|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/20/2008 : 23:14:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
My main issue with the federal judicial comes when the issues are not federal matters. State rights, (I was not seeing this properly before). The lack of amendment after all these years looks to be reason enough to shut the practice down.
Everson vs Board of Education was an example when a court rules that the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law " suddenly means that "the states shall make no law" and creates a new constitutional "wall of separation" between church and state.
What I have read indicates the states right issue is fairly well trampled by our federal judicial system. The problem is not personal bias on the issues being considered, it is the federal judiciary ignoring constitutional limits of legislating to the states. |
Then you've missed the 14th Amendment, which says in no uncertain terms that the Federal Constitution applies to the States. Or would you rather have Kentucky (for example) be able to establish an official church?| When a court "finds" a "right of privacy" hidden in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution and later expands this "right of privacy" into the right to abortion - that is judicial activism, (fine). |
No, it is not. The 9th Amendment says that whatever rights are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the people. In other words, if we agree that there exists a right to privacy, then we (the people) get a right to privacy because the Constitution doesn't specifically deny us that right. Period. There is no legal question on this.| When it is applied to all states, that is unconstitutional, (not fine). |
Not according to the 14th Amendment, which was, indeed, ratified.| State laws being upended by such legislation is abundant. |
If many states pass unconstitutional laws, they are still unconstitutional.| Medical marijuana is a recent example. |
Has a case on that reached SCOTUS? I haven't been following that particular issue. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2008 : 01:04:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
While Thailand is not an ideal government (none are), it has shown it is capable of changing the government system and the sitting rulers when required, forcing government to restrain itself through a constitution. The temporary impact on tourism and industry was minor compared to allowing a despot to rule to term and creating a civil war. Even with all the negative detractors, I was glad to see a public that would actively influence application of a constitution to the rulers.
|
Except that what you think happened didn't happen.
1. The first constitution was drafted by a committee elected directly by popular vote.
2. The entire original parliament was elected by pure popular vote.
3. Takshin was elected as the PM 3 times all through the mechanisms of the legal constitution.
4. During the 3rd election the opposition refused to participate in the legal election and called the legal election a farce (without any evidence).
5. Shortly after the third legal election of a popularly elected PM under a popularly elected Parliament abiding by a popularly drafted constitution; a military coup (siding with the opposition and with the tacit blessing of the king) overthrew the legally elected PM, Parliament and Constitution.
6. Since that time the military junta has placed its own military (un-elected) people in power, set up a parliament (none elected) and drafted a new constitution (without any popular support or vetting.
7. They also appointed the newest PM last december and when he didn't suit the military juntas line they ran him out on a rail, not for disobeying either constitution, but because they didn't like him anymore.
The fact that you keep trying to use this to support fixed constitutionalism seems to suggest that you are not an honest person. |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2008 : 01:23:00 [Permalink]
|
I found a section of Wiki that generally reflects my thoughts on the matter of judicial activism. While I've narrowed my approach to focus on retention of state powers, the federal judicial is clearly crossing into the legislative too often on wrong subjects, IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism
"They (critics) say that because the purpose of the judiciary is to interpret existing laws and policies, any action that is not done strictly in accordance with existing law must be activism. Indeed, they continue, the legislative branch is explicitly empowered by the constitution to make law, and the constitution deliberately has an amendment process."
A big issue is in interpretation, which should be narrow and only relevant to the case. And thank you EFF for the fight on DMCA.
SCOTUS appears to have a Gonzales v. Raich, that upends medical use of marijuana by states that have approved use.
There is enough dissent and argument on state powers vs federal powers - judicial vs legislative from both sides. Makes for intersting reading, but in the meantime we have considerably less freedom and more probability of breaking laws unknowingly. I once tried to find out how many laws applied to my existence and activities - found it too daunting a task. Definatly changed my opinion of a "living" Consitution and highway fund extortion.
The highway funds being used as coercion to get states to comply to federal whims is really overdone IMO. The latest on mandatory seat belt laws really was pure socialist funk that enriches local police at the expense of liberty. Just another reason for a ego tripping - revenue/quota generating cop to screw with folks - not great. $250 fine, so much for 'reasonable' fines. I think it was a paltry 1.2million in highway funds that came with this seatbelt tripe. It really is not OK. With fed backing these laws that are coerced with financial survival, makes redress less likely. Mandatory minimums, mandatory sentencing, prohibitions, minimum drinking ages - the list goes on. Too much.
I still side with state rights, and I have read the Constitution and many analysis. I'll just say we are in good company to disagree. It would be nice to have refuge from onerous laws somewhere within the union, but all the states are judicially becoming cookie cutter clones so they can partake in the highway funds.
I'm thinking I'll go live in Thailand. Thailand has seatbelt laws, fine is ~$1. No drivers license is ~$15 and then they let you drive away, lol. Unlike the US, Thailand has not yet discovered the financial benefit of locking up large percentages of productive citizenery for most non-violent crimes. The US uses military and trade incentives in Asia like it uses the highway funds here at home, coercion to implement US favored policies in exchange for goodies. In that respect, I hope the US does run out of money. |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2008 : 01:45:34 [Permalink]
|
Well I may be ignorant, but while I was there I saw things a little different.
The first Thai PM was enriching himself and his family without paying taxes. Rampant cronyism and corruption didn't help his case - at least to those not getting rich off him. He put himself above the law and refused to be accountable, then he refused to appear in court or heed calls to step down. After selling the Thai communications satellite to Taiwan, he pocketed the profits without paying taxes once again. The selling of a "national treasure" was enough to exploit the masses and create a call for his exit. His war on drugs and terrorism had already disenfranchised many - and some of those were not without significant influence. With growing political unrest, the King was not pleased - the military finally got a nod to kick the PM out while he was lounging around in New York USA.
bloodless coup
A new constitution was drafted to plug the tax loopholes and clean up some minor issues. This was ratified by committe selected by popular vote. The military pulled out after new elections were held. This next PM was much more corrupt than the Taskin, and not as smart. He violated more than a few laws and cut off the wrong folks controlling the black market and enabled others to fill the gaps. Civil unrest was encouraged and the poor were exploited to make issue of his taking private money while in office - (from his appearance on a cooking show) - which was a clear constitutional violation. He refused to leave office, and a loosely organized revolutionary group, PAD, quickly gained momentum to gridlock the country until the political solution was resolved. The King seeing significant political unrest, encouraged a peaceful solution - the PM left office.
The only appeal this situation had was seeing how masses could shut down the working of a country, (most peacfuly), and force government changes. No, there are too many very negative manipulations and corruption going on there. It was just a musing at how any peaceful activism similar to PAD would be violently squashed in the USA. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2008 : 04:17:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
But the blame is not just for the mortgage banks, the federal reserve, and Greenspan. The millions of US citizens who decided to accept a loan they would not be able to repay have to have some share of the responsibility as well. Not the lions share, that is for the lenders and the lack of regulation, but some. People need to have a little personal responsibility. |
I agree to an extent, but it seems that a lot of people were simply misled into this. For instance, the WSJ reported that| An analysis for The Wall Street Journal of more than $2.5 trillion in subprime loans made since 2000 shows that as the number of subprime loans mushroomed, an increasing proportion of them went to people with credit scores high enough to often qualify for conventional loans with far better terms....Many borrowers whose credit scores might have qualified them for more conventional loans say they were pushed into risky subprime loans. They say lenders or brokers aggressively marketed the loans, offering easier and faster approvals -- and playing down or hiding the onerous price paid over the long haul in higher interest rates or stricter repayment terms. |
I'm hardly an expert in these matters, and I'm not nor have I ever been a home-owner. But let's say that, a few years ago, I'd gotten a job that facilitated me owning a home. If I went looking, and someone pushed one of these on me, I'm not sure I'd have been in a position to say 'hey, I'm going to get screwed here' and looked for a traditional loan. I'd like to think that I would, but I'm not convinced.
We've all heard the anecdotes about some guy buying a mansion on his hourly McDonald's wage. And yeah, those people had no business buying a home. But there were probably lots of hard-working people who were simply misled by brokers trying to make a quick buck. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2008 : 04:52:05 [Permalink]
|
Yeah. I believe you have a responsibility to not be decieved though. I'm probably a minority on that view, but I don't have much sympathy for people who get conned
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2008 : 07:56:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
I found a section of Wiki that generally reflects my thoughts on the matter of judicial activism. |
That is one of the worst-written Wikipedia entries I've ever read.
Okay, so you're not going to address either the 9th or 14th Amendments, nor the role of the judiciary as a "check and balance" on the legislative and executive branches, you're just going to decry the thuggery of Congress in trying to make the states follow Federal whims with highway money (which, by the way, Nevada rejected long ago in order to maintain legal prostitution - proving that the states can refuse the money, 49 of them simply choose not to). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2008 : 08:17:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
Well I may be ignorant, but while I was there I saw things a little different.
|
Yeah I live only two hours flight from Bangkok and have been to Thailand dozens of times. I regularly holiday in Phuket, and have all my medical work done at Bumrungrad in Bangkok. (that is until this coming Tuesday. I'm going to a new non thai hospital due in large part to my concerns about being stranded in this nonsense.) But yes there is nothing quite as sweet as Thai hospitality. The land of smiles. No doubt it would be easy to swallow that Koolaid. But it does appear you are very misinformed.
Leave that as it is. I really don't care what facts you think you hold, or if you ever understand the truth of the matter. Wont matter to me and wont matter to Thailand either.
Even assuming your take is the pristine truth you still have several problems with your "argument."
Your first argument was to hold the Thai people up in comparison to the USA as people who take their constitution dead seriously. Rather than the evil 'mericans who take an oath to protect the constitution and then just do as they please
Of course then we learned that the people who ouste dthe prime ministers have abrigated the entire constitution, so its not like you can say they were acting on its behalf.
You were sorely wrong.
So then in a shift of your goal posts slightly to you claim that your point was rule of the people stating again in opposition to established fact that Thailand is capable of changing the government system and the sitting rulers when required, forcing government to restrain itself through a constitution.
Again no it was done by by abolishing a constitution.
You then say you were glad to see a public that would actively influence application of a constitution to the rulers.
Again ignoring that a Monarch authorized a military coup and the coup leaders abolisghed the constitution.
Finally you try to shift the goal posts completely over to democracy as your point. Saying that it was the masses who had a popular uprising. First in a democratic society under rule of law thats just mob rule, not democracy, but again it was a Monarch/military coup, not a popular reestablishment of democratic rule or democratic protection of the constitution.
Your whole line of reasoning on this is a farce. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2008 : 09:17:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Yeah. I believe you have a responsibility to not be decieved though. I'm probably a minority on that view, but I don't have much sympathy for people who get conned
|
I'll give you this much. It takes an active participation of the hoodwinked to make a scam successful. And sometimes the motivation for that is greed.
But more generally, I think there is a systemic institutional failure to teach the kind of skills that would protect people from deception. I seriously doubt that critical thinking is a default skill that people simply ignore.
It is exactly because I have sympathy for those who are deceived because they lack the skills to properly evaluate all of the baloney that is being presented to them that I/we push critical thinking at sites like this one. And sometimes in areas like the terms of a mortgage loan where unlike the pitch of a car salesperson we have not been conditioned to be skeptical of a brokers deal, (well now we are) I can see how even a pretty strong skeptic might fall into a laps of critical thinking.
Unless you think that people naturally default to critical thinking and then choose to ignore those skills, I don't understand your lack of sympathy for those not equipped to recognize a scam.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Conservatives are...
