Campy Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 The powers that be on the hill trying to trash the Constitution with this: Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government. Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts. Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution. I can't believe the assclowns that sponsored this bill (Senators Brownback, Burns, Burr, Craig, and Lott) aren't being called on to the carpet - Not only do they try to usurp the Constitution, they essentially outlaw the act of striking this rubbish down for unconstitutionality as being essentially a crime. They reference Article III of the Constitution, perhaps they should re-read it!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 The powers that be on the hill trying to trash the Constitution with this:I can't believe the assclowns that sponsored this bill (Senators Brownback, Burns, Burr, Craig, and Lott) aren't being called on to the carpet - Not only do they try to usurp the Constitution, they essentially outlaw the act of striking this rubbish down for unconstitutionality as being essentially a crime. They reference Article III of the Constitution, perhaps they should re-read it! 298051[/snapback] I can't see how this would pass, but I swear, if it does I'll openly call for armed rebellion to restore this country's government to its basic Constitutional foundation. And even so, these bozos ought to be impeached for violating their oaths of office...last I checked, they swore to support and defend the Constitution as the soverign source of law, liberty, and government.
John Adams Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 The powers that be on the hill trying to trash the Constitution with this:I can't believe the assclowns that sponsored this bill (Senators Brownback, Burns, Burr, Craig, and Lott) aren't being called on to the carpet - Not only do they try to usurp the Constitution, they essentially outlaw the act of striking this rubbish down for unconstitutionality as being essentially a crime. They reference Article III of the Constitution, perhaps they should re-read it! 298051[/snapback] I can't even say Republican without throwing up in my mouth a little.
beausox Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 I can't see how this would pass, but I swear, if it does I'll openly call for armed rebellion to restore this country's government to its basic Constitutional foundation. And even so, these bozos ought to be impeached for violating their oaths of office...last I checked, they swore to support and defend the Constitution as the soverign source of law, liberty, and government. 298129[/snapback] It is judiciary that usurped power, viz: Marbury, when Marshall declared judicial hegemony. Read the Anti Federalist edited by Murray Dry in which the Anti f Federalists fear of a oppressive court is fore warned
Adam Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 I can't see how this would pass, but I swear, if it does I'll openly call for armed rebellion to restore this country's government to its basic Constitutional foundation. And even so, these bozos ought to be impeached for violating their oaths of office...last I checked, they swore to support and defend the Constitution as the soverign source of law, liberty, and government. 298129[/snapback] You won't do that, and you know it.
KRC Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 The powers that be on the hill trying to trash the Constitution with this:I can't believe the assclowns that sponsored this bill (Senators Brownback, Burns, Burr, Craig, and Lott) aren't being called on to the carpet - Not only do they try to usurp the Constitution, they essentially outlaw the act of striking this rubbish down for unconstitutionality as being essentially a crime. They reference Article III of the Constitution, perhaps they should re-read it! 298051[/snapback] <sigh> Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution. I am guessing that this is in response to O'Connor's statements regarding the use of international law in forming Supreme Court decisions. Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution. This is just insane.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 You won't do that, and you know it. 298206[/snapback] But what if I pulled a toy gun on a bank teller?
John Adams Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 It is judiciary that usurped power, viz: Marbury, when Marshall declared judicial hegemony. Read the Anti Federalist edited by Murray Dry in which the Anti f Federalists fear of a oppressive court is fore warned 298164[/snapback] Do you support the bill? In Marbury, the Supreme Court asserted its place as the third party in the balance of the federal government. Before it did so, governmental powers were potentially divided between the other two branches. The Supreme Court asserted its role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. This Supreme Court's Constitution interpretation role is a far cry from judicial hegemony. You want to change the Constitution? Amend it.
beausox Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 Do you support the bill? In Marbury, the Supreme Court asserted its place as the third party in the balance of the federal government. Before it did so, governmental powers were potentially divided between the other two branches. The Supreme Court asserted its role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. This Supreme Court's Constitution interpretation role is a far cry from judicial hegemony. You want to change the Constitution? Amend it. 298331[/snapback] There is no countervailing answer to judicial review. In the recent capital punishment case involving minors the Supremes found that " evolving social" factors permitted the change. RE: Roe Justice Douglas without a dissenting vote divined that the right to an abortion originated in a "penumbra" emanating from the ninth amendment! The Anti Federalist "Brutus" warned about judicial activism and "The Federalist Papers" said it would be unconstitutional do become so. I'm shocked politicians lied to us. Whatever one thought of the Terri Schiavo tragedy it proved that the judiciary has supreme power. Neither the State Legislature nor Governor nor Congress nor the President could countervail.
Campy Posted April 7, 2005 Author Posted April 7, 2005 It is judiciary that usurped power, 298164[/snapback] Article 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." Not that I always agree with their decisions and rulings but I'm having a difficult time seeing where the Sup Ct Justices have usurped power. If anything, they should be commended for satisfying their Consitutional responsibilities to the best of their ability.
John Adams Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 There is no countervailing answer to judicial review. In the recent capital punishment case involving minors the Supremes found that " evolving social" factors permitted the change. RE: Roe Justice Douglas without a dissenting vote divined that the right to an abortion originated in a "penumbra" emanating from the ninth amendment! The Anti Federalist "Brutus" warned about judicial activism and "The Federalist Papers" said it would be unconstitutional do become so. I'm shocked politicians lied to us. The countervailing answer to judicial review of a particular issue is to amend the Constitution. The "nation of laws, not men" idea is supposed to make it hard to change the Constitution. And it does. Regarding the "penumbra" you backhandedly disparage with reference to abortion, that "penumbra" is in reference to the implied right to privacy from the government. Are you of the camp of people who believe that such an implied right does not exist? Do you fear all judicial activism, or just liberal activism? Whatever one thought of the Terri Schiavo tragedy it proved that the judiciary has supreme power. Neither the State Legislature nor Governor nor Congress nor the President could countervail. 298362[/snapback] The laws were enforced by the courts in the Schiavo case. Whether you like the result or not, that's our system. If the people of Florida want to change their laws, they can do it.
KRC Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 Article 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." Not that I always agree with their decisions and rulings but I'm having a difficult time seeing where the Sup Ct Justices have usurped power. If anything, they should be commended for satisfying their Consitutional responsibilities to the best of their ability. 298370[/snapback] They haven't usurped power. As you mentioned, they are doing what they are supposed to do, which is interpret the laws made by the Legislature.
beausox Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 The countervailing answer to judicial review of a particular issue is to amend the Constitution. The "nation of laws, not men" idea is supposed to make it hard to change the Constitution. And it does. Regarding the "penumbra" you backhandedly disparage with reference to abortion, that "penumbra" is in reference to the implied right to privacy from the government. Are you of the camp of people who believe that such an implied right does not exist? Do you fear all judicial activism, or just liberal activism? The laws were enforced by the courts in the Schiavo case. Whether you like the result or not, that's our system. If the people of Florida want to change their laws, they can do it. 298390[/snapback] 1) The Supreme Court, it is my contention, has set itself up as a nation of men in a number of cases. Thought experiment: if a Constitutional amendment should pass that states that restricts the Supremes to the pre- Marbury conception of Court power could the Supremes find an amendment unconstitutional? 2) "backhanded"..."disparaged" Clever argument. The essential question is that does the right of privacy due the child bearing entity outweigh the right to life of the matter in the womb? Does a right to privacy exist? Is it implied? Yes and yes? What do we do when two or more rights conflict with one another? A little old lady walking at a snails pace across an unmarked road is imposing her right to movement in opposition to my right? We must choose. 3)L:iberals inherent defect is that they argue that progressive action will lead us toward a more perfect world. Liberals are by definition activist. I am a traditionalist who believes that reason and time have proven the constitution to be outside of the Bible the greatest collection of wisdom ever. 4)Prior to Roe 39 states had more progressive abortion rights already on the books. Roe is a faulty decision- even pro abortion jurists say that. Some of them fear the penumbra is fragile ground first let me disclose that
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 1) The Supreme Court, it is my contention, has set itself up as a nation of men in a number of cases. Thought experiment: if a Constitutional amendment should pass that states that restricts the Supremes to the pre- Marbury conception of Court power could the Supremes find an amendment unconstitutional?2) "backhanded"..."disparaged" Clever argument. The essential question is that does the right of privacy due the child bearing entity outweigh the right to life of the matter in the womb? Does a right to privacy exist? Is it implied? Yes and yes? What do we do when two or more rights conflict with one another? A little old lady walking at a snails pace across an unmarked road is imposing her right to movement in opposition to my right? We must choose. 3)L:iberals inherent defect is that they argue that progressive action will lead us toward a more perfect world. Liberals are by definition activist. I am a traditionalist who believes that reason and time have proven the constitution to be outside of the Bible the greatest collection of wisdom ever. 4)Prior to Roe 39 states had more progressive abortion rights already on the books. Roe is a faulty decision- even pro abortion jurists say that. Some of them fear the penumbra is fragile ground first let me disclose that 298423[/snapback] Repeatedly quoting Marbury v. Madison is a clever trick (and I mean that as a compliment), considering that there seems to be much debate and little agreement on the precise meaning of that 200 year old case. I'm not going to pretend I understand it completely, despite having read Marshall's opinion and a bunch of essays on it....but I don't suppose you can accurately, dispassionately, and unbiasedly explain it, can you? And regardless...you make it sound as though over the past 200 years, the US has been ruled by judicial fiat that reduced the executive and legislative branches to a sham. Given that the opinion in Marbury v. Madison specifically found that the issuing of writs of mandamus by the Supreme Court exceeded its Constitutional authority, and that the powers that the court supposedly usurped (namely: the authority to limit the legislative and executive branches to their own Constitutionally granted authorities), are arguably implicit in its constitutional mandate even outside the Judicial Act of 1787, I would dispute your implication.
John Adams Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 1) The Supreme Court, it is my contention, has set itself up as a nation of men in a number of cases. Thought experiment: if a Constitutional amendment should pass that states that restricts the Supremes to the pre- Marbury conception of Court power could the Supremes find an amendment unconstitutional? 298423[/snapback] The Crap Throwing Monkey (CTM: you have room for that on your license plate, don't you) disputed some of your points. I'll address the others. 2) "backhanded"..."disparaged" Clever argument. The essential question is that does the right of privacy due the child bearing entity outweigh the right to life of the matter in the womb? Does a right to privacy exist? Is it implied? Yes and yes? What do we do when two or more rights conflict with one another? A little old lady walking at a snails pace across an unmarked road is imposing her right to movement in opposition to my right? We must choose. I believe, as do most people, that a right of privacy does exist. It is implicit in the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments at least. Without a doubt, the Constitution was set up to protect people's privacy. Your question about whether that right extends to the mother vs. the unborn is difficult to answer. The Roe Court extended privacy. Other courts will push it back. All laws have gray areas, and the Supreme Court interprets the gray areas in the Constitution, of which there are plenty. When two rights conflict, assuming that people don't work things out civilly outside of court, a court decides which right is more important. No mystery. 3)L:iberals inherent defect is that they argue that progressive action will lead us toward a more perfect world. Liberals are by definition activist. I am a traditionalist who believes that reason and time have proven the constitution to be outside of the Bible the greatest collection of wisdom ever. The Republican Socialist party is afflicted by the same theory that their activism can create a better world. They just focus their efforts on different things. At least this Republican Congress has been making sweeping cuts in government power and payroll. (See, I threw up in my mouth again.)
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 The Crap Throwing Monkey (CTM: you have room for that on your license plate, don't you) disputed some of your points. I'll address the others.I believe, as do most people, that a right of privacy does exist. It is implicit in the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments at least. Without a doubt, the Constitution was set up to protect people's privacy. Your question about whether that right extends to the mother vs. the unborn is difficult to answer. The Roe Court extended privacy. Other courts will push it back. All laws have gray areas, and the Supreme Court interprets the gray areas in the Constitution, of which there are plenty. When two rights conflict, assuming that people don't work things out civilly outside of court, a court decides which right is more important. No mystery. The Republican Socialist party is afflicted by the same theory that their activism can create a better world. They just focus their efforts on different things. At least this Republican Congress has been making sweeping cuts in government power and payroll. (See, I threw up in my mouth again.) 298503[/snapback] Oh, you shut up. The courts never would have usurped power if it wasn't for your lame-duck judicial appointments that led to Marbury v. Madison in the first place...
John Adams Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 Oh, you shut up. The courts never would have usurped power if it wasn't for your lame-duck judicial appointments that led to Marbury v. Madison in the first place... 298514[/snapback] Bravo! I had to stick it to my then-adversary TJ, who wrongfully got too much credit as a founding father. Damn him.
Adam Posted April 8, 2005 Posted April 8, 2005 But what if I pulled a toy gun on a bank teller? 298308[/snapback] Liked that one, eh?
beausox Posted April 8, 2005 Posted April 8, 2005 Repeatedly quoting Marbury v. Madison is a clever trick (and I mean that as a compliment), considering that there seems to be much debate and little agreement on the precise meaning of that 200 year old case. I'm not going to pretend I understand it completely, despite having read Marshall's opinion and a bunch of essays on it....but I don't suppose you can accurately, dispassionately, and unbiasedly explain it, can you? And regardless...you make it sound as though over the past 200 years, the US has been ruled by judicial fiat that reduced the executive and legislative branches to a sham. Given that the opinion in Marbury v. Madison specifically found that the issuing of writs of mandamus by the Supreme Court exceeded its Constitutional authority, and that the powers that the court supposedly usurped (namely: the authority to limit the legislative and executive branches to their own Constitutionally granted authorities), are arguably implicit in its constitutional mandate even outside the Judicial Act of 1787, I would dispute your implication. 298439[/snapback] Good points. It is true that the Marbury case would put scholars asleep. The effect of Marbury is enormous. No it is everything. It places the Judiciary above and beyond Executive and Legislative branch because it can cause its decision to force the Legislature to construct a law it would not otherwise pass- viz: massachusetts Top court directing Legislature to craft a same-sex marriage law! Every time same sex marriage is put before the people it fails!!!!!! and that is why Anthony Lewis wife and other Mass. jurists usurped authority. Is it not plausible to posit that Liberalism is unpopular. Simply put Liberals control the judiciary and only the judiciary and that is why the Republican Senate is going for the nuclear option. Stay tuned.
beausox Posted April 8, 2005 Posted April 8, 2005 The Crap Throwing Monkey (CTM: you have room for that on your license plate, don't you) disputed some of your points. I'll address the others.I believe, as do most people, that a right of privacy does exist. It is implicit in the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments at least. Without a doubt, the Constitution was set up to protect people's privacy. Your question about whether that right extends to the mother vs. the unborn is difficult to answer. The Roe Court extended privacy. Other courts will push it back. All laws have gray areas, and the Supreme Court interprets the gray areas in the Constitution, of which there are plenty. When two rights conflict, assuming that people don't work things out civilly outside of court, a court decides which right is more important. No mystery. The Republican Socialist party is afflicted by the same theory that their activism can create a better world. They just focus their efforts on different things. At least this Republican Congress has been making sweeping cuts in government power and payroll. (See, I threw up in my mouth again.) 298503[/snapback] Surely there is a right of privacy. The 14th amendment guarantees right to life and liberty. The abortion debate is so emotional that it makes discussion difficult. Is it not conceivable( no pun intended) that at some point some grieving father will bring suit that his aborted child was not given due process and equal protection? Is the fetus-baby the property of the mother? If so is pregnancy a state of slavery?
Recommended Posts