posted
The United States, the pillar of democracy. However in the past 50 years a disturbing trend is occuring. One branch of the Federal government is becoming too powerful. The framers of the Constitution created three co-equal branches of government. A system of checks and balances was set up so that one man, (The President) or one politcal party (The Senate) could control a nation. The Supreme Court was created to both rule over the court system, but also to check the power of the Legislative and Executive Branches.
With Decisions reaching from Brown vs. Board of Education to Roe vs. Wade to Lawrence vs. Texas, the Suprem Court has usurpped the power of the Congress to legislate. I believe that Brown vs. Board of Education was a moral decision. I also believe that it was an unconstituional one. Decisions like that should be made in the Legislature. They should not be made by a body of unelected officials. That goes extra for Roe vs. Wade. That ranks up with the Dred Scott decision.
What can be done. I side with Orson Scott Card. He recommends that Congress pass a law that prohibits the executive branch from enforcing the ruling of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can do nothing because it is not higher than the Congress. The three branches were created equal. Therefore let the legislative intent of the Constitution be carried out.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
::smiles:: so the question is, do you say this because you believe it? Or because OSC says it? I'm only kidding. It sounds like a good plan, however things don't always work out the way the do on paper and theory... ::coughs:: communism ::coughs::. However I would vote for it.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jimmy your cynicism is obvious. The difference between this and communism is that this doesn't rely on the "inherent good spirit" of humanity. This is in response to the inherent evil of man.
Edit: J: Oh and I mean "the". You a Canadian?
[ August 14, 2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem, Ryan, is that instances like Brown vs. the Board of Education are not merely moral issues, but issues pertaining DIRECTLY to rights delineated in the Constitution.
If you don't think Brown was a constitutional issue, what kind of ruling IS?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, to clarify -- you DON'T think the Supreme Court should be able to shoot down unConstitutional laws? Or does the Constitution not say anything about how every person should have equal treatment from the government?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes I am Canadian, but that wasn't what I was going for.
I wish to point out how useless a single pillar is. A singular pillar is easy to knock down, won't support much weight, etc. I would imagine you'd want to be a pillar, not the
posted
It was a moral decision, but made in the wrong place. It should have been made in the Legilature.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Supreme Court does NOT have the power to strike down laws. This was a power derived from Cheif Justice Marshall. Let me repeat the power of judicial review IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. The power of laws is given EXPLICITLY to the state and the Congress.
Edit: Twinky: not the only, just the best.
[ August 14, 2003, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. The Supreme Court is still the highest court in the Land. It will have power on how all the courts below it judge cases. The power of the supreme court lies in it's INFLUENCE, not in any listed power.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only reason I can see that you and Mr. Card believe that these decisions were properly done by the Legislature is because you disagree with the court's reasoning. The Court's decision was framed as a conflict between the laws and the Constitution.
Now, disagreeing with the Court's decision is a legitimate position. (After all, there were Supreme Court justices who disagreed with the decisions, too. ) But you must admit that the majority's decision may have some merit. After all, more Supreme Court justices agreed with these decisions than disagreed.
So saying that the Supreme Court has become a new dictatorship and is usurping the Legislative branch is a bit of hyperbole. Because all you are basically saying is that you disagree with the court's reasoning. So the solution--a proclamation saying to disregard the court--means that the Legislature should be able to overrule the Supreme Court on interpretation of law and the Constitution. And that is definitely not their role.
Remember that every case that the Supreme Court rules on is an individual case. If the Legislature overrules the Supreme Court, what does that do to the plaintifs in the case? Does the Legislature have the right to send possibly people to jail?
I am starting to get very annoyed at the whole "Supreme Court is legislating from the bench" argument. It is becoming clear to me that the purpose is not to educate and persuade, but to elicit a gut-level reaction. In short, propoganda. And what is truly annoying is that it typically comes from those who say they despise such propoganda.
Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calling the Justices of the Supreme Court dictators is silly and outrageous name calling. Do they have power? Yes. Are they equivalent in over whelming power as Saddam was? As Charles Taylor was? As Castro is? NO!
quote: The United States, the pillar of democracy.
I don't know what this sentence fragment has to do with the rest of your argument so I'll leave it aside.
quote:However in the past 50 years a disturbing trend is occuring. One branch of the Federal government is becoming too powerful.
Do some research. They've been doing this since well before 1953. President Jackson had problems with them, as did Jefferson and Roosevelt.
quote:The framers of the Constitution created three co-equal branches of government. A system of checks and balances was set up so that one man, (The President) or one politcal party (The Senate) could control a nation.
Why one political party? When the Constitution was framed there were several political parties. It wasn't until later that they boiled down to two. And they each have members in the Senate,a long with some independants.
The Senate is not a political party. It is a legislative body. You also seem to forget about the House of Representatives. I assume you are refering to both houses of Congress and mislabeling them "The Senate" instead of suggesting we kill the House of Representatives as well.
quote:The Supreme Court was created to both rule over the court system, but also to check the power of the Legislative and Executive Branches.
I am unsure of the "Rule Over" phrase. They are the final court of appeal, yes. They are also a check on the powers of the Legislative and Executive, as well as on the powers of the States v.s. the Federal Government. Mostly it is there to stop the power of the Mob, of the Majority from infringing on the rights of the minority. That is why this isn't an elected position. It is a position given for life, so that political winds of change are placed beneath the principals and beliefs of the office holders.
You suggest:
quote:Congress pass a law that prohibits the executive branch from enforcing the ruling of the Supreme Court.
Is this any ruling of the Supreme Court or just specific ones. If its any ruling, then if I were on the Supreme Court, I'd rule that they follow this law.
Worse, Congress can enact laws, the Judiciary judges the laws, but only the executive branch has the authority, and the troops, to enforce a law. If Congress authorizes the President to De-Bar the Supreme Court, what happens next time there is a dispute between the Congress and the PResident. Congress can make a law illegalizing some executive action. If the President does it anyway, what can Congress do? They can point fingers at each other and say, "That was illegal. No that wasn't." The President calls in the national gaurd, and congress shuts up.
Now, Congress could pass a law saying that specific rulings of the Supreme Court are to be ignored.
The Supreme COurt would rule those laws unconstitutional.
Finally, the biggest difference between a Dictator and a Judge: A Dictator can make rules about whatever he wants. A judge only has a say in the cases brought to him.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Excuse me Mr. Hart, but why exactly are you calling a country with a less than 50% voter turnout the paragon of democracy? i'm just curious.
Even more curiously, how can you claim that the Supreme Court are taking actions which they do not have a popular mandate for, and still claim we are democracy's finest? (the whole point of our governmental institution is that its a republic not that its a democracy)
[that better twink?]
[ August 14, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Pod ]
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Andrew- I disagree with the Supreme Court's self granted power to do away with laws that were created by an elected legislature. The Congress is supposed to be acting out the will of the people. Who then is the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people? It is not a listed power within the Constitution.
Dan- I really hate when people pick apart an argument line by line, attacking individual sentences and fragments. If you want to be taken seriously by me, don't keep doing it. Your right Dictators was hyperbole, deliberate though. There was two major parties at that time, although not yet formalized there were were still Whigs and Federalists. That and the majorities will is supposed to be enforeced! Not at the expense of others, but the Supreme Court should never EVER flaunt the will of the majority. It should merely interpret the law, considering the legislative intent.
I should explain mine and Mr. Card's idea better. I believe the Congress should pass a law prohibiting the Executive branch from enforcing the latest Supreme Court ruling. Then if the people desire sodomy to enter the states, then Congress can pass a bill allowing it. And the Supreme Court cannot rule that law unconstitutional because it LACKS THE POWER TO!
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: However in the past 50 years a disturbing trend is occuring. One branch of the Federal government is becoming too powerful.
You know, wasn't it the President that was supposed to be a "figurehead" type person? If you ask me, that's the branch that's gotten out of control.
quote: All this astonished Alexis de Tocqueville in 1830. "No citizen," he wrote, "has cared to expose his honor and his life in order to become the President of the United States, because the power of that office is temporary, limited, and subordinate." The president "has but little power, little wealth, and little glory to share among his friends; and his influence in the state is too small for the success or the ruin of a faction to depend upon his elevation to power."
(Okay, I'm not the only one that thought that. )
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree for the fact that there is far too much politics invested in Congress. the supreme court may be removed from the will of the people, but it's also removed from all the crap that comes with being connected to the people. the supreme court is there to fix things that the majority of people decided was right for others. Hence, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, and several recent decision. Furthermore, if you move the Supreme Court to purely advisitory status, then the Legislature, once elected has their entire term to do whatever the hell they want, with pure impunity (unless you live in california).
And i think that's crap.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you want to be taken seriously by me, don't keep doing it.
::mimicks Kayla::
Style challenges validity apparently
Edit: By the way you didn't understand my joke obviously. It was not to say that this is like communism. It was to say sometimes things don't work out on paper or theory like they will in real life. I just meant that I wonder what will happen if this law is passed.
[ August 14, 2003, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Jimmy ]
Posts: 43 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Srticle III Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
posted
Hmmm...what will we do when a majority of people wish to enforce unconstitutional laws?
Oh, wait. You're suggesting they already do.
So do we follow the constitution or the people? Until the revolution, I suggest we follow the constitution. When we start letting 51% of Americans take away the constitutional rights of, oh, say, gays, we're just asking for trouble.
I'll be happy letting the SC make these decisions. They don't have to worry about getting re-elected. Do you really think the senators from Colorado are going to vote to strike down even an obviously unconstitutional law and risk being unemployed after the next election day?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You will not respect someone who questions your arguments line by line?
Why not? Do you prefer I just say, "You are wrong" and don't give a reason why? Or do you prefer I attack your argument in total, not attacking the specifics, allowing you plenty of wiggle room to counter by pulling out defences based on some of the specifics you mention?
Or do you just not like having your mistakes pointed out to you? I make plenty in posting.
I am sorry if your post was so poorly written that I was unsure what you were saying.
The Idea that Congress should pass a law illegalizing the executive branch from enforcing the Supreme Courts decision is pointless.
There is nothing for the Executive Branch to Enforce.
The Supreme Court ruled that a particular law in a particular state is unconstitutional. As such, no one can be inprisoned for it.
Would Congress be ordering the executive to Not-Not Arrest people for their behavior in their own bedroom? Does this mean they should spy on us to see if we are doing Man/Woman-Missionary Only thing correctly according to the Law?
Would COngress be ordering the State to continue arresting people for this anyway? Its a state law being struck down, not a Federal One.
Would they order the plaintiff's back in jail despite the Supreme Court's order to release them?
I just don't see how it would work.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree with the Supreme Court's self granted power to do away with laws that were created by an elected legislature. The Congress is supposed to be acting out the will of the people. Who then is the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people? It is not a listed power within the Constitution.
If the “will of the people” overrides the Constitution, what good is the Constitution?? Why are we bothering with it at all?
The Constitution states that certain laws will not be allowed that infringe on certain rights. If the Supreme Court cannot overturn these laws, who can?
Consider for a moment another situation where the Supreme Court “legislates from the bench”—gun control. State and local government pass laws limiting the right of private citizens to own certain types of guns, like handguns. The Supreme Court “legislates from the bench” and says the law contradicts the right to bear arms. They strike down the will of the people.
Should the Congress pass a law saying that the gun control law is OK? They can if they want to. It’s called amending the Constitution.
The Legislative Branch is entrusted to enact laws and reflect the will of the people. The Executive Branch is entrusted to carry out and enforce the laws. And the Supreme Court is entrusted to protect the Constitution. If the will of the people is to overturn the Supreme Court, then it must be the way it was envisioned by the Founding Fathers—by redefining the Constitution. Anything less is overriding our form of government.
Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it appears that you have a problem with the sodomy law or the striking down of sodomy laws.
Well, you see, they were unconstitutional. They were discriminatory, arbitrary and a host of other things. But I assume that you also feel that since they would only affect gay men, that would make them okay. Sadly, it would effect gays and heterosexuals.
Ryan, you apparently believe that perhaps the government should be allowed to step in and look into everyone's bedroom and determine if a person should be thrown in jail for their private sexual practices. Tsk, tsk, tsk. And if they start looking for folks who don't use the missionary position, or who leave the lights on, would that be alright to? What about those who only have sex with themselves? You're wanting the governments to be able to legislate this form of personal morality?
Let's flip it around and say that it's just a question of state's rights and not one of guaranteed freedoms for all US citizens. If the state of Montana summarily announced that it was against the law to be left handed, or dye your hair, would it be okay if the Supreme Court waded in and said this was an abridgement of the accused's rights?
That's pretty extreme, so let's tone it down a bit, if a state enacted legislation that denied Miranda rights to individuals who were arrested, would you want the Supreme Court to step in?
Ryan, I've seen your posts on a couple of other forums and I have to ask:
Do you have a problem with homosexuals? It seems to come up quite a bit...
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then if the people desire sodomy to enter the states, then Congress can pass a bill allowing it.
The thought of "sodomy entering the states" brings to mind a strange image.
As for the question of judicial review powers appearing in the Constitution:
quote:The Supreme Court's principle power is judicial review—the right of the Court to declare laws unconstitutional. This authority is not expressly stated in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has exercised judicial review since 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshall first announced it in Marbury v. Madison. Marshall deduced the necessity of such a power from the purpose and existence of the Constitution. He reasoned that judicial review was necessary to implement the Constitution's substantive and procedural limits on the government. If the Court could not strike down a law that conflicted with the Constitution, Marshall said, then the legislature would have a “real and practical omnipotence.” (from usconstitution.com)
So in fact it has been exactly 200 years that SC justices have 'exceeded' the Constitution in this regard. Honestly, I don't see any other way to make sure that the articles and amendments of the Constitution are held to in our laws. Without judicial review, the Bill of Rights (for instance) would be merely a set of guidelines for Congress to follow at their discretion. Do you think they would respect those guidelines without accountability?
Judicial review is undemocratic. So are all Constitutional limits on the power of Congress, including the first ten Amendments.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brown vs. the Board of Education are not merely moral issues, but issues pertaining DIRECTLY to rights delineated in the Constitution.
This type of thinking makes me slightly uncomfortable.
While I agree that integrated education, and society, are good things, I am not entirely certain that they are "rights delineated in the Constitution."
It would have been better (if much slower) if integration could have been arrived at peacefully, rather than having it enforced at gunpoint.
For example, does going to a segregated school, or being prevented from practicing sodomy prevent any of the following?:
Freedom of speech Freedom of the press Freedom of religion Freedom of assembly
Do those things damage the common defense, or hurt the general welfare? I can see how they might prevent domestic tranquilty, maybe.
I am really uncomfortable that it seems that the supreme court is forcing the entire nation to go one certain way on specific issues, rather than letting us find our way there together, in consensus, with different states perhaps implementing things slightly differently as befits the desires of its population.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
posted
Most people that have a problem with what they see as "judicial activism" don't necessarily have a problem with the principle of judicial review. They agree that it is the Supreme Court's job to "say what the Law is," as the saying goes. It is only logical that the Court should evaluate whether a law is harmonious with or in contravention of the Constitution -- if there is a conflict between the Constitution and another law, the Constitution must prevail. The Court cannot enforce an unconstitutional law. It follows that the Court must make the ultimate judgment as to the constitutionality of any law it is called upon to interpret.
The problem, or perceived problem, with "judicial activism" is when a judge or group of judges rules on the constitutionality of a law, but their motives are questionable. That is, they hold that the law is constitional or un-, and explain why, but the explanation seems (to some) to be forced, or convoluted, or just bogus, and it is suspected that the real reason for the ruling is the personal, political opinion(s) of the judge(s). I believe this really happens, but not as often as some claim, particularly not in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The real arguments, the ones we can really sink our teeth into, have to do with what the Constitution actually says/means. Serious, honest, intelligent people can have differing opinions on this, and that is why important Supreme Court decisions stir up so much controversy and debate. This is a good thing.
quote: It would have been better (if much slower) if integration could have been arrived at peacefully, rather than having it enforced at gunpoint.
Um, the Supreme Court doesn't have any guns. Brown v. Board of education merely forced Kansas to allow that one girl to attend that one school. De jure segregation continued alive and well for nearly another decade after that as many states simply ignored the court's ruling. The National Guard scene in Alabama you are apparently referencing was not a result of Brown V. Board of Education, but rather of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, passed by—guess who?—Congress.
Incidently, de facto segregation is alive and well, and making a comeback in fact. In the last two decades the number of African Americans and Latinos attending schools where their own ethnic group constituted more that 80% of the student body increased from around 63% to around 70%.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Under common law, the courts hold the power of judicial review. Common law is considered an acceptable legal basis in the US where specific law does not overrule.
The founders have made it clear in numerous papers that most of them desired the supreme court to possess this power.
The SC asserts it has it's power by virtue of common law, and by virtue of judicial necessity.
Specifically, courts MUST be able to make decisions about "which law is right" when laws conflict.
For instance, say there are two laws made by some law-giving body. One says "all who wear the color blue are law-breakers, subject to up to ten years sentence". The other says "All who do not wear blue are law breakers, subject to up to ten years sentence, and all who wear blue are not law-breakers". Now, if those were issued by one legal body, the way the situation is resolved is (typically) the newer law succeeds the old. However, if those laws are made by different bodies with different levels of authority that reasoning does not apply.
For instance, if a city law giving authority made the first law, and a state law giving authority made the second, a court would have to decide which was applicable before rendering the verdict. Clearly both cannot be. Most courts (though there are exceptions based on situation) would give the state law precedence. When done once by a high court (say the state supremem court), this effectively voids the local law, because all lower courts in the state will consider themselves bound by the precedent (there are, of course, always exceptions).
Now moving back to the realm of "judicial review" re the supreme court. If the Supreme Court hears a case, and there are two laws in conflict, and one is in the Constitution, and the other is not, clearly only one of the laws may have authority. If one applies, then the other cannot. The Supreme Court can either choose to apply the law given in the Constitution, or it can choose to apply the law not in the Constitution. The one chosen to apply is given precedence over the other.
As the law in the Constitution is the one the Justices are sworn to uphold over all else, and states within itself that in all cases, it is the supreme law of the land, it will always be chosen to be upheld.
If the justices allowed the other law to stand (the one contradicted by the Constitution), they would be giving that law legal precedence over the Constitution. They are not allowed to do this.
Lower courts are not required to agree with the SC's decision. But they generally (read: almost always) uphold it, particularly because the plaintiffs could always appeal to the SC (or just the next court up the ladder) and get the earlier ruling overturned.
But it does happen, a lower court making a decision in contradiction to an established SC precedence. This is one way precedences get changed.
The power of judicial review is absolutely and incontrovertibly necessary to the supreme court exercising it's Constitutionally granted jurisdictions. Without the power of judicial review, the Supreme Court would be unable to decide most cases they are Constitutionally empowered to decide.
If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is the law the Supreme Court must always uphold. No law which contradicts the Constitution could be upheld by the Supreme Court without violating their oath of office.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing with the Supreme Court is, most of the decisions they make are written so narrowly that any decision usually only pertains to a very narrow set of circumstances.
Occasionally, as with Roe v. Wade or the recent very controversial ruling, a decision is made that is seen (usually by those opposing it) as being of much wider application. In these cases, those who do not agree with the decision claim that the Court is not simply "stating what the law is", but legislating law on its own. The thing is, Roe v. Wade does not force anyone to have an abortion. Similarly, the recent decision does not mandate that anyone participate in anything they do not choose to.
Congress does, after all, have redress - the Constitutional Amendment. The fact that it is very hard to amend the constitution does not in any way invalidate the fact that the Constitution can be changed.
posted
Let me explain something about constitutional law. There are certain things that are considered "fundamental rights" these things include, freedom of religion and the coequal branches of the federal government. That is the highest level of guaranty. Therefore if ANYTHING trespasses on those rights it is unconstitiutional. The power of the Supreme Court to destroy laws hampers the power of the coequal branch of the Legislature. Therefore the common law argument is null and void. Common law cannot override a fundamental Constitutional right.
Icarus: The Supreme Court has many guns. It (under the power of judicial review) orders that the court's ruling be enforced. In the case of Brown vs. Board of Education, it ordered the Federal government to enforce it.
Sopwith: your right, it does seem that I have a problem with homosexuals. It probably stems from the "either-your-for-gay-marriage-or-your-a-white-facists-homophobic-bigot" school of thought. I do not believe that homosexuality is a moral choice, but I do not hate gay people.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it is of course okay to explain things, it is generally considered impolite to state it as if you have some authority which makes you right.
Particularly when, AFAIK, none of us is a lawyer, much less a specialist in Constitutional law.
Until you reach that point, you're just offering an opinion. And that opinion darn well better be supported by evidence or logic, or else it will have little to no impact on us. We respect your right to have it, but will not consider it well-founded unless you give us reason to believe it is.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan, are you a constitutional scholar? Other than a theater student, what is your area of expertise in the law? Not that it's all that important. I'm nuts, but knowledgeable about some things and pretty good with google links. However, when Rabbit or CT says something, people generally take them seriously, simply because it is in their area of expertise. Can you back up your argument at all? Links to sites that agree with you? Anything?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu- I was explaining. I was using logic. I was letting you know because like you, I am not a Constitutional lawyer. I was explaining an oppinion using logic and facts.
Kayla- Hail the Google Queen! I don't have links but a google search on the topic should yeild some results. It is an area that I have devoted some time and study to.
[ August 14, 2003, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should add that one of my flaws is using we without making it clear whom I mean.
As a rule of thumb, when I say we I mean the statement does apply to me, and I have good reason to believe that it applies to others.
Some people likely disagree (such is life), but when I say "we do x" about hatrack I mean it is generally my impression that people on the board do x, not that everyone on the board agrees with me.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan, you're really in the minority on this one. Personally, I think the executive branch needs to be seriously yanked down -- its tendency to initiate wars all the time, on its own initiative, CLEARLY usurps a specific right given to the legislature -- but I don't hear you harping about that one.
Seriously, we NEED a Supreme Court capable of reversing boneheaded legislative decisions. The problem is that people have irresponsibly elected Presidents who, for most of the last century, have tried to pack the court with irresponsible judges.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I wanted to research it, I would. You are the one making unsupported claims. It's your opinion. You are making it sound like fact. If you want us to believe you, we'd like proof. (Apparently, I spent too much time in the "Show Me" state.)
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla: Unfortunatly the levels of Constitutional rights are something I learned from my Law school friends. Any law students/lawyers that could back me up, I'd be grateful.
Tom- I think that may be to widesweeping of a condemnation. The president does have the power to authorize military action. However for war, he needs a declaration of congress. It's a very narrow ling to walk. Some Presidents (Clinton, Kennedy, Carter) have come very close to overstepping that line. However George Bush's latest actions (if perhaps that was a reference about) fall under the bill passed by Congress that allow Bush to root out world terrorist organizations.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Kayla on this one. If you want people to take you seriously and actually have your arguments mean something, you should start giving evidence that they are true.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, Ryan, I don't know if you noticed, but it didn't seem like UofUlawguy (an actual lawyer, according to his profile) disagrees with you.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
