947/f494752693b0cfe1abb3436e15af46dc15469b4e" alt=""
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2004 : 12:01:07 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the links, Tim. Very interesting reading.
You wrote:quote: Personally, I haven't much of a problem with either Judicial Review or Incorporation. Since Article III of the Constitution gives at the least appellate jurisdiction over all matters of law and fact under the Constitution, and since the Justices are appointed by the Executive and disposed to Legislative regulation I find the checks to be very well designed.
I believe I agree. But my reading today brings up an interesting point: Doomar, in arguing for "Framer's Intent," should probably be arguing that any judicial review at all is against that intent. After all:Only 11 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, according to Madison's notes, expressed an opinion on the desirability of judicial review. Of those that did so, nine generally supported the idea and two opposed. Of course, eliminating judicial review would mean that if Doomar's local government decided to pass a law which prohibited writing to the Internet (thus preventing him from posting here - or anywhere else), his only recourse would be either to petition that same legislature to repeal that law (and why would they repeal a law they've just passed?), to petition a higher legislature to repeal the law (and if it were a Federal law, this would be impossible), or to move.
I, personally, don't see how a representative democracy with our ideals about equality and freedom could work without judicial review of some sort. Getting rid of it would only work if the "elite" within the other two branches of government could be trusted to only pass laws which were Constitutional to begin with. They can't be, no more than Doomar trusts the Justices to act in accordance with the will of the people. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
Tim
SFN Regular
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75a15/75a1525ef42e97f3846f6bb42dd1c466c0832789" alt=""
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2004 : 12:37:32 [Permalink]
|
quote: Only 11 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, according to Madison's notes, expressed an opinion on the desirability of judicial review.
I think we can only guess, er, I mean speculate as to why the framers didn't address this issue directly. My opinion is that it was simply a non-issue to most. I've never actually spent any real time on this problem because I never really thought of it as a problem, or even had reason to question it.
As for original intent and precedent, these issues are very improtant and worth serious consideration while deliberating the constitutionality of a law. I also recognize that sometimes these considerations may no longer be relevant to a specific issue, and then that issue must be settled on it's own merrit in relationship to the Constitution.
I do agree with Doomar when discussing the notion that some Courts or Justices have been 'activist' on the rare ocaission. I just don't agree with the specific cases he presents as examples of this. I think that Doomar needs to understand that the Justices must take an oath of office, and that oath is not to support the laws of God, but to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. quote: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
From Article VI of our constitution. Perhaps, someone should remind Justice Scalia of this forgotten, or ignored part of our constitution.
And, I had to write this post twice because I typed in the wrong password--Twice! Why don't I just log in, and not have to worry about that?
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c5aa8/c5aa871b8d8b61bfecda0f7c99ceb990dc5c5599" alt=""
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2004 : 13:37:06 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Tim
As for original intent and precedent, these issues are very improtant and worth serious consideration while deliberating the constitutionality of a law. I also recognize that sometimes these considerations may no longer be relevant to a specific issue, and then that issue must be settled on it's own merrit in relationship to the Constitution.
I do agree with Doomar when discussing the notion that some Courts or Justices have been 'activist' on the rare ocaission. I just don't agree with the specific cases he presents as examples of this. I think that Doomar needs to understand that the Justices must take an oath of office, and that oath is not to support the laws of God, but to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
Tim, I do understand their oath. My argument is regarding the specific intent of the lawmakers and also the specific silence about certain laws meant to be discussed and issued by the states. I also understand the weakness of men to misuse their power when it furthers their personal causes. The political intentions and the specific moral or immoral viewpoint of a justice is part of who the person is. Corruption is a mystery that works on every person and therefore should have been allowed for by the original framers in regards to judges. It wasn't, and, therefore, no method of vetoing their decisions made contrary to the original intent of the law was put into the constitution. This correction must be made to swing this imbalance of power back to the center. It is unreasonable to put the entire country through the expense and elongated trouble of overturning a bad decision by 5 people. Were the constitution amended to allow for veto power or some such measure by a majority of congress, or the president, or the states (or some combination of the same), then some of these odious decisions that are completely contrary to legislated law would be quickly overruled by the makers of the law and the record put straight before brainwashing of the courts sets in. When one considers that 46 state laws against abortion on demand were struck down by the '73 decision, it is easy to see how the court ruled contrary to the majority of legislators who make the law. Remember that judges are only meant to rule on matters of written law, not to write law itself. Need I say that the makers of the law, are superior to the judges of the law, in matters of intent. Without this understanding, one remains in Cluelessville about this entire matter. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c5aa8/c5aa871b8d8b61bfecda0f7c99ceb990dc5c5599" alt=""
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2004 : 13:43:52 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Tim
Doomar...You may find it to your interest to go to the source and actually read the Court's various decisions. Try this site; http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/ And then, actually read the real thing rather than taking the word of those predisposed to share your personal opinions because of a similarly held belief system.
Tim, why do you presume that I haven't. I gained the knowledge I have on the matter regarding the '63 decision against school prayer by study of the Supreme Court ruling. I read what they said and it is complete garbldegook in regard to the Constitution. There words express their opinions, but not original intent. It is a "touchy/feelie" attitude that has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution or even logic. Only the brainwashed can see anything in their words that relates to constitutional law. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c5aa8/c5aa871b8d8b61bfecda0f7c99ceb990dc5c5599" alt=""
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2004 : 13:46:53 [Permalink]
|
Tim, I used your link and did a search on the 1963 Murray vs State of New York and it pointed back to our dicussion in SFN...now that's scary. LOL |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c5aa8/c5aa871b8d8b61bfecda0f7c99ceb990dc5c5599" alt=""
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2004 : 14:03:47 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Tim
Also, Doomar, you are incorrect in believing that the Founding Fathers did not wish for a clear separation of religion and gov't. While some were very adamant about the need for having God considered in the writing of our law, fortunately, for all of us, (including you), they lost the debate. This was one example of James Madison in particular fighting with his considerable talent and his clout, and winning! Madison strongly believed that religion and gov't both functioned better independntly.
But, just maybe, Doomar, you would be happy as a lark to pay a considerable portion of your tax money to support the Congregational Church, because quite frankly, that would have been the official religion of our Founding Fathers. The poor Baptists saw this comung. They raised seven kinds of hell in support of separation of religion and gov't. This is where we got the phrase "separation of church and state" from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to these Baptist folk in Connecticutt promising the weight of his office to help ensure all would be free to worship as they please, or not!
It's funny how those poor Baptist folk are now leading the charge to get religion, er...their religion, into our gov't.
Tim, you are misquoting my intention, as I have no desire for a church state whatever. Regarding some Baptists: In fact, today, many Baptist still favor complete separation of church and state and oppose school prayer.
Furthermore, Mr. Doomar, my friend, you are familiar, I'm sure, with the instances throughout history where absolute democracy has led to catastrophic, heinous and extremely undesirous results. With your apparent contempt of communism, wouldn't you put the Russian Revolution way up there. I won't mention another instance of tyranny by the majority shortly after that one. Plus, we need to be careful that we not forget our own majority problems with slavery and the problems inherent in 'Manifest Destiny'.
Tim, how is it that you can compare the Russian communist revolution to anything democratic? Since when were the communist anything but a minority within Russian?
Finally, Doo...If you believe that the Court is activist, and going beyond the scope of their Constitutional powers, (which they may*), what do you think of the Executive using its priviledge to usurp the powers of both the Court and the Congress. The key phrase here is 'executive order'. One example would be the suspension of the 'Presidential Papers Act' and the 'Freedom of Information Act'. I believe, the former, if not both, was suspended even before the events of 9/11. Does the president have the power to make or to suspend legislation?
Tim, I would not agree with any usurping of power.
Yes, I agree that Justices sometimes let their ideology get in the way of their jobs, but that's why there are nine, and why they're appointed by an elected official with legislative oversight. This has worked quite well at keeping the Court balanced. But, just in case you don't know, the majority of these sitting Justices were appointed by Republican presidents.
Tim, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that "this has worked quite well." Are you aware how the Dredd/Scott decision, being a direct result of a racist Supreme Court,led to an overturning of the Missouri compromise which led to the war between the States. The Judicial system is by far the weakest link in our Constitution and should bare some strong scrutiny with an intent to fix it. Do any of you actually think the SC should still be 9 people, when the Congress has grown so huge? I'll remind you that the number is not in the Constitution and could be changed tomorrow by edict. This would be a good start in weakening the power of the SC. FDR was considering this in his day. It's an idea long past due.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
Edited by - Doomar on 03/20/2004 14:05:04 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f4947/f494752693b0cfe1abb3436e15af46dc15469b4e" alt=""
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2004 : 00:05:10 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote: The political intentions and the specific moral or immoral viewpoint of a justice is part of who the person is.
And a part of every legislator and president. Why let them off the hook, and blame everything on justices?quote: Corruption is a mystery that works on every person and therefore should have been allowed for by the original framers in regards to judges. It wasn't, and, therefore, no method of vetoing their decisions made contrary to the original intent of the law was put into the constitution. This correction must be made to swing this imbalance of power back to the center. It is unreasonable to put the entire country through the expense and elongated trouble of overturning a bad decision by 5 people.
This is all baloney, and you know it. Why put 535 representatives of the people through the expense and trouble of overturning a bad decision by one person? That's what veto power does between the executive and legislative branches of the government. Forcing the entire country to ensure that the law their representatives claim they want, in spite of its unconstitutionality (as legislators can be corrupt, after all), is very much a good thing.
Besides which, your claim that only five people are making "bad decisions" is often simply wrong. You cite Roe v. Wade, without mentioning that a three-judge Texas district court agreed that the Texas law was unconstitutional. McCorvey appealed the decision only because those judges refused to enjoin further prosecutions. Not only that, but the SCOTUS breakdown on Roe v. Wade was 7-to-2.
How about this: the case in which Texas sodomy law which was recently overturned (6-to-3) might never have made it to the SCOTUS had a bill which would have repealed the law not died in committee. That bill never even had a chance to be voted on by all the representatives of the people of Texas, instead a small sub-set of them (the committee) made sure it never got that far. That is what judicial review is all about: correcting legislative abuses which the executive branch either never hears about, or agrees with.
You also wrote:quote: Tim, why do you presume that I haven't. I gained the knowledge I have on the matter regarding the '63 decision against school prayer by study of the Supreme Court ruling.
Well, I would presume that Tim presumes as much because you continue to refuse to answer when I ask you about where you've gotten the idea that the Murray case was decided due to the "negative light" the student would be seen in, when the decision regarding the Murray case itself makes no such mention of such an aspect of things. I've asked you several times now about where you've come by such a "fact," and you've never answered my question. Either you're refusing to answer me, personally, or you're unwilling to answer the question at all. I can't tell which until somebody else asks you the same question. There's a link to the SCOTUS decision on page one or two of this thread, I believe.
You later wrote:quote: Are you aware how the Dredd/Scott decision, being a direct result of a racist Supreme Court,led to an overturning of the Missouri compromise which led to the war between the States.
Good grief. How can you expect to be seen as a student of the law when you mangle the man's name so badly? Dred Scott sued for his freedom. The name of the case was first "Scott v. Emerson," and as heard by the SCOTUS it was "Scott v. Sandford." There are only two Ds in the plaintiff's name, and your slash implies that he sued someone named Scott, which is just wrong.
Furthermore, even though I disagree quite strongly with the ethics of the court's decision in the case and find it personally abhorrent, I must point out that its judgement that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because the Federal government had no right to forbid slavery in any new territory seems to me to be a "states' rights" issue, and perhaps correctly decided on such technical grounds. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, after all, had not yet been written.
Furthermore, according to the web site of St Louis' Historic Old Courthouse,On March 6th, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Seven of the nine justices agreed that Dred Scott should remain a slave, but Taney did not stop there. He also ruled that as a slave, Dred Scott was not a citizen of the United States, and therefore had no right to bring suit in the federal courts on any matter. In addition, he declared that Scott had never been free, due to the fact that slaves were personal property; thus the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional, and the Federal Government had no right to prohibit slavery in the new territories. The court appeared to be sanctioning slavery under the terms of the Constitution itself, and saying that slavery could not be outlawed or restricted within the United States. The American public reacted very strongly to the Dred Scott Decision. Antislavery groups feared that slavery would spread unchecked. The new Republican Party, founded in 1854 to prohibit the spread of slavery, renewed their fight to gain control of the Congress and the courts. Their well-planned political campaign of 1860, coupled with divisive issues which split the Democratic Party, led to the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States and South Carolina's secession from the Union. The Dred Scott Decision moved the country to the brink of Civil War. And so, implying that only the Dred Scott case led to the Civil War is simply incorrect, as well. I find the part that I have put into bold to be particularly ironic, considering the current Republican President's stance against "activist courts."quote: Do any of you actually think the SC should still be 9 people, when the Congress has grown so huge? I'll remind you that the number is not in the Constitution and could be changed tomorrow by edict.
We could also amend the Constitution to give us more than one President, who can currently veto the will of the simple majority of the people all by himself. He stands as the first "check and balance" against "mob rule," yet all of your vitriol is reserved for the courts. I really don't understand how or why you can pick on one single branch of the government, when fingers of blame for abuses can be (and have been) pointed at all three.quote: This would be a good start in weakening the power of the SC.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b0a7/0b0a7e9f380373724c69866bd3a487bcc5484bca" alt="Go to Top of Page Go to Top of Page" |
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/35c11/35c11d802cd30c7c48cdf45e80eaf9d10187054f" alt="Next Topic Next Topic" |
|
|
|