GOP plans Constitutional Amendment banning all abortion as national convention platform

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Donuthole:

Gorfias:
Ann Coulter wrote a good column

No she did not.

Gorfias:
called something like, "When Blue States Attack." She, like me, was outraged that the left often uses the Federal Government and courts to lawlessly and through the abuse of power, take away peoples' rights within their own state.

Oh, stop it. Your schtick is getting very old, very fast. I for one am getting sick and fucking tired of your incessant blather about "the left," wherein you either castigate "the left" for shit your side does in fucking SPADES, or simply make shit up.

Gorfias is on the brink of ignore, since I have a clean mod record and I'd like to keep it that way.

I was about to say "Well, you've only been here for two months, so that's not exactly hard." Then I looked around some more. >.<

http://www.wmur.com/news/politics/Sheriff-candidate-says-he-wouldn-t-reject-deadly-force-to-stop-abortions/-/9857748/16225528/-/9c091s/-/index.html?absolute=true

Most likely somebody that is trying to get some attention but still...

Frank Szabo said that as sheriff, he would arrest any doctor performing elective or late-term abortions in his jurisdiction.

"There is a difference between legal and lawful," Szabo said.

Szabo explained the difference by referring to the issue of slavery, which he said used to be legal but was never lawful under the Constitution. He said that even though elective abortions are legal in New Hampshire, with some restrictions, he doesn't consider them lawful.

But Szabo may have inflamed the issue further when asked if he would use deadly force to prevent an abortion.

"I would respond specifically by saying that if someone is under threat, a full-grown human being, if they're under threat, what should the sheriff do? Everything in their power to prevent them from being harmed," he said.

When pressed about what he would do if he learned that a doctor was about to perform an elective abortion, Szabo replied he would do what it took to prevent that from happening.

"Absolutely," he said. "Well, I would hope that it wouldn't come to that, as with any situation where someone is in danger, but again, specifically talking about elective abortions and late-term abortions, that is an act that needs to be stopped."

Republican House Speaker Bill O'Brien called on Szabo to quit the race in light of his statements.

Gorfias:

But if I come to your house and kill your cow, by and large (unless something unusual is proven) I owe you property damage. I punch you or your spouse in her pregnant belly and cause a fetus to die, again, there is an understanding that something unique (Sui Generis)has happened.

Not really. In the Old Testament, beating a woman until she miscarries rates...a fine.

Gorfias:

arbane:

Gorfias:

How very subservient of you to notice. Thank you for surrendering your liberty. You're much easier for others to govern now.

what is this

i dont even

That isn't meant as an insult. It appears you are who you want to be. I do not.

What?

You do not WHAT?

Am I expected to dredge some sort of meaning out of your word-salad?

Gorfias:

The 9th Amendment reads that even if a right is not explicit in the Constitution, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Well, what does that mean. Shrug, duh, yeah, and I reserve the right to fight for my rights or.....

Unless it's Roe V. Wade's right to privacy, apparently.

Gorfias:

The USSC decides what rights are. You accept that criteria, you have given up your right to self governance. There is nothing they could not decide and have their opinion made "law."

I think what you meant was that, as long as a decision by the USSC is the decision, that is the law.

Yes. YES IT FUCKING IS. That's why we HAVE a Supreme Court to balance out the other two branches!

Gorfias:

It is up to everyone, particularly the President, to police the USSC and respond accordingly. If they're up to shenanigans (hallucinating their preferences) you're supposed to call them on it. The President, in his co-equal branch status, has particular obligations. As to Jurisdiction, so does the Congress.

*facepalm*

So you're going with Andrew Jackson's view of the Supreme Court, then? Or more accurately, the current right-wing, who seem to think the purpose of the SC is to rubber-stamp the Decider's edicts.

arbane:

So you're going with Andrew Jackson's view of the Supreme Court, then? Or more accurately, the current right-wing, who seem to think the purpose of the SC is to rubber-stamp the Decider's edicts.

Grover "People inexplicably listen to me" Norquist stated outright that they just want a President to rubber-stamp the legislatures stuff. Is it any surprise that some hold the same view of the judiciary?

arbane:
In the Old Testament, beating a woman until she miscarries rates...a fine.

Annd this. I think this site is actually against such laws.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

If I recall (and I may be wrong) that fine is more than just a consideration of property damage.

Gorfias:

[If the 9th Amendment is interpreted as ... ]The USSC decides what rights are. You accept that criteria, you have given up your right to self governance. There is nothing they could not decide and have their opinion made "law."

I think what you meant was that, as long as a decision by the USSC is the decision, that is the law.

Yes. YES IT FUCKING IS. That's why we HAVE a Supreme Court to balance out the other two branches!

And vice versa. But they haven't been doing their job. I thought the Hamden decision an outrage our Congress should have responded to. They didn't.

Gorfias:

It is up to everyone, particularly the President, to police the USSC and respond accordingly. If they're up to shenanigans (hallucinating their preferences) you're supposed to call them on it. The President, in his co-equal branch status, has particular obligations. As to Jurisdiction, so does the Congress.

*facepalm*

So you're going with Andrew Jackson's view of the Supreme Court, then? Or more accurately, the current right-wing, who seem to think the purpose of the SC is to rubber-stamp the Decider's edicts.

We all have a roll to play. I've decided mine is to call Shenanigans when I see it and formerly charge same when appropriate. You?

Gorfias:

And vice versa. But they haven't been doing their job. I thought the Hamden decision an outrage our Congress should have responded to. They didn't.

As in Hamden v. Rumsfeld? When the SCOTUS ruled that we couldn't try detainees by military commission? THAT'S what you find to be "an outrage"?

keiskay:

Katatori-kun:

keiskay:
except its not really a fact?

Of course it is. People call themselves "pro-lifers". However, a statistical majority of them support the death penalty. Therefore, they are in direct conflict with what they have claimed to be their ideology.

but so does the label of pro-murderers or pro-criminal to choicers,

Nonsense. The number of liberals have described themselves as "pro-murderers" or "pro-criminals" is so statistically insignificant I doubt you can provide even a single piece of evidence to back up your ridiculous claim.

And in any event, being opposed to the execution of criminals is not in any remote way related to being for criminality. To make that sort of claim you'd either have to be a flagrant partisan liar or have such a weak grasp on how to relate ideas that basic speech would be a real challenge.

but like people always say, "MY side is always right and holy without flaw"

I never said any such thing at all. You really need to stop making up bullshit.

criminals have given up their rights as citizens, especially those who have committed murder, they violated the contract. you can argue all you want about them being "human" but for all intents and purposes they might as well be cattle at that point.

So in other words, you don't have a coherent answer to back up your absurd claim that liberals are "pro-murderer" and are instead trying to distract from the issue by making the case for why criminals should be executed.

Well done.

This thread has now become about...

...um...

...I have no idea. We have random statements about random subjects flying all over the place, apparently. But since someone mentioned the SCOTUS, I shall jump in with this:

Overturning laws is a legislative power. The Constitution has vested ALL legislative power in Congress. The Supreme Court has something different, called judicial power. Judicial power includes determining guilt or innocence in criminal cases, and deciding a lot of random other bullshit in civil cases. Judicial power does not include making up or overturning laws. Why does the Supreme court do this anyway? Probably for the same reasons why Congress and the President do 3/4 of the shit that they do: they don't give a damn about the Constitution.

This issue was debated way back in the days of the Founding Fathers, with Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party expressing the ideas that I have outlined above, and assholes like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton deciding that, in the absence of the monarchy that they wanted but didn't get, a kritarchy was the next best thing.

Gorfias:

itsthesheppy:

Gorfias:

A fetus is something unique. A cow, historically and in western social history and law, exists for our pleasure. A fetus is potential human life. There have been laws on our books for a long time authorizing "abortion" until "quickening" for some time. This life has the reverence we give to it. Under law, destroying someone else's fetus (thug hits pregnant woman in the stomach) there is the understanding that the woman has not lost just some piece of "property" to the thug. Something more has happened. Disrespect for the fetus, it is feared, creates a disrespect for human life in general, so there are those that will argue a unique and special status for it, far above that of a cows.

I disagree that cows are legally here for our pleasure. If my pleasure is having sex with cows or setting them on fire while they are still alive, then I will be arrested and charged. If I keep a cow locked in a room and I don't feed or water it and let it die, I'll be arrested. We attribute some value to cows. However, we grant more to humans because we are humans, and we also have an increased capacity for suffering. (Or so we think anyway).

But a fetus doesn't have an increased capacity for suffering like we do. It, in fact, is cognitively inferior to a cow. A cow can find its own food, avoid danger on its own, and reproduce. A fetus can do none of those things. So why is the fetus more important? Because, if left to develop, it will become a person? Do we value it more than a cow because of human potentiality?

Some good points. I understand Jewish Law, for instance, commands animals be given a measure of respect, that you don't kill them in unnecessarily inhumane ways before eating and harvesting.

But if I come to your house and kill your cow, by and large (unless something unusual is proven) I owe you property damage. I punch you or your spouse in her pregnant belly and cause a fetus to die, again, there is an understanding that something unique (Sui Generis)has happened.

That's tough. I mean the parents will certain feel it's murder, but what was killed wasn't a human being. It was a dependent, developing thing that would eventually, one day, be a human being, maybe. I'm not sure what the legality of that is, frankly, and it may differ state by state.

I'm with you that maybe there needs to be a third category. nonhuman animal, human being, and [potential human being]. I'm sure there's a latin phrase for "potential" but I couldn't find one. In any case I feel that maybe that class of being would exist as something like whatever the mother wants it to be. a malignant growth she would rather not have, or a human being, and maybe it's up to the mother to decide. That way, if she wants to abort it, she can. If she wants to keep it, and it gets killed, that's homicide.

Elect G-Max:
This thread has now become about...

...um...

...I have no idea. We have random statements about random subjects flying all over the place, apparently. But since someone mentioned the SCOTUS, I shall jump in with this:

Overturning laws is a legislative power. The Constitution has vested ALL legislative power in Congress. The Supreme Court has something different, called judicial power. Judicial power includes determining guilt or innocence in criminal cases, and deciding a lot of random other bullshit in civil cases. Judicial power does not include making up or overturning laws. Why does the Supreme court do this anyway? Probably for the same reasons why Congress and the President do 3/4 of the shit that they do: they don't give a damn about the Constitution.

This issue was debated way back in the days of the Founding Fathers, with Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party expressing the ideas that I have outlined above, and assholes like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton deciding that, in the absence of the monarchy that they wanted but didn't get, a kritarchy was the next best thing.

....what.

So, when (NOT 'if') Congress passes incredibly anti-Constitutional laws, the only people who should be stopping them are... Congress.

arbane:
So, when (NOT 'if') Congress passes incredibly anti-Constitutional laws, the only people who should be stopping them are... Congress.

LOL. I can see how you'd say that if you know nothing about the 17th Amendment.

You see, a state constitution is a contract between the people to protect their rights. The US Constitution was a contract between the states and the people, to protect the rights of the states and the people. The states were represented in the senate, and the people by the House of Representatives. If Congress at any time violated the rights of the people, they could kick the bastards out and elect more well-behaved ones to the House; if Congress violated the rights of the states, they could kick the bastards out and pick new Senators. This system worked, not perfectly, but pretty well until the 17th Amendment came along. That was when the states were stripped of the means to decide what was or wasn't a violation of the contract that they had agreed to, and everything went to hell.

Why the states put up with the Judiciary's bullshit from 1803-1913 is a mystery, but may well be related to how the popular vote affected the electoral college. The Presidency was basically the conduit by which state governments could very weakly keep the judiciary in check. Over time, states abandoned their duty of choosing competent Electors, instead allocating their electoral votes according to the popular vote; as a result, we got Presidents who didn't really give much of a damn about states' rights, and who therefore appointed SC Justices who didn't either.

Uh, no. The Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of laws. It almost always has.

Elect G-Max:

arbane:
So, when (NOT 'if') Congress passes incredibly anti-Constitutional laws, the only people who should be stopping them are... Congress.

LOL. I can see how you'd say that if you know nothing about the 17th Amendment.

You see, a state constitution is a contract between the people to protect their rights. The US Constitution was a contract between the states and the people, to protect the rights of the states and the people. The states were represented in the senate, and the people by the House of Representatives. If Congress at any time violated the rights of the people, they could kick the bastards out and elect more well-behaved ones to the House; if Congress violated the rights of the states, they could kick the bastards out and pick new Senators. This system worked, not perfectly, but pretty well until the 17th Amendment came along. That was when everything went to hell, and states were stripped of the means to decide what was or wasn't a violation of the contract that they had agreed to.

Yes, it was much better when the states were represented in the Senate instead of those pesky PEOPLE. Judicial review has been the main task of the SC almost since inception, by the way.

Robin Fox:
Uh, no. The Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of laws. It almost always has.

Please, show me where the Constitution says that.

Robin Fox:
Yes, it was much better when the states were represented in the Senate instead of those pesky PEOPLE.

Despite your sarcasm, yes, it was.

Robin Fox:
Judicial review has been the main task of the SC almost since inception, by the way.

bullshit

Elect G-Max:

Robin Fox:
Uh, no. The Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of laws. It almost always has.

Please, show me where the Constitution says that.

Robin Fox:
Yes, it was much better when the states were represented in the Senate instead of those pesky PEOPLE.

Despite your sarcasm, yes, it was.

Robin Fox:
Judicial review has been the main task of the SC almost since inception, by the way.

bullshit

Nowhere. That's why I say ALMOST since inception. Obviously you're more fond of arguments from authority and non sequitors than looking at what I'm actually saying. But what really interested me was this:

>Despite your sarcasm, yes, it was.

See, the only reason people want states ruling the Senate is that they believe that the States have different interests than the people. That is a clear violation of the founding ideals of the country, where the people, not governing bodies, hold the power. Funny that you should quote Jefferson, because he said in the page you quoted:

"The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States."

Bashfluff:
See, the only reason people want states ruling the Senate is that they believe that the States have different interests than the people.

Or maybe because that would have stopped the Federal government from becoming too oppressive and accumulating too much debt.

Elect G-Max:

Bashfluff:
See, the only reason people want states ruling the Senate is that they believe that the States have different interests than the people.

Or maybe because I want to believe that would have stopped the Federal government from becoming too oppressive and accumulating too much debt.

FTFY

Do you have anything to at least give me a reason to give this assertion any validity, or would it have done so through pixie dust and unicorn farts?

Elect G-Max:

Bashfluff:
See, the only reason people want states ruling the Senate is that they believe that the States have different interests than the people.

Or maybe because that would have stopped the Federal government from becoming too oppressive and accumulating too much debt.

Might I remind you that Bush, a republican acting on conservative economics, was the one that gave us our huge deficit. An even more impressive feat considering the Surpluss that Clinton, a democrat created.

I've been increasingly discovering that not posting in R&P is better for my health, but I really need to correct a few things.

Elect G-Max:
Overturning laws is a legislative power.

Repealing laws is a legislative power. Overturning laws is a judicial power.

The Constitution has vested ALL legislative power in Congress. The Supreme Court has something different, called judicial power. Judicial power includes determining guilt or innocence in criminal cases, and deciding a lot of random other bullshit in civil cases.

How scholarly...

The primary judicial power in terms of the US Constitution that is associated with the Supreme Court is Judicial Review, a concept spelled out in Marbury v. Madison whereby the court, as a result of a controversy that has entered their jurisdiction (i.e. appealed to their level or a handful of circumstances where the US Supreme Court has explicit original jurisdiction) may review a law, regulation, or other practice in the pursuance of the law to determine whether or not it is within the (admittedly flexible) limits of the US Constitution, US Code, and the precedent set forth by prior interpretation of the Constitution and Law.

This was understood even before ratification of your constitution, as noted in Federalist 80:

Federalist 80:
[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both[1]; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental....

[A]ccordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the Judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former....

[T]he courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments

Elect G-Max:
Judicial power does not include making up or overturning laws.

Again, overturning the law is within the undefined but reasonably understood Judicial Powers. Contrary to your claim, the Supreme Court does not create law, at least not at the federal level, but judicial decisions do have the force of law.

Prior to the practice of codifying criminal actions and civil causes of actions, the English-based legal system (which is the basic model that was adopted by the US) used "common law" actions, whereby acts such as murder or negligence were interpreted by judicial rules rather than statutory requirements. While that has shifted significantly to statute-based crimes/causes of action since the 1800s, the basic system set up still maintains the basic premise that a central judicial power is the interpreting of the law and that such interpretations carry the force of that law.

Why does the Supreme court do this anyway? Probably for the same reasons why Congress and the President do 3/4 of the shit that they do: they don't give a damn about the Constitution.

I would say you should expect a 9-0 ruling calling your claim "bollocks."

This issue was debated way back in the days of the Founding Fathers, with Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party expressing the ideas that I have outlined above, and assholes like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton deciding that, in the absence of the monarchy that they wanted but didn't get, a kritarchy was the next best thing.

Which is why, of course, they're so active in every sphere of governance, right?

Wrong.

The elected Congress makes the law (legislates), the President enforces the law (executes), the Supreme Court interprets the law (judges). They are the three co-equal branches of the US federal government, set forth by the central law of the United States, the US Constitution, with the latter branch effectively being the breaks on the other two when they go beyond their power. The Congress today still makes the law through the sausage-making legislative process. The Executive today still enforces the law through the command of law-enforcement (military, federal agents, etc.). And the Judicial branch today is still left to interpret the law through arguments, study, and decisions.

You cannot simply claim something as apparent (a great many lawyers have been laughed out of pleadings thanks to that). If you make a claim like "the US is ruled by judges," then put up actual evidence to support that or sit down and shut up.

EDIT: And one more thing (Not targeted at the quoted poster, but pretty much everybody who does this on the R&P board, you know who you are): I'm getting really sick of "I disagree with the actions of the [insert governmental body here], therefore I do not recognize it as a legitimate power."

Welcome to the messy world of democracy. By living in a democracy, you gain the right to express yourself in the realm of policy via your right to vote (and, in some cases, petition). However, by having that right (which does not require you to use it for this next part), you must surrender the ability to claim that the actions of that elected government as an illegitimate government without the popular support of the people (even if you loose, you support its legitimacy through your vote). If you think their actions exceed their delegated authority, there are ways within the system to get your point across, but that does not mean that you are correct or that your view is necessarily the view of the people as expressed through the enactment of law.

[1] It should be noted that the "power of the people" refers to the powers delegated in the ratified constitution, i.e. "ratified by the people"

You truly ARE a gentleman. That was a very thorough and POLITE smackdown.

EDIT: And one more thing (Not targeted at the quoted poster, but pretty much everybody who does this on the R&P board, you know who you are): I'm getting really sick of "I disagree with the actions of the [insert governmental body here], therefore I do not recognize it as a legitimate power."

Yep. I don't think GWBush managed to do ANYTHING during his term in office that I agreed with, I still think he got elected via fraud and a blatantly biased Supreme Court, but I never claimed he wasn't actually the President. I'm not into denying reality that much.

TheGentleman: What do you think about that whole "Dick Cheney is the Fourth branch of Government" dodge BushCo pulled?

arbane:
You truly ARE a gentleman. That was a very thorough and POLITE smackdown.

EDIT: And one more thing (Not targeted at the quoted poster, but pretty much everybody who does this on the R&P board, you know who you are): I'm getting really sick of "I disagree with the actions of the [insert governmental body here], therefore I do not recognize it as a legitimate power."

Yep. I don't think GWBush managed to do ANYTHING during his term in office that I agreed with, I still think he got elected via fraud and a blatantly biased Supreme Court, but I never claimed he wasn't actually the President. I'm not into denying reality that much.

TheGentleman: What do you think about that whole "Dick Cheney is the Fourth branch of Government" dodge BushCo pulled?

Without delving into the exact arguments for what they claimed, I cannot say. However, it would not be unreasonable for a Head of Government to delegate a large portion of his work to a minister/secretary that specialized in that area. Similarly, having a sizable number of relevant and interconnected organizations report to a single individual who regularly met with the person ultimately in charge and who delegated his authority to said individual to the greatest extent possible does not appear to be improper.

In short, setting up Cheney as a central national security coordinator does not appear to be unreasonable from a leadership or legal standpoint. Whether or not it is a good idea in reality is a different question and result all together (in my opinion, Secretary of State Powell would have done a much better job in such a role).

I learned something new today.
31 states in US give rapists legal rights as a father to children that are born because of the rape.

So not only would GOP force women to give birth to the child of their rapist, but in many states they would also might have to spend the next ~18 years tethered to that rapist, if the rapist so chooses (presumably some legal wrangling required).

(note: i am not saying that GOP is in favor of giving rapists right to the child, it's just a side effect of forcing women to give birth)

links:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/22/1123187/-31-States-Give-Rapists-Rights-to-Child
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/index.html
http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/98-3/Prewitt.PDF

nyysjan:
I learned something new today.
31 states in US give rapists legal rights as a father to children that are born because of the rape.

what

....

Well, I guess it's a step forward from insisting the victim marry the rapist.

yay.

How anyone can even consider voting for these pieces of human shit is beyond me.

If you vote for the Republican Party, you are pro-forced pregnancy and pro-rape. If you don't like my take on it, too bad.

A more worthless, vile, scum-sucking bag of feces of a political party, I simply can't imagine in a supposed first-world nation. Fuck the Republicans. I will never vote for one.

Donuthole:

Gorfias:

And vice versa. But they haven't been doing their job. I thought the Hamden decision an outrage our Congress should have responded to. They didn't.

As in Hamden v. Rumsfeld? When the SCOTUS ruled that we couldn't try detainees by military commission? THAT'S what you find to be "an outrage"?

That's the one. Why?

EDIT: "A negative inference may be drawn from Congress' failure to include 1005(e)(1) within the scope of 1005(h)(2). Cf., e.g., Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 . "If ... Congress was reasonably concerned to ensure that [1005(e)(2) and (3)] be applied to pending cases, it should have been just as concerned about [1005(e)(1)], unless it had the different intent that the latter [section] not be applied to the general run of pending cases." Id., at 329. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

Theoretically, the Congress did not want the USSC to even hear this case. The USSC decided it COULD hear this case, largely based on the quote above.

The case was heard, the attempt to curtail jurisdiction failed, and Congress did not a thing about it.

Amnestic:

Helmholtz Watson:
and putting in place laws that would heavily fine employers of illegal immigrants?

Spoiler Alert: He's doing that too.

Could he fine them more? Probably. It's never that simple though, is it?

"An audit would force us to fire 70% to 80% of our workers," said Fred Leitz, a fourth-generation Michigan farmer employing 250 seasonal workers. "The people working the fields and harvesting the crops that feed our nation need work authorization."

You gotta balance the impact such stuff has on the American agriculture industry (and the knock-ons from that - like food prices across the country?).

But yeah, he's kicking them out at record rates and fining companies who hire illegals.

The only thing he's not doing is being a "tax and spend Democrat" by wasting millions of dollars on an ineffective border wall. Maybe the Republicans want him to do that so they can whine about his out of control spending though?

I think they should be more than fined, yes. It's illegal, immoral, and harmful to the U.S's living standards. Also, its not the State or Federal government's job to prop up failing industries and subsidize sectors of the economy. At least I don't believe it should be.

Elect G-Max:

Overturning laws is a legislative power. The Constitution has vested ALL legislative power in Congress. The Supreme Court has something different, called judicial power. Judicial power includes determining guilt or innocence in criminal cases, and deciding a lot of random other bullshit in civil cases. Judicial power does not include making up or overturning laws. Why does the Supreme court do this anyway? Probably for the same reasons why Congress and the President do 3/4 of the shit that they do: they don't give a damn about the Constitution.

This issue was debated way back in the days of the Founding Fathers, with Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party expressing the ideas that I have outlined above, and assholes like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton deciding that, in the absence of the monarchy that they wanted but didn't get, a kritarchy was the next best thing.

The Constitution is only useful inasmuch as someone is willing to interpret and enforce it.

The logical result of setting the legislature as guardians of the Constitution is they can make any law they like contrary to the Constitution, even flagrantly so: precisely because there's no government institution to contradict them. (Except the president's willingness to sign such a law, but political partisanship makes this check desperately unsafe).

The only remedy to resolve that voting out all the legislature and replacing them with politicians who will then remove the law, or after that a popular uprising. But in the former we know full well that in practice electorates let an awful lot of shit slide, and in the latter, civil wars and rebellions are exceptionally destabilising.

Of course, by no means would legislative supremacy be guaranteed to end in disaster. The UK, for instance, functions perfectly well like that (and even with an executive who is also the head of the legislature). It just means the US Constitution becomes a document of general sentiments than legal importance.

Gorfias:

Donuthole:

Gorfias:

And vice versa. But they haven't been doing their job. I thought the Hamden decision an outrage our Congress should have responded to. They didn't.

As in Hamden v. Rumsfeld? When the SCOTUS ruled that we couldn't try detainees by military commission? THAT'S what you find to be "an outrage"?

That's the one. Why?

EDIT: "A negative inference may be drawn from Congress' failure to include 1005(e)(1) within the scope of 1005(h)(2). Cf., e.g., Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 . "If ... Congress was reasonably concerned to ensure that [1005(e)(2) and (3)] be applied to pending cases, it should have been just as concerned about [1005(e)(1)], unless it had the different intent that the latter [section] not be applied to the general run of pending cases." Id., at 329. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

Theoretically, the Congress did not want the USSC to even hear this case. The USSC decided it COULD hear this case, largely based on the quote above.

The case was heard, the attempt to curtail jurisdiction failed, and Congress did not a thing about it.

It's not Congress' choice what cases the SCOTUS gets to hear. Try again.

The GOP only cares about Supreme Court decisions when the Supreme Court doesn't fellate them. The SCOTUS used some of the most flimsy logic I've ever seen in Bush v. Gore, and also stipulated that the decision wasn't precedent and can never be used again, and I didn't see you hypocrites complaining.

Donuthole:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

It's not Congress' choice what cases the SCOTUS gets to hear. Try again.

Oh man, please read the case. No one, not even the majority opinion, agrees with what you just wrote. Congress absolutely has jurisdictional rights. The USSC majority found that the Congress failed to include in the statute appropriate "Mother May I" language (noted in my previous). The dissenting minority states Congress didn't need "Mother May I" language and that the statue was very clear.

From Scalia's dissent:

" On December 30, 2005, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It unambiguously provides that, as of that date, "no court, justice, or judge" shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. Notwithstanding this plain directive, the Court today concludes that, on what it calls the statute's most natural reading, every "court, justice, or judge" before whom such a habeas application was pending on December 30 has jurisdiction to hear, consider, and render judgment on it. This conclusion is patently erroneous. And even if it were not, the jurisdiction supposedly retained should, in an exercise of sound equitable discretion, not be exercised."

Either way, the Federal Government failed us.

Back on topic, I've always argued that over-reach by the USSC can result in backlash. I think this Amendment is an example.

Doc Vornoff has always argued that the losing side will always be up to this sort of thing anyway.

Be nice if we tried things like reproductive rights democratically either way.

Elect G-Max:
Overturning laws is a legislative power. The Constitution has vested ALL legislative power in Congress. The Supreme Court has something different, called judicial power. Judicial power includes determining guilt or innocence in criminal cases, and deciding a lot of random other bullshit in civil cases. Judicial power does not include making up or overturning laws. Why does the Supreme court do this anyway? Probably for the same reasons why Congress and the President do 3/4 of the shit that they do: they don't give a damn about the Constitution.

That's not true. The US supreme court can overturn laws if they conflict other laws. Neither is it unheard of. In most developed legal systems (so obviously not in the US) judges can choose to even ignore laws or interpret them differently if it's clear the purpose of the law is not being served.

For example if I see someone inside his home, alone, becoming unwell and needing medical attention. So I break down the door, render first aid, call an ambulance. Strictly speaking I committed a crime because I broke down the door and entered the house without the residents wanting it, but if you'd find a police corps and proscecutor crazy enough to make a case out of that, I'd be acquitted despite having broken the law on the grounds that the laws preventing home invasion, burglary, breaking an entry etc, clearly weren't meant to punish what I did. The judge would be ignoring the law in his verdict.

Since those legal traditions and rulings create jurisprudence, it's definately a form of legislative power. It can change entire laws: the anti-squatting law around here has become effectively defunct thanks to a number of outrageously stupid rulings by various courts, making us return to the earlier situation that the squatters are always in the right and their victims will have to beg if they can please have their property back.
It was that unjust situation the law sought to change in the first place.

Donuthole:
Do you have anything to at least give me a reason to give this assertion any validity

Yeah, sure. How about the part where more than half of our state governments decreed Obamacare unconstitutional and tried to get it overturned? Or how about the six states that openly challenged the constitutionality of the war on drugs?

FuhrerVonZephyr:
Bush, a republican acting on conservative economics

Dubya was a Neo-Con. Neo-cons are defined by being socially conservative and fiscally liberal.

The Gentleman:
Repealing laws is a legislative power. Overturning laws is a judicial power.

They're the same thing, and you need to provide support for the latter assertion.

The Gentleman:
The primary judicial power in terms of the US Constitution that is associated with the Supreme Court is Judicial Review

That's exactly what's being debated. Restating it doesn't help.

The Gentleman:
This was understood even before ratification of your constitution, as noted in Federalist 80:

Federalist #80 was written by Alexander Hamilton, and as a rule, anyone who cites Alexander Hamilton for anything is automatically wrong. For one thing, he's claiming that the judiciary is acting as some sort of mediator between the legislature and the electorate, when in reality, the SCOTUS was not the least bit accountable to the electorate (seriously, justices are accountable only to the Senate and the President, and back then, Senators were not elected by popular vote).

The Gentleman:
Again, overturning the law is within the undefined but reasonably understood Judicial Powers.

That's exactly what's being debated. Restating it doesn't help.

The Gentleman:
Contrary to your claim, the Supreme Court does not create law

O RLY?

The Gentleman:
The elected Congress makes the law (legislates), the President enforces the law (executes), the Supreme Court interprets the law (judges).

I was waiting for someone to play this card.

It's bullshit. The job of Congress is to make laws, but the Executive and Judicial branches are both tasked with enforcing it, albeit in different ways. Our three-brach system of government is actually based on a two-branch system in which courts were part of the executive branch. The "interprets" nonsense is something that gets thrown into 3rd grade history books because it conveys the idea of each branch of government doing something different, but is easier to remember than what the branches actually do.

The Gentleman:
They are the three co-equal branches of the US federal government

That was the original plan. It went out the window as soon as the SCOTUS decided that the Constitution meant whatever they wanted it to mean.

The Gentleman:
You cannot simply claim something as apparent (a great many lawyers have been laughed out of pleadings thanks to that). If you make a claim like "the US is ruled by judges," then put up actual evidence to support that or sit down and shut up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism#Examples

The Gentleman:
Welcome to the messy world of democracy.

If you think that the USA is supposed to be a democracy, then you are not qualified to even be debating this.

nyysjan:
I learned something new today.
31 states in US give rapists legal rights as a father to children that are born because of the rape.

So not only would GOP force women to give birth to the child of their rapist, but in many states they would also might have to spend the next ~18 years tethered to that rapist, if the rapist so chooses (presumably some legal wrangling required).

(note: i am not saying that GOP is in favor of giving rapists right to the child, it's just a side effect of forcing women to give birth)

links:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/22/1123187/-31-States-Give-Rapists-Rights-to-Child
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/index.html
http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/98-3/Prewitt.PDF

That would be lulzy if it wasn't so horrifying image

Donuthole:
Fuck the Republicans.

Can I fuck only some of them? Do I get to choose which ones?

Agema:
The logical result of setting the legislature as guardians of the Constitution is they can make any law they like contrary to the Constitution, even flagrantly so: precisely because there's no government institution to contradict them. (Except the president's willingness to sign such a law, but political partisanship makes this check desperately unsafe).

The only remedy to resolve that voting out all the legislature and replacing them with politicians who will then remove the law, or after that a popular uprising. But in the former we know full well that in practice electorates let an awful lot of shit slide

That's exactly why the electorate should only be in charge of determining the makeup of one house of Congress, and the state governments (who get very uppity about states' rights sometimes) should determine the makeup of the other house.

Blablahb:
The US supreme court can overturn laws if they conflict other laws.

That's exactly what's being debated. Restating it doesn't help.

Blablahb:
In most developed legal systems (so obviously not in the US) judges can choose to even ignore laws or interpret them differently if it's clear the purpose of the law is not being served.

For example if I see someone inside his home, alone, becoming unwell and needing medical attention. So I break down the door, render first aid, call an ambulance. Strictly speaking I committed a crime because I broke down the door and entered the house without the residents wanting it, but if you'd find a police corps and proscecutor crazy enough to make a case out of that, I'd be acquitted despite having broken the law on the grounds that the laws preventing home invasion, burglary, breaking an entry etc, clearly weren't meant to punish what I did. The judge would be ignoring the law in his verdict.

Acquitted? If the guy whose life you saved doesn't press charges, you'd never even get to the acquittal stage.

Elect G-Max:

FuhrerVonZephyr:
Bush, a republican acting on conservative economics

Dubya was a Neo-Con. Neo-cons are defined by being socially conservative and fiscally liberal.

"The economic policy of the George W. Bush administration was a combination of tax cuts, expenditures for fighting two wars, and a free-market ideology intended to de-emphasize the role of government in the private sector. He advocated the ownership society, premised on the concepts of individual accountability, less government, and the owning of property."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration

Sounds republican to me.

There's a lot of things that I could address in your response, but this little gem made me realize that doing so would not only be a waste of time, but also illustrates a definitive hostility to any opinion that attempts to factually address your claim.

Elect G-Max:
Federalist #80 was written by Alexander Hamilton, and as a rule, anyone who cites Alexander Hamilton for anything is automatically wrong.

You ignored an argument based on the source even though it demonstrated the very understanding of the nature of the judiciary years before ratification that you claimed was not understood after ratification. Even then, you ignored the note and conflated "electorate" with "people" even after being explained how the "power of the people" is not found in the electorate, but in the US Constitution.

And you have yet to explain why the views of Hamilton, a New York delegate to the constitutional convention in Philadelphia and actually privy to the then-secret discussions about how to form the national government, should be discounted when Jefferson, then ambassador to and on a mission in France, did not participate at all (although he did approve of the gathering).

Plus, you earlier made a quip about Adams, who also didn't participate in that convention (also an ambassador to Great Britain), with no explanation as to why you included him in your unsubstantiated criticism of him.

It's clear you have no interest in actually addressing what shaped the formation of the central legal document of your country and have taken positions that no serious scholar of history is willing to endorse. You've made criticisms without substance and assumptions without basis. I suspect you either didn't pay attention in your history classes or that you've yet to have a basic history class in that area. Those are the only ways you could possibly be willing to make such extremely misinformed view that is so widely out of step with the current understanding of US constitutional history.

FuhrerVonZephyr:
Sounds republican to me.

But not conservative.

The Gentleman:
You ignored an argument based on the source

Damn right I did.

The Gentleman:
even though it demonstrated the very understanding

No, not an understanding. An opinion... from a monarchist who wanted a unitary state, or might as well have, given his opinion of what "general welfare" and the Commerce Clause meant.

The Gentleman:
Even then, you ignored the note and conflated "electorate" with "people" even after being explained how the "power of the people" is not found in the electorate, but in the US Constitution.

What relevance does that have?

The Gentleman:
And you have yet to explain why the views of Hamilton, a New York delegate to the constitutional convention in Philadelphia and actually privy to the then-secret discussions about how to form the national government, should be discounted when Jefferson, then ambassador to and on a mission in France, did not participate at all

Because Hamilton was a monarchist douchebag who bastardized the Commerce Clause to enrich his bankster friends, claimed that it was somehow a good thing for the USG to be perpetually in debt (the interest on which, of course, would be paid to his bank buddies), and only signed the Constitution because the alternative meant being stuck with the Articles of Confederation.

The Gentleman:
Plus, you earlier made a quip about Adams, who also didn't participate in that convention (also an ambassador to Great Britain), with no explanation as to why you included him in your unsubstantiated criticism of him.

I included him because he was part of Hamilton's party and had approximately the same degree of contempt for the Constitution.

Elect G-Max:

FuhrerVonZephyr:
Sounds republican to me.

But not conservative.

Riiiight. Listen, if Bush isn't a conservative, then Obama is die-hard liberal.

Elect G-Max:

The Gentleman:
Contrary to your claim, the Supreme Court does not create law

O RLY?

Yes, really. Roe vs. Wade is merely interpretation of existing constitutional law - specifically the right to liberty that each human being has. Specifically the due process clause:

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .[5]

Banning abortion is quite clearly depriving a person of liberty - the liberty to control the contents and lodgers within their own body. Roe vs. Wade is entirely in line with the concept of judicial review in that the court measured existing law against the constitution and ruled that it was unconstitutional and therefore invalid. There was no new law drafted, simply the interpretation of existing law to fit new circumstances. That's what the supreme court does.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked