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.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Woo Hoo!
Posted by TwosonPaula (Member # 5511) on :
Here, here.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
quote:the pillar of democracy
A pillar of democracy... not the Posted by Jimmy (Member # 5518) on :
::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.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
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 ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
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?
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
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
[ August 14, 2003, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Jaiden ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
It was a moral decision, but made in the wrong place. It should have been made in the Legilature.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> J: Oh and I mean "the". <<
Wow. America is really the only pillar of democracy in the world?
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
Shall we get a singular bulldozer out, Twink? *grins*
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
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 ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
So basically you want to keep the Supreme Court from having any power?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
::wonders what it is that the SC is supposed to do besides twiddle it's thumbs::
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
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.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
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 ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
He clarified his statement, saying that America is not the only pillar of democracy, just the best one.
Your counterpoint about voter turnout is still valid, though.
(Good to see you and Jaids posting, even if it is head-banging emoticons )
Edit: at this rate, maybe I'll even catch up to you
[ August 14, 2003, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
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!
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
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. )
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: If you want to be taken seriously by me, don't keep doing it.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
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.
Posted by Jimmy (Member # 5518) on :
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 ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ryan- It isn't self granted. Its explicitly written into the constitution.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
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 by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
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?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
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.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
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...
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
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.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
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.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Perhaps this deals with it:
quote: Amendments XIV
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.
Perhaps...
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
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.
UofUlawguy
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Good answer UofUlawguy. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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%.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
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.
Just my opinion.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
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?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
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 ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Guilty also. I'm also flattered that you used your 3000th post arguing with me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
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.)
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
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.
Posted by Jimmy (Member # 5518) on :
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.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
"didn't"?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Icarus: He agreed to a degree. Even lawyers disagree on this topic. But I'd love to get back to the real issue.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
So would I. Where's your research?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Since I'm arguing an abstract issue, there is no quantitative evidence. The level of fudamentality is something that has emerged in constitutional law. You'll just have to listen to the logic. If I were arguing say whether homosexual households created stable environments, then I would produce evidence. This is more a conflict of ideas.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote: 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.
This is the particular part I was responding to.
You offer no evidence. You offer a short attempt at a logical chain, but skip many complicated and controversial intermediary steps. You made a statement which I directly agreed with (re: the inability of common law to override an explicit law) in an apparent attempt to rebut me, which suggests you did not fully read what I wrote, particularly as common law is the least of my arguments.
My primary argument is that for the Supreme Court to exercise the jurisdiction it is given they MUST have the power of judicial review. You did nothing to rebut this, yet somehow consider me defeated (I think).
Then you somehow asserted that the legislature has a "right" to make laws. This is silly and does not make sense in a discussion unless explicated in common terms, as without explication it is gibberish. The legislature has a power to make laws.
Judicial review in no way abrogates that power. It is a necessary consequence of the ability to exercise jurisdiction.
If a law contradicts the Constitution, that law cannot be ruled as valid by the Supreme Court. That would be against their vows, and against the Constitution, as it would be placing a lesser law above the Constitution. The SC can either not rule in such a case, or render a ruling stating the lesser law is superceded by the Constitutional law. The latter is their Constitutionally granted power (that is, under their Constitutional jurisdiction, which means the area in which they may make rulings).
It is key to remember that the Constituion is a set of laws. And just as when lesser laws contradict each other a court must decide which is more valid in order to rule, so must a decision be made as to which law is valid when a lesser law contradicts a Constitutional law. And such a decision is clear: the Constitutional law supercedes any other law.
The law passed by the legislature is not invalidated by the Supreme Court, but by the laws enumerated in the Constitution.
For a law passed by Congress to be given precedence over the Constitution would be like a law passed by a township being given precedence over a state law. It just can't happen (in most states, at least; it varies by the state constitution). The law of the township would be invalid, and the only way that can be decided by a third party is in the courts. And it must be decided by a third party, or else each law making body would just make laws saying the other's laws were illegal.
For instance, say a case goes before the SC where a man violated a (national) law that forbade him from talking (at all). This would of course violate at least a couple Constitutional laws, but lets keep the example simple.
For the Supreme Court to rule, it must know what to rule on. The Supreme Court must rule according to the law-- all of the law. So they look at the law. First, they see the law the man is accused of violating. Then they see in the Constitution, where it says Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. Both of these are laws.
If the congressional law is upheld, the Constitutional law is being ignored (superceded). If the Constitutional law is upheld, the Congressional law is being superceded. For the Supreme Court to make a ruling on the matter (which they are explicitly empowered to do by the Constitution) they must choose one of the laws to be valid, and the other law to be invalid.
The only choice the Supreme Court can make in such a case is to uphold the Constitutional law, and say that the legislation violates the Constitution. Any particulars of legislation that violate the Constitution are, according to the Constitution, null and void.
The Supreme Court does not strike down laws. The Supreme Court determines when laws violate the Constitution, which strikes them down (supreme law of the land and all that).
Posted by The Count (Member # 5541) on :
that has to be the longest post ive ever seen, but a good one at that
[ August 14, 2003, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: The Count ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In response to your latest post, clearly if you expect people to agree with your ideas for their merit, you must provide logical reasoning for why they have merit. A short paragraph doesn't cut it, especially when discussing Constitutional law, and even more expecially when you are expressing an opinion directly contradictory to the unanimous opinion of the greatest legal minds in the nation (I am referring to the SC justices: all of them support the idea that judicial review is a power of the Supreme Court).
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Please correct me if I have your argument wrong.
You are saying that the Constitution created two equal bodies of government, the Legislative consisting of two houses of Congress, and the Executive, consisting of the President, his Cabinet, and all their associated agencies. The Judicial branch, while important in how the laws created by Congress and enforced by the Executive branch, has no power over those branches or over the laws created.
While Congress holds the purse strings for the Supreme Court, and the Executive chooses its members, and together they can create whatever laws they wish to control the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court and the entire Judicial branch is powerless to effect them.
Does that not bring up the problem of having judges become the puppets of people in power?
You have said the Supreme Court's biggest, if not only job is to be the final arbitor of legal cases. So if Congress passes a law that is blatantly prejudiced against any minority group, (All Jews must convert to Christianity since this is a Christian based Country) or if the state of Rhode Island passed such a law, the only thing the Supreme Court can decide on is if a member was guilty of being in the minority, if they failed to conver, not of comparing that small state's law to the Constitution of the US?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
bah, that ain't long!
I own that particular record.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, I've made much longer ones myself.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
That sounds all well and good on paper (or screen) but in practice the Supreme Court is in itself superceeding the power of Congress. Therefore we have a Constitutional conflict of epic proportions. Who decides on Constitutional conflict, but the Supreme Court. Of course the Supreme Court would then decide in favor of itself. True this argument looks and sounds good, but it also leads us back to the same place. Judicial review. You are correct that Judicial Review is a natural extrapolation of the Court's listed powers. However the Court should not take their given powers to the extreme, because then they tread upon the turf of the Legislature.
Because the American Justice System has developed as it has, it is difficult to accept any other means of existance. The fact is that the Supreme Court has overstepped it's bounds and deserves to be restrained. The powers of Judicial Review may be justified in such an extreme case as a no talking law, but it would be better if the Legislature would repeal it's own law. If the Supreme Court was elected, then the power of Judicial Review would be perfectly acceptable. However since it is appointed the power of the Supreme Court should be limited from the extreme it has been taken to.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The fact is that the Supreme Court has overstepped it's bounds and deserves to be restrained."
No, its your OPINION the supreme court has overstepped its bounds.
And, frankly, it MIGHT be better if the legislature would overturn its own laws... but in the meantime, you're talking about real people who's rights and freedoms protected by the federal constitution are being violated. Not some figments of imagination.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Paul: Your right it is an opinion, however in debate when you add qualifiers like "I think" "I believe" etc, you only weaken your position.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
You know Ryan, I think you would fit right in over at www.ornery.com. Is it also your opinion that you can't admit you might be wrong? They really believe in that over there.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps on the debate team. Here, it doesn't really matter. If you have a well backed up opinion, people will notice. If you tend to spout your opinions without giving backing, people will notice.
It doesn't matter which form you use. What matters is the evidence and logical reasoning.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
My aim is not working Paul.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
We've all read it, and those of us disagreeing with you disagree with HIM too.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Let me explain something about constitutional law.
Ryan...Can you sound just a little bit less condescending, please? Just because individuals do not agree with your position does not mean that they need to have the law "explained" to them by yourself.
Exactly how many law classes have you taken, by the way? I've taken two years of them, including constitutional law, in the course of earning an Associate of Science degree in Paralegal Studies. Graduated with highest honors, as a matter of fact.
Maybe I shouldn't post this. I'm having a bad day. But, you know what? What the heck. Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I have not taken a law course. Have you taken one on Constitutional law?
Edit: I ask because I want to know your opinion. I was under the impression that many (though still the minority) professors agreed with me.
[ August 14, 2003, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::bites tongue, again::
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Very few law professors agree with you.
Judicial Review is absolutely necessary for the functioning of our constitution.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, disagreeing with OSC is common practice here. I'd bet nigh every person here has disagreed, quite possibly vehemently, with OSC on at least one occasion. He says a lot of controversial things, many of which are founded on his religious beliefs and the teachings of his church (nothing wrong with that at all, but it means those of us who are not LDS often have a different perspective).
It's perfectly okay to disagree with OSC here. It is not okay to insult OSC here (and you weren't doing this, just thought the train of discussion made it a good time to point out some of the ground rules the Cards have laid out).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
fugu, I disagree with your characterization of the constitution as a set of laws. Or, more specifically, as only a set of laws. One of the main purposes of the constitution is to enumerates the rights granted to various parts of American society. In regard to the theories of liberalism, rights and laws are in no way equal. Instead, they are of completely different classes and are generally seen more in their opposition than in agreement.
That laws be struck down because they violate these rights is an explicit and important part of the theory of liberalism as developed during the Enlightenment, which was the main basis for the American Constitution. As such, judicial review was not just established in the Constitution and then expanded by Marshall, but rather part of the very theoretical framework of our nation.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I like to think of the constitution as meta-law.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While I haven't known more than a few law professors (maybe a dozen), none of them have agreed with your perspective. Admittedly a small sample size, but it supports the experiences of others.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Amen Squicky. However I don't agree with the idea that judicial review was a theoretical idea of the Constitution.
Edit: There is one that I know of at Wake Forest University.
[ August 14, 2003, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Ryan, I believe she was pretty clear.
quote: I've taken two years of them, including constitutional law, in the course of earning an Associate of Science degree in Paralegal Studies.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: ::bites tongue, again::
Doesn't that make it bleed Icky?
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
I just feel the need to point some things out here.
Ryan Hart:
The executive branch of the government has much more widespread powers than the ability to wage wars. Since they control execution of federal affairs, an administration's bias becomes very apparent very quickly, and there's not a damn thing the populous can do about the execution of these biases. The bush administration have exploited their administration of the government to rather wide extent, which can be seen in their dealings with the EPA, foreign aid, the NIH, other regulatory agencies and the UN. Theres far more to the executive branch than the ability to levy war, and it'd do well for some people to remember that.
On another note, it is not a fundamental constitutional right to pass legislation which infringes on other's fundamental constitutional rights. The arbiter of conflicts in this regard is the Supreme Court. That's what it exists for. In so far as that is true, i don't see how the supreme court's behavior is contrary to the constitution.
[ August 14, 2003, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Pod ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think the Constitution is "only" a set of laws in the sense that every bit of it is law. Now, it holds several properties most laws do not have. Among other things, it is, within the US, the supreme law of the land.
Secondly (on a more theoretical level), it is an attempt at a framework of basic rights and powers for other, lesser laws to hang from.
However, its great effect at that only works insofar as it is a collection of laws. Were parts of it not law, they would be ineffectual as a framework.
So I see it as a very, very special collection of laws.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
This boggles my mind:
How can people (apparently including OSC) accuse any court headed by chief justice RENQUIST of possessing a liberal bias?
Anyway, if you really feel that the Supreme Court needs some checking by the exectuive and legislative branches, go write your friggin' congressmen (and women!) and stop yer whining.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, re your statement about the difference between rights and laws, for a right to be enforced requires that, in some sense, a law exist for it. This may be an explicit part of the Constitution, or a right ruled by the Supreme Court to exist vis the "other rights" clause (which is one of the haziest parts of the Constitution, and where the Supreme Court likes to tread least).
All of these rights are mentioned in the Constitution, and by it's own definition are enforced by laws.
It is important to note that every right in the Constitution is not created by the document, but acknowledged, and protection granted to that right. That is, the right exists regardless of whether or not the Constitution exists. The Constitution contains laws which protect the (already and always) existing rights.
Thus I do not see the Constitution as having a mixture of laws and rights, but as having laws, some of which explicitly acknowledge and protect rights.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Well on that note Fugu, the OSC tirade that Hart links to doesn't even support what Hart claims. OSC's point is that the Supreme Court should only officiate over things which deal with the constitution. If its not about constitutional law (as many legal issues in the US are), the Supreme Court shouldn't have any power.
While i don't necessarily agree, that seems to be OSC's point.
I don't think however that the Supreme Court has started circumventing or surpassing the federal legislative body or executive branch, as Mr. Hart seems to think (primarily because the Supreme Court only has the power to overturn or uphold a peice of legislation brought before it).
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought the main point of the checks and balances system was that it forced all of the branches to be continually treading on each others territory?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:One branch of the Federal government is becoming too powerful. The framers of the Constitution created three co-equal branches of government.
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.
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.
Ryan Hart. First, the power of the SC derives from specific powers listed in the const. (see below.) The influence comes fropm the power. If you believe the constitution created 3 coequal branches of government, then your argument falls apart on it's face. Without the power of judicial review, how is the SC equal to the other 2 branches?
quote: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.
Section3, Article II.If the SC has ultimate appellete jurisdiction, then judicial review is a logical and inevitable extrapolation of SC power.I suppose they could just keep ruling on the same unconstitutional laws over and over forever or until Congress or the lower body that passed the law changed it, but that seems pretty pointless. Note that judicial review first occurred in 1803, barely 10 years after the const. was ratified. You even agree in a later post:
quote:You are correct that Judicial Review is a natural extrapolation of the Court's listed powers.
RH. You go on to say that the SC should not overstep it's bounds, which most would agree with. But where are the bounds? That's where the arguements come to bear.
quote: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.
RH. This is so wrong I don't know where to start. Checks and balances were set up in our system of governance to avoid a monarchy or autocratic government, not so one man or party could control a nation. Not that men or parties haven't tried. Many of the framers of the const. were in favor of a more powerful presidency, but were out voted in debate. I agree with others who have posted in this thread that it is the executive branch that has gotten out of hand, not the SC. Just in waging war, the US has been in 6 major wars (by my unresearched count) and many smaller engagements since WWII, with nary a declaration of war out of congress, a power specifically given to congress in the const.
[ August 15, 2003, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Morbo: I was reffering to a Monarchy when I referenced one man taking over. I believe the Court manipulates it's power when it takes it to the extreme of Judicial review. The court should NOT state that laws are unconstitutional. It should merely judge a case. The courts can then interpret in the manner that they would interpret a appealatte court opinion.
Pod: I was just addressing one area where the Federal government often oversteps its boundries. I am far from saying however that the government is free of corruption.
Speaking of George W. Bush however, believes that "the court should stop legislating." I quote a speech he gave when he was in North Carolina last year. I was there, and it is in proper context.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
And a profound and insightful quote that was, too. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
RH:"The court should NOT state that laws are unconstitutional. It should merely judge a case."
So what do you suggest the Court should do when the case calls for an application or interpretation of an unconstutional law? I don't understand how the Court can do anything BUT declare the law unenforceable by reason of unconstitutionality. Do you want them to ingore the fact that the law violates the Constitution and apply it anyway, hoping that somebody in Congress will notice?
UofUlawguy
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Perhaps the Executive branch should also leave legislating alone. Perhaps they should leave it to the Legislative branch.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
U: You have struck what is the true problem with the issue. The answer is, I don't know. Perhaps it would be best if the Court could somehow communicate the unconstitutionality of the law to the Legislature at the time of passing. It does put us between a rock and a hard place.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
When the court rules for you, that is "Judicial Review, a neccesary part of the constitutional balance of power."
When the court rules against you, that is "Legislating from the bench, an evil missuse of power."
Here is a question for you.
Without Judicial Review, the majority in congress can make any law they wish as long as the President will sign it.
At present, both the majority and the President are Republican.
What stops the majority from creating a law as follows:
"In the interest of presenting a unified front in our War on Terrorism, and the Economic Downturn we have been fighting since 9/11, any person who is now, or has ever been a member of the Democratic Party is forbidden from holding any political office until such time as the both the War on Terrorism has been succesfully completed and the Economic situation improves."
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Granted. In that case judicial review would be waranted. Perhaps what is needed then is a limitation to the level at which that power must be carried out.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
RH:"Perhaps it would be best if the Court could somehow communicate the unconstitutionality of the law to the Legislature at the time of passing."
Actually, this was tried early on in our history. Some of the first national leaders wanted the Court to do this, but it was established right from the get-go that the Supreme Court has no Constitutional authority to give advisory opinions. There is no "case or controversy."
Besides which, I don't understand what advantage you think this would give us. About the only thing I can think of is a saving in time and resources, by knowing beforehand that if a certain law is passed it will just be struck down after a lengthy, expensive process of litigation.
The problem is that the Court cannot really assess the constitutionality of a law without a concrete fact situation by which to evaluate it.
UofUlawguy
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
How do you limit the SC?
1) You free them from any political influences by giving them positions for life, not elected. This allows the court to make correct decisions on difficult cases.
2) You limit them to being able to comment on laws where questions arise. They don't comment on all law that is passed, just on the law that is brought before them. This is why we have, "In God We Trust" on our money. Its probably unconstitutional, but nobodies bothered to take it to court.
3)We have Nine Supreme Court Justices, not just one or three. This makes any wild decisions on their part difficult.
4)Funding for the Supreme Court is done through Congress. Actual execution of thier judgements is done through the Executive branch. If they said something extremely displeasing to the President, he does not have to enforce it. On the other hand, his lack of enforcing it will be remembered by the voters, good or bad.
If the Supreme Court said that "To Serparate Church and State, no prayer would be allowed in the country" it would be up to the President to decide if he should raid churches and arrest people. He wouldn't. People would remember him at election time and vote for him.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Just so you know, I am doing a refresher in contitutional law with my book. It is Modern Constitutional Law by Ronald D. Rotunda. I will have more tomorrow.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
::woo hoo::
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
quote: contitutional law
Sounds engaging! Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Supreme Court should never EVER flaunt the will of the majority.
I think that's when I stopped reading. I thought we have a rule of law in this country. Didn't our president get into power by the supreme court acting contrary to the will of the majority? For the most part, I believe in the rule of law, which I believe to be an excruciatingly slow manifestation of the will of the majority if the masses had the sense to examine the issues and the people involved, and I'm personally happy that the people who interpret the rule of law are not elected by or accountable to an incredibly underinformed majority.
I appreciate the rule of law. You will never see me saying that Bush stole the election, though my words about the American voters may not be so kind.
[ August 17, 2003, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Actually I'd tend to agree with you.
One of the first cases that exhibited Judicial review was Marbury vs. Madison . Marshall's court declared unconstitutional a law passed by the first congress. The majority of the first congress was made up of delagates to the constitutional convention. It is HIGHLY unlikely that the same people who created the constitution would then pass an unconstitutional law. The court misused its power at the first chance.
The problem with judicial review lies not in the idea, which is sound, but in how it is carried into practice.
Edit: I put the correct cas in.
[ August 17, 2003, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
How long have you been back, Irami? It's good to see you! Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Ryan, many of the people who penned the Constitution owned slaves. Based on that logic, should the SC allow states to decide whether slavery is legal because it was never the intent of the constitution to forbid it?
Posted by meltingsnowman (Member # 4559) on :
One of the things Ive tried to teach myself is this.
Everytime you think that the stop lights should be sequenced differently so that you could be driving instead of wait for 30 more seconds, there was somebody who knows much much more about stop lights and traffic then you would ever want to, and this person's way, I'm confident, is optimal taking all factors into account.
When you wonder why they dont exactly know yet why the power went down over such a wide area, and that they should have it figured out faster. I assure you, people much smarter then you when it comes to power grids are working on this problem around the clock.
Everytime you say "ya know, they ought to do it this way...(etc)". Odds are someone has given it more thought then you and has decided the current way is best.
RH:
How can you expect your uneducated(comparitivly) argument to be correct when so very very many people whos lives are dealing with the law think other wise?
(sorry if this takes on the tone of an argument, I just seem to do that when I intend to keep it a discussion)
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Granted. In that case judicial review would be waranted. Perhaps what is needed then is a limitation to the level at which that power must be carried out.
RH, in response to Dan Raven's hypothetical law outlawing democrats from political office. I'm glad to see you've softened your position somewhat regarding judicial review, RH. I don't think any effective means to limit judicial review could happen without a constitutional amendment. And that seems very improbable for such a complex and abstract legal issue. Only something that really gets people motivated stands a chance of passing the difficult amendment procedures.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Ryan, even I, who agree with you that the Supreme Court has gotten somewhat out of hand, can admit that judicial review is important to the smooth functioning of the government.
And the President and Congress are certainly capable of overriding the Court by force, as it were, if they think they can do it without consequence. Familiar with this: "Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it"?
(I suppose my problem is that appointment and life terms don't seem to have actually prevented justices from making politically-based rulings. They may not have to worry about elections, but they still have their political stances just like the rest of us. So far as I can tell, whenever the opportunity arises they rule that the Constitution says what they want it to say. Fortunately most of the time the liberals and conservatives balance each other out, but not always. IMHO, anyway.)
Posted by Tresof (Member # 1240) on :
quote: One of the first cases that exhibited Judicial review was Cooper vs. Aaron. Marshall's court declared unconstitutional a law passed by the first congress.
Wasn't Cooper v. Aaron in 1958?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Macabeus is completely right. Some people say that judicial review is essential to democracy. However England's parliment can "change judicial decisions by statute." The French and Swiss go so far as to not allow the court ANY jurisdiction over the constitutionaltiy of any federal law. These governments are stable democracies.
Justice Holmes once said "I do not think the United States would come toa an end if we lost ouer power to declare an Act of Congess Void."
We must also remember that the Supreme Court is EQUAL to the Legislature. The ability to nullify an act of Congress would raise it above the congress. If a law is so blatantly against congress (like the inability of a democrat to hold office) then it can be struck down.
Judicial review is more important when a law is passed in the past, the modernly enlightened court can remove it. However modern and active laws (such as the Texas sodomy law) that are supported by many people, and have been upheld in a previous Supreme Court decision should not be removed. Has the Constitution changed since a sodomy law was upheld? No pertinent Constitutional amendment has been passed. Therefore the Supreme Court is NOT interpreting the Constitution, but legislating morality.
Edit: Yes your right. Cooper vs. Aaron was in 1958. My casebook has it listed right after Marbury vs. Madison.
EditII: Macabeus that is one of my favorite quotes. I think it is highly amusing.
[ August 17, 2003, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, the ability to nullify an act of congress does not put it above Congress. It puts the Constitution above Congress, which is entirely correct.
If the SC began making decisions that were not justified under the law of the land, they would be ignored, as they have been even on issues which they were correct on.
The Supreme Court has no power of enforcement. The only way any act of Congress is nullified is by Congress allowing it to happen. Congress and the President both have powers of enforcement that are not open to the SC: Congress controls the money, and the President can order the guns around. The Supreme Court has no recourse other than the force of persuasion.
If Congress wishes an act to continue (despite the SC saying otherwise), it will. It's already happened at least once (I'll look for my reference, but I'm packing for a small move to another apartment in the same building).
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
RH, I among others refuted your last paragraph in this "States rights are cool, but what about justice?" thread, in response to OSC's similar arguements in a column of his.[Edit: and others take yours and OSC's side in that thread, of course.]
I certainly would not say that sodomy laws are "modern" or "active." I also would say that most people think it's none of the government's damn business what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.
That was very interesting about the French and Swiss not allowing their courts to overrule their legislature, I didn't know that.
[ August 17, 2003, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, you don't have to look too hard [fugu] . . . I already mentioned the continued existence of de jure segregation, including in the area of education, for ten years after Brown v. Board of Education.
quote:We must also remember that the Supreme Court is EQUAL to the Legislature. The ability to nullify an act of Congress would raise it above the congress.
I don't agree. This is the SC's balance. Without this power, in what way is it equal to the other two branches? The way the branches are equal is in the fact that each has some power over the other two. Yes, the SC can nullify a law, but the SC justices are appointed by the president with congressional approval. And, once again, the SC has no enforcement power of its own.
I don't agree with OSC's assertion that this case, Roe v. Wade, and Brown (OK, I guess I am broadening his assertion, but I have seen others in this thread argue the point) are not constitutional issues. I do agree, though, with those who feel that there has been at times some legislating from the bench. I think Maccabeus put it very well. Although they do not have to fear not being reelected, the justices still have their political axes to grind. For instance, I personally find it more than a little questionable that the right to privacy of a mother trumps the right of a fetus to life.
[ August 17, 2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
If all the Supreme Court did was interpret the Constitution, then yes, judicial review would probably be warrented in all situations the justice used it. However Supreme Court justice (just like almost everyone) have political opinions. So they wait for the chance to put their political opinions into balance. Remember they didn't get there just by being a really good judge. They did have to politik a little bit to get where they did.
Roe vs. Wade competes with Dred Scott as the worst decision. It was argued that a fetus was not a life. The biology used to argue that the fetus is not a viable life until the third trimester has been shattered. It was obvious that the court believed that abortion should be legal, so it used it's power to make it so.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Icarus: the court basically said that a fetus' right to life was so unclear as to be not a significant barrier to ruling based on the clear violation of doctor patient privilege that the abortion law in question was.
The argument was not that privacy trumped the right to life, but that privacy was the default, and could only be overridden were there a right to life for the fetus, which was unclear.
Ryan: based on my readings on the subject, the majority of the SC justices were personally against abortion. However, I think they were swayed by the high rate of and extreme danger involved in illegal abortions and personal attempts at abortion. Basically, many people who were definitely guaranteed a right to life were dying every year because they were unable to obtain a safe abortion.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I believe that the idea was not really whether it was life or not. Any bacterium is life. The real question is whether or not it could be considered a Human life.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
The fact of homemade and illegal abortions was greatly exagerated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but abortion was legal in some states.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Abortion was legal in some states. The people getting illegal abortions were the ones who couldn't afford to travel to another state.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
If it was available, but people could not travel to the states, then it was still the mother's fault. The law was still constitutional, however the Court believed that abortion should be made legal. That is why they ruled as they did, not because it was unconstitutional.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"If it was available, but people could not travel to the states, then it was still the mother's fault. The law was still constitutional, however the Court believed that abortion should be made legal. That is why they ruled as they did, not because it was unconstitutional. "
How astounding. You can read minds, now.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Although telepathy is in my repetoire of skills, I didn't have to use it. There is enought literature available for me to get an insight.
[ August 17, 2003, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:Although telepathy is in my repetoire of skills
Now that explains a lot.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
How is it the mother's fault if she's poor and can't get time off to travel halfway across the country to have an abortion?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
It's not her fault that she's poor and can't travel. It is her fault if she chooses to illegally abort. If she doesn't want the baby there is adoption, or legal abandonment. There is ALWAYS an alternative.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While some pregnant women can continue working, most are unable to for at least some period. This is not an option for many.
That's ignoring the social stigma associated with many pregnancies (particulary at the time of Roe), where one could be forced out of school for being pregnant, and was often shunned at work.
And even ignoring both of those aspects, the issue is not that there are no alternatives, but whether or not there is a legal justification for banning a medically safe procedure that does not clearly legally involve anyone other than the mother.
It's analogous to a law banning masturbation (in private, that is). By virtue of it's being private, it's protected, even though it is not necessary for a guy to do. It would be illegal to make a law banning private masturbation.
Now, it is no longer analogous if the fetus is considered a protected human life. The court's position was that the situation was sufficiently unclear that they could not justifiably override the right to privacy, which definitely exists.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
As an australian who believes we also have a pillar of democracy... And a law student:
One of the fundaments of separation of powers (which is entrenched in the US Constitution) is the notion checks and balances. Yes the legislature has the (supreme) power to create laws, but the judiciary must also have the power to review those laws and, if they are unconstitutional, strike them down.
However there is a difference between judicial activism (and some would say judicial law making) and judicial review. While I think the former is desirable (as I tend to agree with those decisions of both our own High Court and the US Supreme Court and think they are usually the moral and ethically right decisions) it isn't part of separation of powers - in fact, it's argued it undermines the doctrine.
Pity really... Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
But how can you argue that a women's right to privacy overrides a baby's right to live? Even the science used to argue the case has been proven false. A baby can survive out of the womb before the third trimester.
And I think it's funn that if you give drugs to a fetus, it's giving a controlled substance to a minor. And that there is a law called intent to harm an unborn child, whereas abortion is completly legal.
Edit: Fugu- Is there anything we agree on?
[ August 17, 2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Ryan you previously mentioned how the Swiss and French courts cannot overrule parliament on constitutional matters.
I don't know about France, but Switzerland allows for public referenda on *every* law passed by federal parliament: as such, the argument is, any reveiw by the courts is unnecssary as the population may challenge any individual law, and if they vote against it, overturn it.
Which certainly isn't the case in any other democracy.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Kinda gotta agree on this pillar of democracy thing. In Australia, voting is compulsory so voter turnout is something in the vicinity of 85% of eligible persons. Now, does this make Australia more democratic since its government is decided by a greater percentage of its population or less democratic because people can't choose whether they vote or not. I'm inclined to go with the former...
Oh, and Ryan...
------------
Imogen, where do you study in Australia?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Ethics, I get the idea you don't like me, why?
Posted by Nosx (Member # 5554) on :
Fugu, though i may have misunderstood your above post concerning at home abortions being analogous to the banning of private masturbating. Though it may be done in private, does not make it right. The human being was not created with an instinct to murder, (or however abortion is described). The exact instant that a fetus becomes a human being can not be determined due to the distorted views of people who have put them selves in a bind by getting pregnant then not wanting the child due to reason unknown, mostly selfish. What is next, sell your 3 year old child to a sweat shop because he is not old enough to make his own choices? I think not, and please tell me if you kill your penis while masturbating.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
RH:
If you want to use the argument that the SC is superior to congress because they can override congress, then you should apply the same logic the otherway around, cause congress can override the SC as well.
i mean, that is what you're pushing for here isn't it? For congress to change the powers of the SC. That would imply that congress has power over the SC, thus, putting the SC under congress as well.
Odd, that sounds like a system of checks and balances, doesn't it?
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Well, you malign homosexuality constantly but assert "hey, I don't hate gay people". You refuse to even acknowledge when someone proves you wrong on a point. Your posts are often arrogant, condescending and ignorant. So when I see you making another thread that seems to be a complaint about judicial review inspired by your disgust with a decision relating to sodomy laws...
Since I'm not American I also don't take well to comments in the vein of "America is the best country in the world". Or THE pillar of democracy or whatever.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But how can you argue that a women's right to privacy overrides a baby's right to live?....And I think it's funny that if you give drugs to a fetus, it's giving a controlled substance to a minor. And that there is a law called intent to harm an unborn child, whereas abortion is completly legal.
Ryan, I'm pro-life, myself -- but you're way off-base, here.
The court's logic was as follows:
1) There is no way to tell if a fetus in early stages of development is a baby or not. 2) Consequently, there is no way to tell if the fetus is a human being and thus deserving of legal protection. 3) However, there is an implicit right to privacy inherent in the Constitution. 4) Without knowing whether the fetus deserves rights, we are forced to that the mother's right to privacy permits abortion.
This is actually pretty logical. Now, there are two OBVIOUS points of contention. #1, you can say that there IS some way to tell if a fetus is human or not, or that it's better to err on the side of caution and ASSUME it's a human being with rights. (This is my approach.) #2, you can say there's no such thing as an inherent right to privacy, and that the government consquently has the right to restrict any and all private behavior. (Many people also make this claim.)
As to the two laws you reference: it's worth noting that both these laws were passed AFTER Roe v. Wade, and both were heavily opposed by pro-abortion lobbyists -- precisely because they knew these laws would be used as legal precedent by pro-life activists in arguments like this one, and in future cases. If similar cases were to come before the court, the Supreme Court might find itself again forced to establish some firm ruling on the legal rights of a fetus -- something that, even in Roe v. Wade, it has been desperately trying to avoid (mainly because there's a whole BARREL of worms that can be opened on this issue).
--------
quote: This is why we have, "In God We Trust" on our money. Its probably unconstitutional, but nobodies bothered to take it to court.
As a side issue, I believe the Supreme Court HAS ruled on this before -- although I could be wrong. IIRC, they argued, quite ludicrously, that "In God We Trust" was not REALLY religious, but instead served a form of "secular purpose," being of patriotic and symbolic character. The logic, in fact, was that no one in politics REALLY meant that they trusted in God when they put it on their money, and so it was a purely symbolic expression of a trust in some form of something.
It was an agonized, foolish, and even -- depending on how you look at it -- cynically blasphemous decision, motivated almost exclusively by fear of political fallout.
[ August 17, 2003, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Hi Ethics - Perth originally but I'm spending a year in sunny Brisbane. Gotta love a winter that doesn't get below 18C! Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
That'd be nice. The bane of my existence is the flu sweeping Sydney at the moment. Three weeks of it (including a bout of bronchitis). Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nosx- you misunderstand my and the courts reasoning. From my perspective, and from the courts, it is not clear if the fetus has a right to life. What is clear is that the woman has a right to privacy, and the legal principle in the US (as recently affirmed several times by the SC) is that unless there is an overriding principle, privacy shall be legally inviolate. As the fetus's status is unclear, there is no overriding principle.
My personal best guess is that the fetus should have a right to life, at least after the first trimester. That the fetus should have a right to life upon conception seems to me ridiculous, however, and there is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise. However, I am not comfortable enforcing a feeling I have on others who may hold different opinions for well thought out reasons, particularly with regard to so life changing a situation as having a baby.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
*shoos out abortion debating people*
Go start your own thread, one that I can avoid.
Or better yet, bump one of the fifty million already exsisting threads on this subject, and continue it. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Ryan Hart said earlier: "Roe vs. Wade competes with Dred Scott as the worst decision. It was argued that a fetus was not a life. The biology used to argue that the fetus is not a viable life until the third trimester has been shattered. It was obvious that the court believed that abortion should be legal, so it used it's power to make it so."
I disagree with Roe v. Wade, but I am not interested in joining in any abortion arguments at this time. Instead, I want to address your criticisms above.
The S.Ct.'s reasoning re: the three trimesters has already been refuted by later S.Ct. opinions, and is no longer part of our case law. Those lines were rightly recognized as being too arbitrary, and not flexible enough to keep pace with scientific/medical advances.
As for the Justices ruling the way they did just because they personally believed that abortion should be legal, I heartily disagree. I don't think you will find any evidence that this is the case.
The biggest legal (rather than moral) problem I have with Roe v Wade is that it unwisely elevated the term "Right to Privacy" into our national legal lexicon. Other cases have tried to point out that there is actually no "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution, but the term has stuck. The case should instead have focused on the more correct "Liberty interest." That is, the Due Process clause(s) broadly refer to our rights to life, liberty and property. "Liberty" is a broad enough concept to encompass many rights that we might think of as having to do with Privacy, but Privacy itself isn't necessarily therefore a Constitutional right.
UofUlawguy
[ August 18, 2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
UofUlawguy: I heartily agree. Perhaps our disagreement lies in my word choice (which is deliberatly forceful).
Nosx- Welcome to Hatrack! Join the ranks of the n00bs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ryan, perhaps you should reconsider the "deliberately forceful" thing. It's not working for you, bro.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Oh, lay off of RH already. Too many people have been giving him a hard time. I don't agree with most of his opinions. Yet I thought he defended an untenable position well--ie no SC judicial review after 200 years of precedent. He even softened his position some when faced with extreme hypothetical law situations. Personally, I think crying "judicial activism!" is ususally a facade to facilitate criticism of specific SC opinions , but he seems to really believe the SC has too much power. Along with OSC. Ryan, express your views as forcefully as you want. Just try to avoid ad hominem attacks (which you have as far as I can remember), respect whoever you're debating and back opinion with facts.
quote: You refuse to even acknowledge when someone proves you wrong on a point. Your posts are often arrogant, condescending and ignorant.
Ethics Gradient, RH did acknowledge he could be wrong about completely limiting judicial review. And though you are far from from ignorant, EG, you've come across as arrogant and extremely condescending at times. Pull the mote out of your eye, let he who is without sin, etc. Oh, wait, I just remembered: EG told me weeks ago he ignores everything I post for some reason. Well, at least he's open-minded.
I used to be very arrogant, no, incredibly arrogant and pompous when I was younger. I hope I don't appear that way now.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd like to compliment RH on adapting to hatrack has he has. His earliest posting set me a bit on edge, but he has adjusted his posting style well to the situation, and I think he makes a good jatraquero.
Of course, if I think his reasoning is in error I'll jump on his back in an instant, but I do that with everyone .
He does not deserve to be jumped on for expressing his positions.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Sniffle...Sniff..Thanks Guys.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Yeah, sorry. I just happen to have a lot of homosexual people in my life that I care very, very deeply about. So someone who appears to have a serious agenda against them is going to cop flack from me.
If someone is allowed to say that my friends are going to burn in hell for being gay, I feel entitled to tell them to get screwed.
--------------
Morbo, yep. You're right. I can definitely be arrogant and condescending. Sorry about that.
And yeah, I did ignore your posts for a while. Mostly because so much of your early stuff was almost incomprehensible. However, it's obvious that you've since become a valuable member of the community. Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Ethics: No worries. Just because I don't support their lyfestyle, I don't hate them. I have friends who use drugs, I like them, just don't support their lifestyle.
I have to say though, your name is a very humourous oxymoron.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
I apologise if I misconstrued, but despite your protestations to the contrary it has seemed to me that many of your posts don't simply display a distaste for homosexual acts. Perhaps this was a result of your being "deliberately forceful."
I'll lay off... and apologise for being a prick.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: *shoos out abortion debating people*
Sorry . . . I guess I'm the one who brought abortion into this . . . I agree that this isn't the place to discuss the morality of adoption per se, but discussing the validity of the Supreme Court's decision is, I think, totally appropriate as an example to be debated.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
EG, thank you for reading my post and especially for saying I've become a valuable member of HR. That really means a lot coming from someone here I respect so much. I dithered as to the wording of "extremely condescending" and "at times." Most of the time you display far more class than I ever will, as you've proven both times I've critized you. Arrogance is an ever-present danger for any people as intelligent as we both are. And my early posts were often bordering on incomprehensiblity, partly because I was trying to inject humor into every word and EVERY post, which doesn't work unless you're Bob Scopatz. I think Frisco or Lalo called me on it, but it took a few weeks for me to dial down the humor.
Several posters (you know who you are!) on this thread and the gay marriage thread were taking cheap shots and ad hominem attacks on Ryan, which is why I defended him. Not because I agreed with his positions. I agree, his stance on homosexuality is infuriating, but it is shared by millions of Christians and others. As long as he doesn't cross the lines of civil discourse, however, he's entitled to express his views. Attack the views, don't stoop to unwarranted assumptions and cheap shots, people. HR needs diversity, not a hive mind, right?
[ August 19, 2003, 02:41 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Uhm, since we are talking about posting styles, may I lodge a complaint with you, Morbo? Your habit of ending most sentences with a line break makes your posts flow weirdly and is, to me, stylistically difficult to read. If I slow down it doesn't bother me much, but I usually scan the threads very quickly and when, if in a hurry, I get to a post that is formatted out of the norm, I tend to skip it. I don't know if I speak for more people than myself, but if you wish to increase the chances of your posts being fully read and appreciated by people of my sensitivities, you might perhaps consider changing to normal paragraphs .
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You're right: I do use too many line breaks. I didn't realize it was so distracting, and I'll try to watch that. Thanks for the constructive criticism, Tristan. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
quote:If someone is allowed to say that my friends are going to burn in hell for being gay, I feel entitled to tell them to get screwed.
The next time someone says that gays will burn in hell, ask them if they are going there.
If they say no, tell him, "Well, then, it can't be all bad."
[Edited to remove a really bad typo: "The next time someone says that gas will burn in hell..." ]
[ August 19, 2003, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
"the next time someone says gas will burn in hell..."
Well something has to be causing the flames!
AJ
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
You mean that Hell is filled with those fake, ceramic logs?? Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
This still isn't a thread about the punk band (The Dictators)?
![[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)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
]![[Eek!]](eek.gif)