Fine, you win. Now tell me why we need a supreme court if all the Constitution is is just guidelines? I am waiting for you to answer a single one of my questions with an actual answer.
Fine, you win. Now tell me why we need a supreme court if all the Constitution is is just guidelines? I am waiting for you to answer a single one of my questions with an actual answer.
What questions have you posed?
And we do need a supreme court. What we don't need is judicial review, which itself is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS legislates from the bench, "interpreting" laws to mean things far astride from what was intended, and the power of judicial review was given to the SCOTUS BY the SCOTUS.
Fine, you win. Now tell me why we need a supreme court if all the Constitution is is just guidelines? I am waiting for you to answer a single one of my questions with an actual answer.Why do we need a Supreme Court if you (with no training in Constitutional Law?) can simply declare things unConstitutional that the Court has said are fine?
I have declared nothing. If you recall, I left instructions to put an IMO before everything. but hey whatever, get your attacks in.
Let me ask you something TWK: do you think having a standing army is constitutional?
Fine, you win. Now tell me why we need a supreme court if all the Constitution is is just guidelines? I am waiting for you to answer a single one of my questions with an actual answer.What questions have you posed?
And we do need a supreme court. What we don't need is judicial review, which itself is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS legislates from the bench, "interpreting" laws to mean things far astride from what was intended, and the power of judicial review was given to the SCOTUS BY the SCOTUS.
1) questions that I have posed you that remain unanswered: If we allow government to ignore the laws constraining government, whats the point of having those laws?
Is it within the executive branches domain to write laws (including executive orders)? If so, why have a legislative branch?
and finally, Why do we need a SCOTUS, if all the Constitution is is just guidelines?
2) regarding judicial review: I agree. Many on the right rail against
"judicial activism" while calling judicial activism that falls on their side as "judicial heroism". It's all bunk. I think judicial review, (just like most executive branch regulatory bodies) are important and should be written into the Constitution.
Let me ask you something TWK: do you think having a standing army is constitutional?
a qualified no. The qualification being that each of the 50 states could have one with the executive branch ultimately overseeing them. Once again, IMO
There are no laws constraining government, just a constitution. The constitution is not a legal document. If it were anything it would be close to a corporate charter.
It is not within the executive branch to write laws. It is within the power of the executive branch to carry out prosecution of those laws, that includes making behavior conform to the intent and letter of said laws. If a law says, essentially, "don't pollute" and the EPA creates a penalty schedule for such pollutions, those penalties are not separate laws but just part of the execution of the law. Congress can CERTAINLY call these practices under review, amend the laws that established the EPA, or dissolve it altogether.
We need a SCOTUS because it does more than JUST interpret the constitutionality of laws. It performs a specific function as laid out in the constitution, as the highest court in the land, a last appeal, etc.
When someone is brought to court and accused of breaking a law and his defense is that the law is itself illegal, the judicial branch must address that. In the end any time two laws, whether the Constitution and a statute or simply two statutes conflict, a judge must decide how to apply them in a given case. What else can he do?
But if the SCOTUS can by fiat overturn laws passed and are not held to any higher authority, we get what we have today, 9 people ruling the world.
To turn things around, I'm not against the idea of judicial review PER SE, but if you want it you should write it into the constitution ;)
Have any of you actually READ the Constitution?
Si, senor. Though it has been a while I admit.
editing my answer after reading Jeff's post. Judicial review doesnt exactly mean what I thought it did.
editing my answer after reading Jeff's post. Judicial review doesnt exactly mean what I thought it did.
Judicial review is the ability of the SCOTUS to declare a law illegal. Which is a nice concept, IF you can somehow ensure that those sitting on the bench are both adequate constitutional scholars and independent of bias. Problem being, I'm fairly certain a few of them are bought and paid for.
Have any of you actually READ the Constitution?
Yes, about 2 months ago was the last time, though.
I'm sorry. Would it help if I rephrased it as:Why do we need a Supreme Court if, in your opinion, so many things are unConstitutional that the Court has said are fine?
Don't get me wrong, the Court isn't perfect. It has reversed decisions in the past and will certainly do so again. I have serious problems with some recent decisions, as I've said before.
But you seem to think that pretty much all the mainstream Constitutional precedents of the last 80 years are wrong. (And possibly earlier as well) At least everything that weakened limits on federal power
I dont know. Thats why Im asking.
editing my answer after reading Jeff's post. Judicial review doesnt exactly mean what I thought it did.Judicial review is the ability of the SCOTUS to declare a law illegal. Which is a nice concept, IF you can somehow ensure that those sitting on the bench are both adequate constitutional scholars and independent of bias. Problem being, I'm fairly certain a few of them are bought and paid for.
which is the problem everywhere. Not only are those sitting on the bench bought and paid for, but so are the legislators making the laws, and the presidents executing the laws.
Edit-also, self deleting a post. Should know not to feed the trolls.
editing my answer after reading Jeff's post. Judicial review doesnt exactly mean what I thought it did.Judicial review is the ability of the SCOTUS to declare a law illegal. Which is a nice concept, IF you can somehow ensure that those sitting on the bench are both adequate constitutional scholars and independent of bias. Problem being, I'm fairly certain a few of them are bought and paid for.Of course they are. I would like to see some more limits on the Justices. Clear rules for recusal and impeachment as a penalty would be nice.
Our system is set up with checks and balances. The Judicial is a balance on the executive and legislative. It can declare laws illegal. It cannot write them.
The most it can do is instruct Congress to implement laws to address a situation. This really only applies in cases where the government is required to do something and is not living up to it. Such cases are rare, though they tend to be widespread.
Im up in the air on limits on justices. On one hand, it would be nice if there were easier methods to remove corrupt justices. On the other hand, I dont want the threat hanging over a justices head, if (s)he has to make an unpopular, yet correct decision.
Im up in the air on limits on justices. On one hand, it would be nice if there were easier methods to remove corrupt justices. On the other hand, I dont want the threat hanging over a justices head, if (s)he has to make an unpopular, yet correct decision.
THe solution is, as I believe is already the case, salary for life regardless of they're on the bench or not. Or part of a solution.
I think term limits are important.
I honestly think most of the problems we have in the country right now stem from the SCOTUS. Even if you're a small government type, which you clearly are, the SCOTUS has the power to declare legislation unconstitutional. If there really is that much stuff on the books that is toxic to the constitution, they're partially to blame for not checking the power of the legislature (or executive for that matter).
The idea of them not having term limits was to keep it from becoming a political office. Guess what: it totally is now, since the best reason I have for voting Obama is hoping to get Thomas or Scalia replaced with someone who will overturn CU.
I think the whole "Supreme Justices are appointed for life" is bullshiznit, and they should be elected just like any other position.
I also liked it when William Lloyd Garrison used to burn the Constitution.
Vive le Galt!
|
I think the whole "Supreme Justices are appointed for life" is bullshiznit, and they should be elected just like any other position.
I also liked it when William Lloyd Garrison used to burn the Constitution.
Vive le Galt!
So you want politicians in charge of every step of the process. Yeah, that'll help. That's what we need, more politicians.
Hold on, you haven't said the solution is an International Socialist Proletariat Revolution. I'm on to you. What have you done with the real Anklebiter, you stooge of the plutocracy?
So you want politicians in charge of every step of the process. Yeah, that'll help. That's what we need, more politicians.
Hold on, you haven't said the solution is an International Socialist Proletariat Revolution. I'm on to you. What have you done with the real Anklebiter, you stooge of the plutocracy?
Aaargh!!!So you want politicians in charge of every step of the process. Yeah, that'll help. That's what we need, more politicians.
Hold on, you haven't said the solution is an International Socialist Proletariat Revolution. I'm on to you. What have you done with the real Anklebiter, you stooge of the plutocracy?
I think his best role was in UHF
There are no laws constraining government, just a constitution. The constitution is not a legal document. If it were anything it would be close to a corporate charter.
It is not within the executive branch to write laws. It is within the power of the executive branch to carry out prosecution of those laws, that includes making behavior conform to the intent and letter of said laws. If a law says, essentially, "don't pollute" and the EPA creates a penalty schedule for such pollutions, those penalties are not separate laws but just part of the execution of the law. Congress can CERTAINLY call these practices under review, amend the laws that established the EPA, or dissolve it altogether.
We need a SCOTUS because it does more than JUST interpret the constitutionality of laws. It performs a specific function as laid out in the constitution, as the highest court in the land, a last appeal, etc.
After having a few days to think about it, I must ask if you have a source over whether or not The Constitution is a legal document or a set of guidelines, and if so, could you post it?. Is that fact or opinion? If it's not then I have a few more questions. Thank you.
really? Now isnt a time when most everyone feels disenfranchised? Very few feel that the government truly represents them? I think the times are vindicating my view, not throwing it out.
in what year were people not disenfranchised with the government?
Its like they just call Hillary Clinton or Eric Cantor and ask them how they should vote.
Wait wait, you think the CURRENT supreme court justices are in the back pocket of...the white house?
/boggle
After having a few days to think about it, I must ask if you have a source over whether or not The Constitution is a legal document or a set of guidelines, and if so, could you post it?. Is that fact or opinion? If it's not then I have a few more questions. Thank you.
Sorry, didn't really mean to open this can of worms. I'm not really a constitutional negationist.
Certainly the government treats it as a legal document, but it isn't: it's the source OF the law. A legal document, like a corporate charter or a contract, is legal and binding because it works within a set of laws already established, and is an agreement between parties. The constitution can't be a document WITHIN the law because it CREATES the law. It may sound like philosophical mumbo jumbo, but by what authority was the constitution created? Not within existing laws.
The power of the British constitution (and this is just from memory, so forgive inaccuracies) came from parliament, the power of the parliament originally came from the king himself (King John, magna carta, etc.) who held supreme military and political power. The US constitution comes from no such mandate, but was independently determined by a figurative handful of wealthy landowners.
The constitution, by definition, wasn't entered into legally, as the law of the land was British. It wasn't put to any sort of popular vote in the colonies. Despite the fact that amendments to the constitution are difficult to achieve, the construction of the document itself didn't require as much democratic rigor.
If it were a law, even by its own standards, it would have to be voted into existence by representatives of the citizenry. And, at the time, as is well known, most people weren't allowed to vote. You might argue that women, native americans, and the descendents of slaves (among others) should feel no compunction to recognize the document.
In short, the constitution is a document of purpose between the moneyed elite of the time, dividing up lands as they saw fit without the consent of a majority of their subjects (slaves, native americans, women, British loyalists, etc.)
There is therefore a certain irony to be seen in someone claiming that the government is encroaching on our liberty and we need to turn to the constitution to constrain it, when the constitution itself is a greedy power grab and an act of treason.
But that way lies madness :)
Not really. The Constitution was ratified by all thirteen of the original states. Not by a popular referendum admittedly, but by delegates at state convention. Essentially the same process by which amendments are ratified.
Admittedly women, native americans and slaves couldn't vote, but by those standards nothing before the early 20th century would be considered legal. Possibly before the 60's given the difficulties for blacks voting in much of the country.You might have been thinking of the Articles of Confederation, but I'm not sure of how those were adopted. They were the legal system under which the Constitution was written and adopted a decade or so after Independence.
I could be wrong, but I don't think any state had universal white manhood suffrage at the time, either. If memory serves, RI was the first to achieve that and not until the 1830s.
FACT-CHECKING EDIT: First state didn't get uni white dude suffrage until 1812. Not sure which state it is. Rhode Island wasn't the first, but they had an armed revolt over the issue, which is probably why it stuck out in my mind. Vive le Galt!!
|
33 pages ago the OP linked an article about golf carts. So in many small towns and cities people have been using golf carts to drive to and from work and the grocery store. I know a couple who does this. They don't play golf at all. They live about 10-15 miles from work and a few miles from a grocery store and they save loads of time and money using their golf cart to make these short trips.
in what year were people not disenfranchised with the government?I think it might be a matter of degrees. Some people somewhat disenfranchised as opposed to a whole bunch of them feeling very screwed over.
Perhaps that has more to do with certain influential media magnates profiting off of and encouraging people to feel disenfranchised rather than anything the government is actually doing?
Perhaps that has more to do with certain influential media magnates profiting off of and encouraging people to feel disenfranchised rather than anything the government is actually doing?
Heck, in recent years I don't feel it has been the government disenfranchising voters, but private groups.
Governors of Florida notwithstanding.
Perhaps that has more to do with certain influential media magnates profiting off of and encouraging people to feel disenfranchised rather than anything the government is actually doing?Heck, in recent years I don't feel it has been the government disenfranchising voters, but private groups.
Governors of Florida notwithstanding.
Don't be silly. Florida isn't disenfranchising voters. The 1,000 people they've stopped from voting to find 58 cases of fraud are by definition no longer voters.
Thanks for your answer, meatrace. The question that I have to ask is thus: If the Constitution is not legally binding, would the oath of office (solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, yadda yadda) be?
Don't be silly. Florida isn't disenfranchising voters. The 1,000 people they've stopped from voting to find 58 cases of fraud are by definition no longer voters.Perhaps that has more to do with certain influential media magnates profiting off of and encouraging people to feel disenfranchised rather than anything the government is actually doing?Heck, in recent years I don't feel it has been the government disenfranchising voters, but private groups.
Governors of Florida notwithstanding.
I thought it has been established that Florida is crazy zombie no-man's land. (just kidding around, any Fl residents)
Thanks for your answer, meatrace. The question that I have to ask is thus: If the Constitution is not legally binding, would the oath of office (solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, yadda yadda) be?
Depends on whether you believe in the rule of law or not. In the end, the rule of law comes down to whoever has the power to enforce it. If laws are not enforced, what does it mean to be a law?
The Constitution was constructed as a social contract, deriving its authority from the consent of the governed. That means, basically, that it's legally binding by default (silence = consent) until the citizenry no longer agree to it and rebel again (Jeffereson probably envisioned rebellions as occurring a lot more frequently than we've had so far). This was, btw, a big break from previous claims that governments and laws were divinely-sanctioned and hence eternal.
In the end, when you're accused of breaking the law, you come to trial. The court determines whether you broke the law and whether the law is itself legal.
This is the part that irks me. The law binds me, but not the law-makers and oath-takers. If I were to swear an oath before a judge and be found acting knowingly and willfully contrary to said oath, I would be locked up. So back to my original question: why are we allowing it to happen? I know that there is no real answer to this, (other than Comrade Anklebiter's 8p) so feel free to leave it as a rhetorical question. Or try to answer it if you like.
*I also noted I never gave my final ideas on regulations. I truly believe that they are laws. It is my opinion that regulatory agencies should be split, with the regulating body being answerable to Congress and Congress only, and the enforcement arm being answerable to the Executive, with funding controlled by Congress. I would hope that it would lead to more (for example) actual scientists heading bodies such as the EPA (whose existence is allowed under the Constitution, but whose current execution is not, again, IMO), and less political appointees, whose only qualifications, it seems anymore, are to be a) large campaign contributers and b) work in the businesses that they are regulating.
Sorry for the long rambling sentence, but that was a long rambling thought.
I am working off of the assumption that there are some things that most people could agree on that are flat out unConstitutional. Patriot Acts warrantless wiretapping, TSA and VIPR, indefinite detentions without trial, assassinations with no due process, that sort of thing. The rhetorical question was posed to whomever it may concern.
This is a rant, so please take it as such. Undoubtedly many of you will not agree and think me a crackpot or alarmist. Some of you may. It is a rant based on my own opinion about something in which I vehemently disagree and have had no compelling reason presented as of yet to change my perspective. On with the rant.
The Supreme Court in a 5 - 4 split decision has upheld Obamacare, Chief Roberts was quoting as saying...
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the judgment that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Roberts explained at length the court's view of the mandate as a valid exercise of Congress' authority to "lay and collect taxes." The administration estimates that roughly 4 million people will pay the penalty rather than buy insurance.
Even though Congress called it a penalty, not a tax, Roberts said, "The payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation...
...The justices rejected two of the administration's three arguments in support of the insurance requirement. But the court said the mandate can be construed as a tax. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," Roberts said.
Call me selfish. Callous, idiotic, or moronic. I am very, VERY unhappy with the Supreme Courts decision in regard to Obamacare. NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING. Why has this been forgotten or cast aside? The government now has the capacity to say, you MUST have healthcare to SHARE THE BURDEN of EVERYONE'S health costs. <Insert mother of all curse words here> that!!! So, with that in mind.
I apologize if I sound sarcastic with the next statement, but the above quotes from Roberts now basically says the IRS has power over your taxes AND healthcare - err- DEATH. Yes. Welcome to the United Socialist States of America or USSA for short. Awfully close to the USSR.
THIS IS NOT FREE HEALTHCARE. It has however set a precedent with allowing Congress to pass other ENTITLEMENTS in under the guise of a tax.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a rant, so please take it as such. Undoubtedly many of you will not agree and think me a crackpot or alarmist. Some of you may. It is a rant based on my own opinion about something in which I vehemently disagree and have had no compelling reason presented as of yet to change my perspective. On with the rant.
The Supreme Court in a 5 - 4 split decision has upheld Obamacare, Chief Roberts was quoting as saying...
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the judgment that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Roberts explained at length the court's view of the mandate as a valid exercise of Congress' authority to "lay and collect taxes." The administration estimates that roughly 4 million people will pay the penalty rather than buy insurance.
Even though Congress called it a penalty, not a tax, Roberts said, "The payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation...
...The justices rejected two of the administration's three arguments in support of the insurance requirement. But the court said the mandate can be construed as a tax. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," Roberts said.
Call me selfish. Callous, idiotic, or moronic. I am very, VERY unhappy with the Supreme Courts decision in regard to Obamacare. NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING. Why has this been forgotten or cast aside? The government now has the capacity to say, you MUST have healthcare to SHARE THE BURDEN of EVERYONE'S health costs. <Insert mother of all curse words here> that!!! So, with that in mind.
I apologize if I sound sarcastic with the next statement, but the above quotes from Roberts now basically says the IRS has power over your taxes AND healthcare - err- DEATH. Yes. Welcome to the United Socialist States of America or USSA for short. Awfully close to the USSR.
THIS IS...
First, I suggest you learn the definition of "socialist."
As for being forced to "SHARE THE BURDEN!1!" -- you may wish to consider things like roads, public defense, courts, etc.
Or you can just keep panicking. :P
Edit: The SCOTUS didn't rule on anything called "Obamacare." To my knowledge, there is no such law.
Health care insurers are not being taken over by the government.
Health care providers are not being taken over by the government.
The capital remains in private hands.
This law is in socialist in exactly zero ways I can see.
I personally wish they had simply expanded Medicare to cover everyone. At least then the cries of socialism might have made sense...