Posted on 10/23/2006 5:03:34 PM PDT by JTN
I don't practice law. I'm just an ordinary citizen who's read the Constition and some of the supporting historical documents. While it isn't a "higher degree" in Political Science it hasn't caused me to imagine non-existent partial birth abortion amendments.
Yes. That's precisely why I've accused you of it. Where's the mystery there? Ginsburg couldn't be more subject to pressure. Not all pressure is related to campaign money. To be loved or hated by the media and all the institutions of the left, is very powerful to those that desire nothing more in life.
You want a simple majority of Congress and the president's signature to be enough. If a simply majority of Congress passes a law that says black people can't vote, and the president signs it, what then?
Not any more likely to happen than a simple majority of the Court, and much easier to fix. If such a law were to pass, it would certainly be a failure of everyone to serve their function in the public arena. An arena that is much more open than the decision making process of the Supreme Court.
However, I don't live in a fantasy world. The SC has taken over this role and the Legislative and Executive are happy to be treated as less equal branches. So this is the reality that must be worked in for at least the next 50 years, but with the genie out of the bottle probably to the end of the Republic.
With no SC consistancy in its decisions, we are likely headed down the path of having hundreds of amendments, like most states do, turning the Constitution into a penal/regulatory code. We might get lucky and get a majority of Justices like minded to Thomas in our lifetimes (let's hope), but the intrument of the SC has taken Constitutional responsibility primarily out of the hands of the People. Like I said before though, we've survived slavery (just) and corrected Jim Crow, so perhaps on a timeline longer than we'd like, the correct decisions will be made.
Why do you want to eliminate the system of checks and balances between the three branches of government, and leave the Legislative and Executive branches unchecked when they are largely responsible for the Court being the in shape it is today?
A Judicial - Legislative alliance or a Judicial - Executive alliance, would be just as bad would it not. Indeed this has happened. I'm less than satisfied that there are checks on a Supreme Court that is the only arbiter of the Constitution.
Don't sell yourself short, you are posting on FR after all. And there's nothing more ordinary than a lawyer.
And politicains aren't subject to the same foibles, along with the money? Nice set of blinders you've got there.
Not any more likely to happen than a simple majority of the Court, and much easier to fix. If such a law were to pass, it would certainly be a failure of everyone to serve their function in the public arena. An arena that is much more open than the decision making process of the Supreme Court.
Easier to fix how? Elect new represntatives taht will change the law? Who's going to elect them, the black people who now can't vote? Have you really considered all the consequences of what you're saying?
You submit that the people and a simple majority of their elected represntatives would never allow such a law to stand in defense of your own arguments, while imagining that a supermajority of the those same people and representatives would pass and amendment to the same effect in order to attack mine.
A Judicial - Legislative alliance or a Judicial - Executive alliance, would be just as bad would it not. Indeed this has happened. I'm less than satisfied that there are checks on a Supreme Court that is the only arbiter of the Constitution.
An Executive - Legislative alliance would be no better, and in the case of FDR and the New Deal Congress were able to bend the Court to their will. You can't seem to grasp that what you're asking for is an unlimited amount of what got us into this mess in the first place.
That your best shot, accusing me of being a lawyer? The entire lexicon of epithets and perjoratives at your disposal, and thats the best you can do.
Reread my post to you. You said you were "ordinary" and not "a lawyer". My #443 was a compliment. It was a slam on lawyers, not you. I'm not trying to give you my best shots, but rather my best arguments.
AND they have to gets votes. That's a huge field leveler. But I'm not blind to the messiness of making sausages.
I'm conceding that the facts as they now stand are that the SC is the a Super Branch of the government that has a veto power on all legislative laws and all executive actions.
So is the answer to just make sure "our guys" run things? It is most likely in today's environment that you'll either get legal drugs and illegal guns/speech/religion or legal guns/speech/religion and illegal drugs.
What's your best case scenario?
Best case scenario is that we get legal guns/speech/religion, and the drug question is left up to the States, where it belongs.
Here's another example of a pitiful, even semi-deranged 'shot':
"-- you need to go off in a corner with tpaine and come to grips with your assertion that majority rule canceling out fundamental rights is OK, as long as its a super-majority.
Where he comes up with the delusion that we are advocating that a super-majority can cancel out fundamental rights is simply beyond rational comprehension.
As we've seen, sampleman & crowd do indeed want a system where Congress [and States/cities] can simply pass any law that seems popular at the time, and leave it to the electorate to decide if it was 'right'.
-- Unable to rationally debate the constitutionality of this specific issue, they simply ignore any mention of it..
How about an answer Sampleman ? You haven't bothered to have one of those in the last dozen or so of your posts.
"-- Running away from the issue isn't a good sign for your argument's strength. --- How about being brave and making one? --"
Or is this your new 'style' -- where you include me in your 'tar baby' imaginings, then don't have the guts to ping me to debate the issues you raise?
That "veto power" was established early on, in Marbury. You submit that they can "rewrite the law" but you have failed to demonstrate that they actually can or have ever done it.
If you think doing away with judicial review is such a good idea, let's try it in your state before we turn it loose on the national government.
The only test of the compliance of your state legislature and the Governor's office to your state constitution will be made at the polls.
Does that sound like a good idea?
Well that's always been my position. But the drug question can't be left up to the states unless some states can constitutionally restrict it. So we are in agreement that the People of the states should be left to decide the matter of harm for themselves?
Dream on that this is a "fact". -- The Constitution's checks & balances are working [as we see with new anti-Kelo legislation] -- and the fact that there is a lot of opposition to our legislative 'wars' on guns, vice & drugs [the subject of this threads article].
So is the answer to just make sure "our guys" run things?
The 'answer' is for all of us to ~insist~ that the constitutions checks & balances, -- and the document itself, is honored & supported by ~everyone~.
It is most likely in today's environment that you'll either get legal drugs and illegal guns/speech/religion or legal guns/speech/religion and illegal drugs.
What's your best case scenario?
Our rights to guns, speech, religion, intoxicating substances, consensual sex, and helmet-less motorcycle riding cannot be infringed.. - Even by a super-majority. -- That's the Law of the Land, not a 'scenario'.
Apparently so. As it currently stands, they can't even have a public debate and vote on the issue without the federal government getting involved in the process, as a fraudulent exercise in "regulating commerce among the several States".
How's review going in the North East, where their Supreme Courts are dictating to the legislatures what type of laws they must pass. But as I said before, the reality on the ground is that the SC is the uber-branch. What can we do from this point forward to restrict the insertion of judgment for the constitution, e.g. O'Connor decision that Affirmative Action was counter to the constitution, but OK because she felt it served a good purpose. The same could be said of any law, and I'd prefer the elected officials make the decision of whether its a good idea or not.
The only way to get that is going to be to convene a Constitution Convention and re-write the Constitution to make this a pure representative democracy, or have a revolution and start over.
As it stands, we are at least in theory a constitutional republic with a national government of limited powers enumerated in the Constitution, subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. That check is the only thing between our constitutional republic and a pure representative democracy. Removing it will substantially alter the architecture of the Republic.
Testing 1, 2, 3.
Loopback test?
It was a curious joke. Not really worth your time to explain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.