There's circles within circles, man. This thing's got angles that'd make Euclid scratch his head.
We're just scratching the surface. And there's a layer of candyapple red under the hastily sprayed primer.
Groovy.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Because things that have already existed for a long time are always morally and legally circumspect. Like slavery, or colonialism. Things don't need to be reexamined because, hey, if they weren't supposed to be that way, they wouldn't. Spare me.
Hey look! You lost some straw. Here, I think it fell out of that man you're propping up next to this "argument".
What I'm calling for is a reexamination of these principles, and all you're giving me is personal attacks. My question was not rhetorical but a genuine one? What way is there to eliminate corporate personhood, and ensure that it is not later reestablished, other than overturning Marbury vs. Madison and/or a separate constitutional amendment? Which of these is more likely?
Uh...Constitutional Amendment? And even that's unlikely because no one other than you thinks Marbury v. Madison was incorrectly decided.
|
|
Because things that have already existed for a long time are always morally and legally circumspect. Like slavery, or colonialism. Things don't need to be reexamined because, hey, if they weren't supposed to be that way, they wouldn't. Spare me.
Which were both addressed by the Civil War and the Revolutionary War.
The pony is right
....that the authority of the court has been established and agreed upon, no matter how inconvenient it may be to your particular personal ideology in certain specific instances
That is the whole point of a life appointment - much harder to sway or threaten due to rulings, etc.
And as a follow up, they are voted upon indirectly, as in you vote in a POTUS - and then he gets to stack the court as the opportunity arises.
You could amend the Constitution to prevent the Court from striking down laws as unconstitutional, but I'm not sure what that would actually mean?
You shouldn't have to amend the constitution to prevent the court from doing this because it is not a power granted them by the constitution or by any law.
Perhaps progress marches slower when our society is forced to reach a consensus on such issues rather than be decided by fiat on this Supreme Court, but it seems in these times that the Court is instead an obstruction to such progress and its role in how our government functions should be reevaluated.
Except without rely on the courts and on the precedent that they rely on, there is no progress. Any Congress and any executive can legislate anything they want, regardless of the Constitution.
The Courts have the power of judicial review because they are the last step in the process. If laws conflict the courts have to decide which applies to a particular case. Otherwise, as I asked above, what do you do with someone arrested under a local law banning guns, who argues his 2nd amendment rights? Just say, "Yes, you do have that right, but we're going to have you locked up anyway?"
It's not a power explicitly granted in the Constitution, but it is implicit in the Constitution being the highest law of the land.
Well, if the Congress enacts a law that the People don't like, they won't have their jobs much longer. It's precisely the same as it is now, in your hypothetical.
I ask again, who actually enforces the constitution now? Not who decides what is appropriate or not, but who actually enforces it? Who ensures that the states laws comport with the constitution?
What if, tomorrow, with a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decide that the 14th amendment does not, in fact, outlaw slavery? You think of judicial review as protecting you from legislation restricting rights granted you by the constitution. What about when they interpret the constitution in a way that restricts your rights? Through what channels do you petition redress of grievances? They aren't elected officials and are not beholden to you.
stuff
Seriously dude. Please explain to me why judicial review shouldn't be reexamined other than appealing to authority.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if, tomorrow, with a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decide that the 14th amendment does not, in fact, outlaw slavery? You think of judicial review as protecting you from legislation restricting rights granted you by the constitution. What about when they interpret the constitution in a way that restricts your rights? Through what channels do you petition redress of grievances? They aren't elected officials and are not beholden to you.
And what if, tomorrow, because he's bored and pissed off that no one thanked him for the donuts, President Obama decides as chief executive officer to declare war on your home and obliterates it with a nuclear bomb? Through what channels do you petition redress of grievances? The legislature can't command the army, and they don't want to be nuked if they try to impeach the president. The court sure can't.
High school civics holds the answers to all the questions you raised, and many more.
Do rhetorical questions ever help you in making a point, or do other people note the way they attempt to mask a lack of intellectual heft?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously dude. Please explain to me why judicial review shouldn't be reexamined other than appealing to authority.
Uhh...appeal to authority is a type of rhetorical argumentative style where the Supreme court is an actual....authority? As in "established" by the Constitution?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuffSeriously dude. Please explain to me why judicial review shouldn't be reexamined other than appealing to authority.
Uh, no. There might be an actual legitimate question buried under your comments, but mostly it sounds like a bong-side discussion of political science with college freshmen. Don't get me wrong, I think those conversations are worth having, and there's a lot of depth and nuance that could be (but has not yet been) delved into. You haven't done anything other than throw up boogy men (ooooh! the Supreme Court made a decision some of you may not like. ooooh!!!!) and assert that a foundational supreme court decision is wrong because, hey, why not.
If you really want to understand why the Constitution is structured as such, and why an independent co-equal judiciary is a good thing, and what we could do if we fear an over-reaching judiciary, start reading at Wikipedia and branch out from there. If you want to play "ooooh!!! scary thing you don't like!!!" on the Paizo message boards, I'll be here all night and ask that you tip your waitress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if, tomorrow, with a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decide that the 14th amendment does not, in fact, outlaw slavery? You think of judicial review as protecting you from legislation restricting rights granted you by the constitution. What about when they interpret the constitution in a way that restricts your rights? Through what channels do you petition redress of grievances? They aren't elected officials and are not beholden to you.
And what if, tomorrow, because he's bored and pissed off that no one thanked him for the donuts, President Obama decides as chief executive officer to declare war on your home and obliterates it with a nuclear bomb? Through what channels do you petition redress of grievances? The legislature can't command the army, and they don't want to be nuked if they try to impeach the president. The court sure can't.
High school civics holds the answers to all the questions you raised, and many more.
Do rhetorical questions ever help you in making a point, or do other people note the way they attempt to mask a lack of intellectual heft?
Thankyou for the donuts, sir! Double dip (recession) donuts....my favorite!!!
stuffSeriously dude. Please explain to me why judicial review shouldn't be reexamined other than appealing to authority.Uh, no. There might be an actual legitimate question buried under your comments, but mostly it sounds like a bong-side discussion of political science with freshmen. Don't get me wrong, I think those conversations are worth having, and there's a lot of depth and nuance that could be delved into. You just haven't done anything than throw up boogy men (ooooh! the Supreme Court made a decision some of you may not look. ooooh!!!!) and assert that a foundational supreme court decision is wrong because, hey, why not.
If you really want to understand why the Constitution is structured as such, and why an independent co-equal judiciary is a good thing, and what we could do if we fear an over-reaching judiciary, start reading at Wikipedia and branch out from there. If you want to play "ooooh!!! scary thing you don't like!!!" on the Paizo message boards, I'll be here all night and ask that you tip your waitress.
I don't tip.
stuff
Don't know what to tell you man. The SCOTUS doesn't examine every law that's passed for its constitutionality as far as I'm aware, it only examines them on appeal and when there is a disagreement between two existing laws.
Again your assumption is that the SCOTUS is an unbiased input in the matter. It's not. The base assumption of judicial review is that these 9 men know more about the language and intent of the constitution than those passing the laws (which is in all likelihood true) AND that that makes them singularly qualified to decide for or against what the people have decided to enact as laws.
It's an obstacle to true democracy. Now you can argue that in a freer democracy the majority can legislate things contrary to the constitution, but my counterargument is that the constitution is an imperfect document to begin with. The idea of a living document is really a nonsensical one and progress and change only happens at the hands of the people.
My compromise would be a)shorter appointments (9 year terms seems fair) b)3 justices appointed by the POTUS and ratified by Congress and 6 elected by Congress (3 by Senate 3 by Reps) and ratified by the POTUS. c)stronger oversight and better avenues to determine "good behavior" of such justices. I agree with the necessity to have a governing body that determines the constitutionality of laws, I don't agree that the SCOTUS is uniquely capable in this regard nor that they should have that power.
Seriously dude. Please explain to me why judicial review shouldn't be reexamined other than appealing to authority.Uhh...appeal to authority is a type of rhetorical argumentative style where the Supreme court is an actual....authority? As in "established" by the Constitution?
His argument was that the SCOTUS is just fine because plenty of constitutional scholars agree that it is, or something along those lines. Sounds like appeal to authority to me.
Who enforces? No one enforces the Constitution in any direct sense. The Courts decide if the laws are Constitutional and the executive branch enforces those laws. Everyone throughout the system pretty much agrees that the Supreme Court has the final say. It's been a very long time since any of its decisions were just ignored. Theoretically they could be, since they don't have enough men with guns to enforce them, but that's a pretty big stretch.
Or am I misunderstanding the question?
Nope, that's precisely what I'm asking. What purpose does the SCOTUS serve in 'judicial review' if its findings can't be enforced? Why not at least have individuals more beholden to the electorate, with better oversight and more transparency? Even if those individuals, in the end, continue to be SC justices.
How does this discussion of constitutional law, and Supreme Court Judiciary terms actually impact the 20-somethings having wild public sex on the Occupy Wall Street rally?
I mean, if my posts documenting the Tea Party get deleted for being off topic - when the Occupationists are the Hipster Tea Party, how is THIS on topic?
No document of laws is perfect. The laws only work when the society living under them accepts them as binding. Comrade Anklebiter can go bite the ankles of every member of Congress and declare that the people trying to shackle him have no legal or moral grounds to do so as they drag him away - and if enough people within ear shot are moved by his impassioned rhetoric of throwing off the proletariat, and the only thing they have to lose is their chains, and by the way, om-nom-nom-legislator ankles, maybe he sparks a movement.
As it is, the OWS Occupationists are getting swamped with homeless people looking for food, and 20-somethings looking for free weed and a cool rave...for some reason, this never happened with the Tea Party rallies. Guess the Tea Party people needed to be the Weed Party people to get populist momentum.
How does this discussion of constitutional law, and Supreme Court Judiciary terms actually impact the 20-somethings having wild public sex on the Occupy Wall Street rally?
I mean, if my posts documenting the Tea Party get deleted for being off topic - when the Occupationists are the Hipster Tea Party, how is THIS on topic?
Because, as I see it, most of OWS's demands come down to corporations having politicians in their back pocket, which itself is wrapped up in the Citizens United decision and corporate personhood. A decision that, again in my opinion, calls into question whether the SCOTUS is earnestly operating in the best interest of the people. If they are not, if their decision itself steps outside the boundaries of Constitutional law and abuses their own role of judicial review, what remedies are there?
The Supreme Court is operating in the best interest of the people, because corporations are people.
...Fine, ;P.
Touche.
Since dispute over "corporate personhood" is one of the complaints made by the OWS crowd, I think what it is should be addressed.
I haven't seen anything of the actual decision that says corporations have the rights of people, I will try to explain how I have understood it from my (limited) study.
The ruling decision was not that corporations are people but rather that limitations placed on how people express themselves is governed by the first amendment.
So, if a person wishes to donate $5 to a candidate of his choice, he can do so. He is using means at his disposal to express his support for a candidate. The first amendment protects this.
If a group of people invest enough of their money in a corporation to control it (or put forth their money to create a new corporation, etc.), the use of the corporations holdings is a means at their disposal to express their support. The court ruled that this is protected by the first amendment.
For instance on a small scale, if a caterer had incorporated his business to protect himself from debt and other business related problems, he would still retain a first amendment right to use his catering company's assets to support a candidate of his choice. The court ruled this is protected by the first amendment.
Or, on a larger scale, the ruling body (president, etc.) of United Auto Workers or the board of GE can use the resources available through their organization to support their interests. The court ruled this is protected by the first amendment.
In general, the court ruled that joining into a group and combining resources does not mean that the first amendment no longer applies to these individuals use of the means to express themselves that is common to the group and at their disposal.
IOW, if you have a means of expression at your disposal, the first amendment protects its use with the exception being the proverbial yelling "fire" in a crowded room. The ruling isn't about giving "rights" to corporations but rather a recognition that individuals compose these organizations and are using the means at their disposal to express themselves when a corporation makes a donation and that this is protected by the first amendment.
A very base description (including the dissent) can be found in wikipedia, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Edit Note: wording, spelling
SCOTUS provides only an interpretation. Lawyers love to use all kinds of sophistry like "finding x in the Constitution" to hide that fact. And SCOTUS has gotten a -lot- of stuff wrong. For example, according to the writers of the 14th Amendment, dual citizenship is not possible unless US citizenship comes first.
When SCOTUS gets something wrong, though, the only recourse is an amendment.
Note: boldface added.
Not true that it is the ONLY recourse. The SCotUS can overrule earlier decisions with an example coming in the case regarding Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which had previously held that a Michigan campaign finance act that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
and a concurrence stated...
Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Alito joined, wrote separately "to address the important principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis implicated in this case".[20]
Chief Justice Roberts wrote to further explicate and defend the court's statement that "there is a difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication". The Chief Justice argued that there are times during which overruling prior decisions is necessary. Had the courts never gone against stare decisis, "segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants". Roberts' concurrence recited a plethora of case law in which the court had ruled against jurisprudence. Ultimately, however, Roberts argued that "stare decisis is a doctrine of preservation, not transformation. It counsels deference to make past mistakes, but provides no justification for making new ones".
But, in general, amendment is the recourse available for disagreement. Saying they were "wrong" is treading funny water, IMO.
Second
Write the Republican party a blank check? It does just as much so for the Democratic party. Unions now have a completely unfettered ability to support the Democratic party.
I don't know what kind of union dues you're paying, but what's the last union that had enough power and cash to convince the government to spend 93 billion a month and get 5,000 americans killed?
Second
Write the Republican party a blank check? It does just as much so for the Democratic party. Unions now have a completely unfettered ability to support the Democratic party.I don't know what kind of union dues you're paying, but what's the last union that had enough power and cash to convince the government to spend 93 billion a month and get 5,000 americans killed?
I see no evidence that a corporation did that either.
... is that these 9 men know more ...
I just want to point out that currently there are 6 men and 3 women on the bench. Not nearly enough women yet, but let us not forget the ones that there are.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see no evidence that a corporation did that either.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Theocracy-Politics-Religion-Borrowed/ dp/067003486X
is a pretty good place to start if you want it. The guy covers the same ground a few times, but the info itself is very good.
This idea that unions are the evil leftist twin of corporations is simply absurd. Its less like the evil alternate universe where Spock has a beard and more like Arnold Schwarzenegger vs Dany Divito in a fight to the death.
Unions don't have the resources or organization to compete with corporations on the same level. "They're doing it to" is a simplistic, binary approach that complete disregards the fact that HOW MUCH you do something matters.
Well at least you're honest about your murderous intent.The issue came up at the General Assembly and I turned to the organizers and said, "I want you to know right now that I am not an agent provocateur, but I am a communist who believes in armed revolution."
I'm starting to suspect that you're not a fan.
Regardless, a successful armed revolution would be less murderous than the Republican/Democratic regime that we've had for the last 20 years.
And, generally speaking, when you go ahead and alter someone's post, you're supposed to indicate it by stating something like: "emphasis mine".
I see no evidence that a corporation did that either.http://www.amazon.com/American-Theocracy-Politics-Religion-Borrowed/ dp/067003486X
is a pretty good place to start if you want it. The guy covers the same ground a few times, but the info itself is very good.
This idea that unions are the evil leftist twin of corporations is simply absurd. Its less like the evil alternate universe where Spock has a beard and more like Arnold Schwarzenegger vs Dany Divito in a fight to the death.
Unions don't have the resources or organization to compete with corporations on the same level. "They're doing it to" is a simplistic, binary approach that complete disregards the fact that HOW MUCH you do something matters.
1. The link doesn't work. Neither does pasting the link into a tab. Try using the net instead of a book.
2. Never claimed that unions were the evil leftist twins of corporations. I claimed that it gave them unfettered ability. Unions have immense organizational ability and a lot of money.
1. The link doesn't work. Neither does pasting the link into a tab. Try using the net instead of a book.
So what are you looking for that would qualify as proof exactly? Its a complex issue and if you don't already believe that we're in Iraq for the oil its kind of hard to bring up all of the evidence. The short of it is. I'm not going to be able to youtube Cheney saying " Got my oil later suckers!"
1) We've already hit peak oil production. This is as much as we're going to get
2) Iraq has the biggest untapped reserves of economically attainable oil in the planet
3) We have had a plan to do exactly what we're doing in iraq in place at least since kissinger
4) The us was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, the downing street memo shows it fairly clearly.
5) Cheney made himself the focal point for the intelligence that was fed to bush, and slanted the intelligence so that the only possible action was to invade Iraq. Oddly enough Cheney's company Halliburton made billions off the invasion.
People already KNOW all of this. Its out there, clear as day. People don't CARE enough though. Its this sort of control of our government by corporations that make our democracy a laughably thin veneer and its what they're protesting. Its why corporations shouldn't be allowed to control who gets elected to government by using unlimited funds to control OUR elections.
2. Never claimed that unions were the evil leftist twins of corporations. I claimed that it gave them unfettered ability. Unions have immense organizational ability and a lot of money.
This is like person A having a German Shepard running around loose and person B having an African Bull elephant hopped up on PCP running around loose. The need to fetter both of them is NOT the same.
It's kinda like the Dalmer party.
That's the Donner Party -- unless that was a deliberate play on words.
The Dalmer party -- welcome to dinner!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's kinda like the Dalmer party. Yes, we can argue that cannibalism is wrong and that they shouldn't have tried to extend their lives - that they should have just died.
Our options are not "rule the entire planet with a massive military industrial complex that outspends the rest of the world combined on military" or "die". I'm sure there's a happy medium somewhere that we might be able to lead through example rather than at the barrel of a gun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As soon as you come up with a workable third solution that doesn't depend on a Deus ex Machina, please let me know.
Most of the rest of the planet seems to, somehow, NOT be a world ruling empire without devolving into anarchy. How about we use the department of defense for defense which would take what... 1/10th of its current budget? Toss the rest into renewable energy , get off oil and tell the middle east "Ya'll have fun storming the castle, we're sick of the crazy train"
even if you don't believe in renewable, take the money, buy arizona, set up 100 nuclear power plants and establish a national energy grid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it's not gonna happen and, frankly, despite all it's warts, America has done a lot of good for the world. It has been a beacon of human rights. I don't think it would be a good thing for the world if America just died.
I am sure the tens if not hundreds of thousands iraqis who died during the war or since it's officially over from the breakdown of basic sanitary services ni their country would agree. If they were still alive, that is.
Also, it's quite hard to be considered a "beacon of human rights" while practicing torture and arbitrary inprisonment. Just saying.
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/11/us-wallstreet-protests-boston-idU STRE79A0P320111011
Something went down in Boston last night.
it's quite hard to be considered a "beacon of human rights" while practicing torture and arbitrary inprisonment. Just saying.
Darn. "Beacon of human rights" had such a nice ring to it, too. :P
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/11/us-wallstreet-protests-boston-idU STRE79A0P320111011
Something went down in Boston last night.
From what one of my friends was saying: the boston police did what they had to do with as little violence as they could. They arrested people who were camping out in an area that they were not designated to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/11/us-wallstreet-protests-boston-idU STRE79A0P320111011
Something went down in Boston last night.
Wow. It seems the problem was there were too many protesters to fit in the designated area, and so it was suddenly an "unlawful assembly." And what about the "civil disobedience will not be tolerated" bit? Going on record with that should be a career-ender for a public official.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what one of my friends was saying: the boston police did what they had to do with as little violence as they could. They arrested people who were camping out in an area that they were not designated to use.
So designate an area too small to accommodate more than a handful of people, then arrest everyone else. Problem solved!
I prefer to think of us as the "Bacon of Human Rights". Everything is better with bacon, yummmm.
As for nuclear power gets us energy independent. First off, there is the problem with waste disposal, I guess we could dump it on the boarder with Mexico, but I'm not sure how much of a solution that is internationally (thought it might make it easier to catch the illegals, look for the ones that glow in the dark). Secondly, that doesn't fix the problem with transportation. Electric cars? Yeah, tell me when I can drive it for 4 hours and then recharge it in 5 minutes at a "power station", so I can drive cross country to visit the family. Lastly, there is the fact that the anti-nuclear folks (many I'm sure are on these very boards) would never stand for something like that being done. Frankly the suggestion is incredibly laughable. Don't get me wrong, I wish we would build more nuclear power plants and less coal fire ones, but sadly that is unlikely to happen due to too much fear mongering.
|
|
From what one of my friends was saying: the boston police did what they had to do with as little violence as they could. They arrested people who were camping out in an area that they were not designated to use.So designate an area too small to accommodate more than a handful of people, then arrest everyone else. Problem solved!
You are blocking the sidewalk friend citizen! Blocking the sidewalk and protesting against Friend Computer is treason! Troubleshooters, arrest this commie-mutant-traitor!
|
|
I prefer to think of us as the "Bacon of Human Rights". Everything is better with bacon, yummmm.
As for nuclear power gets us energy independent. First off, there is the problem with waste disposal, I guess we could dump it on the boarder with Mexico, but I'm not sure how much of a solution that is internationally (thought it might make it easier to catch the illegals, look for the ones that glow in the dark). Secondly, that doesn't fix the problem with transportation. Electric cars? Yeah, tell me when I can drive it for 4 hours and then recharge it in 5 minutes at a "power station", so I can drive cross country to visit the family. Lastly, there is the fact that the anti-nuclear folks (many I'm sure are on these very boards) would never stand for something like that being done. Frankly the suggestion is incredibly laughable. Don't get me wrong, I wish we would build more nuclear power plants and less coal fire ones, but sadly that is unlikely to happen due to too much fear mongering.
It could be done, but you might have to sacrifice the one car per person ideal. Trains instead of cars etc.