American Justice for Americans Citizens Act (Introduced in House)

THOMAS DATABASES ^ | April 1, 2004 | Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mrs. MUSGRAVE)

[Bernard Marx]

That is the point of ambiguous language. It allows the court to embrace societal changes in its rulings.

You know where I can get a mortgage written like that? One with "ambiguous language" that "embraces" any of my personal downward financial changes in its terms? Or does that darned old mortgage language mean just what it says? Welcome to Free Republic, by the way.

[Bonddad]

It depends on the contract language.

Welcome to the law.

[King Prout]

correct.

[tpaine]

This so-called "right of revolution" is a fundamentally collective right; it does not exist for just any dissatisfied citizen to attempt overthrow of the government.


The Revolutionary Second Amendment
Address:http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/mcintosh512.htm


______________________________________



Our right to bear arms is NOT a 'collective right' according to our Constitution. It is the right of the "people", --- one that shall not be infringed, in any way, by governments at any level. -- Yet your linked article claims that our 'civil right to bear arms' can be regulated to the point of prohibition.

Your link is a very subtle piece of anti-gun agitprop, imho.
-- I brought this to your attention once before. -- Why do you keep posting this kind of propaganda?

[Ed Current]

You are clueless and not worth a reply.

[Bonddad]

Let me illustrate my argument with a fairly unemotional example from the income tax code. In the mid-1980s, many rich people invested in tax shelters where they would be a limited partner in a business that was probably going to lose money. The limited partners would deduct their loses from their gross income and lower their overall taxable income. Because of the loss of tax revenue, Congress passed section 469 of the tax code dealing with passive losses. If the taxpayer did not participate in a "regular, continual and substantial" way in the business, any loss received from the business would be passive loss and could only be deducted from passive income. This section eliminated limited partnerships as a tax shelter. The problem with the section were the words "regular, continuous and substantial." What do they mean exactly? While the treasury department provides regulations for the code that use some solid illustrations, not all situations are covered. The is the central problem for legislators. When they write a law, there is no way they can conceive of all the situations that the law will apply to. Therefore, the language has to be broad enough to apply to situations they did not consider. The judiciary's role is to interpret the law. What do the words mean? If a judge sticks to the exact wording of the law, a good lawyer will be able to find numerous loopholes. Therefore, judges have leeway to apply the law to the case's specific facts. Is this judicial activism or interpretation? That depends on your perspective. If you agree with what they do, it is interpretation. If you disagree, it is activism.

[tpaine]

Justice Thomas States:
"The Constitution means what the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention and of the state ratifying conventions understood it to mean; not what we judges think it should mean."

MrsMith comments:
It's always a laugh to see people like you who think it should instead mean whatever it is 'best' for it to mean.

You're now second-guessing Thomas mith?
-- It's always a laugh to see people like you completely miss the point of a discussion.

[tpaine]

Our right to bear arms is NOT a 'collective right' according to our Constitution. It is the right of the "people", --- one that shall not be infringed, in any way, by governments at any level. -- Yet your linked article claims that our 'civil right to bear arms' can be regulated to the point of prohibition.
Your link is a very subtle piece of anti-gun agitprop, imho.
-- I brought this to your attention once before. -- Why do you keep posting this kind of propaganda?
44

You are clueless and not worth a reply.

You can't make a rational reply, thus you hide behind "clueless" rhetoric.

[SERKIT]

(1) The Constitution of the United States, Article VI, states that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land and that every Senator, Representative, and every executive and judicial officer of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath to faithfully discharge and perform their duties in conformity to the Constitution. Between the above statement and the UCMJ, Kerry should never have been in either the House or Senate! He can STILL be kicked out if the indictment is acted upon, and should be regardless of the outcome November 2. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1251712/posts

[delacoert]

If you agree with what they do, it is interpretation. If you disagree, it is activism.

If this is what you believe is behind conservative thought on judicial activism, then it appears you hold conservatism in low regard.

A charge of judicial activism arises in consideration of the way a decision is reached, not on the whimsical basis that you suggest.

An activist judge takes the law that applies in a case and changes it to produce a desired result. Such changes consist of the creation of a constitutional right that does not exist, i.e., Roe v. Wade. They also consist of ignoring a constitutional right that does exist, such as the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms or the Fifth Amendment's right to property.

[Bonddad]

Telling the difference is practically impossible.

For example, the Supreme Court has held that reproduction autonomy is a Substantive constitutional right -- see Griswald v Conn. and it's progeny. But the Constitution has no clause dealing with contraception. So, is Griswald bad law because there is nothing in the Constitution about birth control?
Do I hold Conservatism in low regard? There are some I do. For example, George Will is brilliant. Milton Friedman was great. But both explain their thinking which is crisp and clear. Rush (the junkie)and Hannity (Vannity the Concorde conservative) are idiots. They misquote and lie all the time. Scalia has publically said he hasn't changed his mind since he was in college. To me, that comment demonstrates someone who is very limited in their thinking.

[delacoert]

Telling the difference is practically impossible.

Says you.

In PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD vs. KATHERINE HARRIS, ETC., ET AL., the Florida Supreme Court took a statute requiring that counties complete manual recounts within seven days and gave them 19 days to do it. The court also took a statute requiring the state election board to reject late county returns and required the board to include them. The court re-wrote what the legislature had done.

In BUSH, GEORGE W. V. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, ET AL., the US Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Florida Supreme deferring to the authority of the Florida legislature.

In both cases, charges of judicial activism were leveled.

Was judicial activism, by my definition, evident in either case?

[mrsmith]

"A charge of judicial activism arises in consideration of the way a decision is reached"

Yes. And libertarians such as Paul complain about Lawrence v Texas not because they disagree with the result, but because a living constitution means no law at all.

[Bonddad]

Most likely. First, I am using your statement of the statute regarding the time situation. Secondly, you have to take the entire group of facts into consideration, not just the pieces that are convenient to your argument. When the deadline approached, the election officials had legitimately cast ballots to count and/or recount. To deny the time to complete the count would have disenfranchised voters. This would have given rise to litigation after the recount which could have possibly placed the outcome in jeopardy after the fact. Also remember the overall facts: Literally, every vote counted. And this was a Presidential race. Granting the time to get it right made sense. Also remember, regardless of the judge's partisanship, he/she had no way of actually knowing the outcome. If he was a Democrat (which I am assuming he is) he could just have easily been granting more time for Bush to win the election.

[delacoert]

Most likely.

So, judicial activism exists. Now it's a matter of whether or not you notice liberal-judical activism.

First, I am using your statement of the statute regarding the time situation.

The US Supreme Court decision, as is to be expected, does a good job of summarizing the Florida statutes, amongst other arguments. The decision is available at Per curiam opinion in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board. Regarding the Florida statute:

The 7-day deadline of §102.111, assuming it would have applied, was effectively extended by 12 days.

Secondly, you have to take the entire group of facts into consideration, not just the pieces that are convenient to your argument.

Yeah. You wouldn't want to let the law get in the way of the FL Supreme Court's right to hear some extra-legal excuse that they could use to vacate the FL Constitution.

When the deadline approached, the election officials had legitimately cast ballots to count and/or recount. To deny the time to complete the count would have disenfranchised voters. This would have given rise to litigation after the recount which could have possibly placed the outcome in jeopardy after the fact. Also remember the overall facts: Literally, every vote counted. And this was a Presidential race. Granting the time to get it right made sense.

You don't know what the pivotal FL statute says regarding "the time situation" yet you know the plaintiff's argument? You sure know the liberal propaganda pretty well.

Also remember, regardless of the judge's partisanship, he/she had no way of actually knowing the outcome. If he was a Democrat (which I am assuming he is) he could just have easily been granting more time for Bush to win the election.

The four liberal-activist judges who constituted the deciding majority, Justices Pariente, Quince, Anstead and Lewis, were democratic appointees. Chief Justice Wells and Justice Harding wrote a poignant dissenting opinion: "I could not more strongly disagree with their [majority] decision to reverse the trial court and prolong this judicial process. I also believe that the majority's decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the U.S. Constitution."

Given the well planned 1000 DNC lawyer assault on the FL election scene, I'm sure you're right -- there's no way they [Pariente, Quince, Anstead and Lewis] could possibly have hoped to affect the outcome of the election in favor of their patrons. :rolleyes:

[Bonddad]

This was a really good discussion until the last post. Before this post, your arguments were well-thought out and insightful.
Now, you resort to high-schoolish personal attacks. In addition, you do not refute any of my arguments. dealing with the necessity of the law to adjust to the situation. You simply accuse the judges of liberal bias to vent your anger at the decision and the people who made it rather than the logic of their decision. In short, you are acting like a small, emotionally maladjusted child who does not get his way.
I eagerly await the return of a thoughtful debater.

[delacoert]

Actually, I started out with a personal insult in my first post to this thread. I thought you were a troll then, and still do.

Your whimpering tantrum at the end is probably the most intellectually honest thing you wrote.

It's been a pleasure. See ya.