A View Bearing on Judicial Activism in the U.S.

[fkdup74]

hmmm....thought provoking indeed....now lemme collect em and I'll be back :P


For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed.I think that pretty much sums up my POV :)



and this is pure :shit:

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty"to respect internatinal opinion is one thing, but to be governed by it..... :no:

[Arm]

I think the assholes in Congress and the figurehead president and his adminstration of Nazis are better concearns then the court.

[vidcc]

I hope to get to this subject in depth j2.

My initial statement is that:

1. nothing is perfect

2. It seems to be mostly that an activist judge is one whose ruling someone dislikes.

[Arm]

Ide like to know what j2k4s intention is. Is he saying it's morally correct to send a mentally immature person to death and blaming the changing national and international opinion on the death penalty on activist judges? Or is the issue not important but the reason it was decided upon important?

[Busyman]

The article used a horrible comparison....

Biking regularly to juvenile death penalty? :blink:

One governs how I live (not encroaching upon others) and one governs punishment for crime (well...you understand).

btw acknowledging the weight of international opinion means shit since their opinion is shit. For a judge to say this speaks ill of his own decision making.

If the world killed 5 year-olds for their spinal cords and it went up to the Supreme Court, I don't think they should give their opinions weight just because they are international. International opinion should not be a 10th judge or worse, become one of the 9.

:dry:

[hobbes]

The comparison was an intentional juxtaposition of something trivial and something grave to stress a concept, not to declare them equal.

Supreme Court judges are there to interpret our Constitution and it's intent, not to garner popular opinion.

As to the bike example:

The wrong answer:-In light of popular global opinion and medical research that states that bicycling prolongs life and improves health, we are enacting a mandatory biliking policy.

The right answer:-According to the Constitution, each person has the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, therfore; the institution of mandatory biking is unconstitutional.


To the Juvenile death penalty example:

The wrong answer:- In light of popular global opinion.......

The right answer:- According to the Constitution or the spirit of the Constitution as we interpret it....

The judges are there to interpret our Constitution and stay within the confines of what it states. To go outside this document is essentially going beyond their boundaries. They are not entitled to do this.

The result being that individual judges can use outside justification to promote their agendas which is not what we need. We need a stable reference, a constant source in which to determine whether a law is constitutional or not.

To limit them to the Constitution allows us to keep our Judiciary machine calibrated, so it doesn't go wandering this way and that due to individual agendas or fad thinking.

[Busyman]

Nicely done, sir.

Busyman-

Go sit in the corner.

Why? I said the same thing without mentioning the Constitution. :dry:

[JPaul]

I find the notion and ideas quite fascinating.

Not having a written constitution we come from an entirely different perspective. It is for Judges to interpret Acts of Parliament as and when the situation arises. No-one really knows how a law will pan out until it has been tested in Court. Even then senior Judges and higher Courts may interpret things differently. So you can't really read an Act and understand how it will work in Disneyland, sorry the real world.

Parliament, the Judge and anyone else involved will also have to consider things like the ECHR (human rights convention) and possibly various other things. So our procedures are influenced, in fact dictated to by other laws. However we signed up to those so it was our choice.

The advantage tho' is that we can be totally novel. We can scrap or amend prevous legislation. We can make laws to suit the situation.

I think that you chaps hold this constitution too dear, genuinely sorry if that gives offence. I believe that you should make laws, that the people want, for todays world. It seems to me that you baulk at being influenced unduly by other society's who co-occupy today's world. However you are dictated to by your forefathers.

Fly the nest, live in the modern world and make your own decisions. It would be a sign of you having reached maturity.

[hobbes]

I guess I like the constitution because it is so broadly written. It is based on freedom of the individual. It promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It even states that if the Government is not fullfilling these duties, it needs to be removed.

With this as the groundwork, I think that it is hard to go wrong.

The big problem is that it is under implemented. Many of the lines did not translate to true rights for blacks and women, and now they do. The Constitution laid the framework for fairness and equality and we just need to fully implement this promise.

My problem with it is that "the right to bear arms" portion was written in a time which is not comparable to our own. A time in which clashes with Indians were ongoing, when there was no insurance company to rebuild your house or town if looters came, when calling 911 was not possible and no effective police force existed. It was you versus whatever came you way, no help, no restitution.

I no longer think we are following the intent of that Amendment, but simply the literal words. A following which is quite popular, but one which a Supreme Court could over rule if they deemed that the literal words no longer reflected the intent behind issuing such words.


edit: know-->no

[vidcc]

I know longer think we are following the intent of that Amendment, but simply the literal words. A following which is quite popular, but one which a Supreme Court could over rule if they deemed that the literal words no longer reflected the intent behind issuing such words.

Purely for my personal entertainment I would like to see this happen
:naughty:

[3RA1N1AC]

as it seems the gist of the article is that the U.S. Constitution speaks for itself and doesn't need Supreme Court to explain it... i find it odd that the author appeals to Thomas Jefferson for clarification. DOESN'T it speak for itself? how many times have i read conservatives saying that private & public comments by various founding fathers of the U.S. have no bearing whatsoever on the Constitution's authority over "church & state" issues, etc. is the Constitution so simple and straightforward as to be self-explanatory, or does it require elaboration in order to be understood & applied? the author seems to want it both ways.

a couple of other comments in the article struck me as a little overboard.

Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document.
this is cheap. why can't political columnists resist this kind of stuff? "their opinion differs from mine and therefore means that they have less reverence for (sacred object) than i do." may as well cry infidel or traitor, while one's at it.


the "weight of international opinion" and good ideas should determine court decisions underlies much of the ongoing conflict over President Bush's federal court appointees.
the author must know quite well how long-winded, rambling and prone to irrelevant tangents that judicial opinions often are. judges are supposed to use their judicial opinions to provide legal justifications, precedents, etc for their decisions... but there's not much stopping them from slipping all sorts of philosophical/religious/sociological/etc stuff into it. and so it isn't difficult to find something seemingly left-field in their opinions if you poke around a bit. conservative judges are by no means immune to including inappropriate comments in their judicial opinions, either. the judge's reference to "international opinion" would be one brief tangent in an otherwise lengthy explanation of how the decision fits with u.s. law, not with international opinion. it's fairly misleading for the article's author to imply that "international opinion" would've been used as THE explanation of the decision.

[3RA1N1AC]

I think that you chaps hold this constitution too dear, genuinely sorry if that gives offence.
well, we hold it dear because it's essentially a binding contract which formed the nation, its gov't, delineates the gov't's structure & individuals' rights, sets the course for a few of our central legal principles & doctrines, and continues to hold the nation together because we (the citizens) generally agree that it has the authority to do so.

and it's just nice to have such a clear, well written contract-of-sorts to refer to when disagreements arise. "i say this, you say that, let's see what the original contract has to say about this matter." as you've pointed out, without a constitution or supreme law that all subsequent laws must comply with, it can be more of an ongoing experiment to just throw new ideas at the wall and see which ones stick. but i guess in the U.S. we take a lot of pride & comfort in the semblance of systematic order that we get from our constitution... the idea that our lowest & most trivial laws should logically extend from our highest ones, no matter how distantly related they are.

no offense taken, it's certainly not a sacred document beyond all reproach or question... but it's just dear to us as it represents our collective agreement to form and remain as a nation.

[JPaul]

no offense taken, it's certainly not a sacred document beyond all reproach or question... but it's just dear to us as it represents our collective agreement to form and remain as a nation.
I think you'll find it's their collective agreement, not yours. It was written a wee while ago, in entirely different times. Indeed in an entirely different world

Or do you think that it should stand forever, no matter what else changes in the world.

[sparsely]

I think you'll find it's their collective agreement, not yours. It was written a wee while ago, in entirely different times. Indeed in an entirely different world

Or do you think that it should stand forever, no matter what else changes in the world.

true, though I'm horrified to imagine who might be responsible for drafting any heavy revisions, who (corporations and organizations) might influence those tasked with it, and what sort of convoluted mess they would settle on in the end.

Personally, I'm all for amending the constitution, but only so much as it's done to further define, clarify, or establish the liberties of individuals.

[3RA1N1AC]

I think you'll find it's their collective agreement, not yours. It was written a wee while ago, in entirely different times. Indeed in an entirely different world

the man whose country still has royals and lords said what? :P

a little more than 200 years isn't THAT long ago, really. relatively.


Or do you think that it should stand forever, no matter what else changes in the world.

but i'm perfectly happy with bananas being curved, no matter what the EU says.

right, it was someone else's decision originally, yet it continues to hold authority because the citizens and their representatives choose to continue investing it with authority. even if mostly through complacency. and as far as i'm aware, there is no prescribed limit on the extent to which it may be amended, so i suppose in theory there's no part of our gov't and laws which cannot be changed (even very radically) through constitutional amendments. it's just, thus far, the citizens apparently haven't seen much need for drastic changes to the basic structure of the gov't or the most basic laws. there've been a few amendments though.

[JPaul]

the man whose country still has royals and lords said what? :P

a little more than 200 years isn't THAT long ago, really. relatively.



but i'm perfectly happy with bananas being curved, no matter what the EU says.

right, it was someone else's decision originally, yet it continues to hold authority because the citizens and their representatives choose to continue investing it with authority. even if mostly through complacency. and as far as i'm aware, there is no prescribed limit on the extent to which it may be amended, so i suppose in theory there's no part of our gov't and laws which cannot be changed (even very radically) through constitutional amendments. it's just, thus far, the citizens apparently haven't seen much need for drastic changes to the basic structure of the gov't or the most basic laws. there've been a few amendments though.

I have made it perfectly clear, I would scrap the monarchy, make the UK a republic and replace the lords with an elected upper house.

Oh and I know you can amend it, I was being a bit tongue in cheek. Well maybe more than a bit. I thought the "maturity" jibe gave that away.

[hobbes]

I think you'll find it's their collective agreement, not yours. It was written a wee while ago, in entirely different times. Indeed in an entirely different world

Or do you think that it should stand forever, no matter what else changes in the world.

The Bible was written much more than a wee while ago. Should it not be amended at regular intervals to reflect societal progress or are the lessons and philsophies it teaches not just as relevant today as when the stories were crafted.

A philosophy that is centered about freedom of the individual with liberty and justice for all certainly is just a germane today as when penned. I buy into that, it is therefore my constitution just as the Bible is yours.

Certain confusions can occur over time, as with the gun issue, and this is why we have a Supreme Court. They are empowered to interpret the spirit of the constitution over and above the literal words as I described before.

So as an American, you know what rights you have and no "fad regime" is allowed to change that. The feared theocracy of Bush cannot mandate school prayer or place any sort of religious restraint upon the people as it is unconstitutional.

The sad truth is that if an annonymous vote were taken, I bet the majority of the people would support a law that prevents blacks and whites from marrying. We certainly know what the popular vote about gay marriage would be. Do you want the Supreme Court to decide that since it is popular they should give people the law they want?

No, the Constitution says that everyone is entitled to the same personal freedoms and liberties. Justice is for everyone. If you live here you must accept that condition. That means you may not like certain changes, like civil (gay)unions, but you have to recognize that these people have that right. As I have said, it has so far been underimplemented.

But I think I understand the source of your pique about our attitude about the Constitution. Bunch of red-necks waving guns and wearing Constitution labeled sleeveless t-shirts. It is these people which make the outside world think that we genuflect at it's mention and worship at it's shrine, but that is not the reality.

We average folk think that it was crafted under a healthy philosophy and is holding up pretty good so far.

[Busyman]

as it seems the gist of the article is that the U.S. Constitution speaks for itself and doesn't need Supreme Court to explain it... i find it odd that the author appeals to Thomas Jefferson for clarification. DOESN'T it speak for itself? how many times have i read conservatives saying that private & public comments by various founding fathers of the U.S. have no bearing whatsoever on the Constitution's authority over "church & state" issues, etc. is the Constitution so simple and straightforward as to be self-explanatory, or does it require elaboration in order to be understood & applied? the author seems to want it both ways.

a couple of other comments in the article struck me as a little overboard.

this is cheap. why can't political columnists resist this kind of stuff? "their opinion differs from mine and therefore means that they have less reverence for (sacred object) than i do." may as well cry infidel or traitor, while one's at it.


the author must know quite well how long-winded, rambling and prone to irrelevant tangents that judicial opinions often are. judges are supposed to use their judicial opinions to provide legal justifications, precedents, etc for their decisions... but there's not much stopping them from slipping all sorts of philosophical/religious/sociological/etc stuff into it. and so it isn't difficult to find something seemingly left-field in their opinions if you poke around a bit. conservative judges are by no means immune to including inappropriate comments in their judicial opinions, either. the judge's reference to "international opinion" would be one brief tangent in an otherwise lengthy explanation of how the decision fits with u.s. law, not with international opinion. it's fairly misleading for the article's author to imply that "international opinion" would've been used as THE explanation of the decision.
Nicely done sir. ;)

That's was a good read.

[JPaul]

The Bible was written much more than a wee while ago. Should it not be amended at regular intervals to reflect societal progress or are the lessons and philsophies it teaches not just as relevant today as when the stories were crafted.



The words are not amended, however they are interpreted by Priests and (presumably) Ministers and by people who follow Christianity. As a Catholic it is the Gospels that are the most important thing to us and where we get the lessons from Christ's teachings.

We've spoken of this type of thing before. People have their own view of religion, which they impose on others. I do not believe that God sits on a cloud, nor that he has a white beard. I do not believe that every word in the Bible is literally true, there were parables and it was written at a time when lessons were taught in a different way. It is the fundamental teachings of Christ which are important to me.

PS only going off topic to answer the point raised, please continue.

[hobbes]

. It is the fundamental teachings of Christ which are important to me.

That was precisely my point. It is the fundamental philosophy of the Constitution which is important to me. That philosophy needs no more modification over time than the teachings of Christ do.

Just like certain parts of the Bible are up for re-evaluation if a message is not clear, certain wordings in the Constitution are also under scrutiny.

[JPaul]

That was precisely my point. It is the fundamental philosophy of the Constitution which is important to me. That philosophy needs no more modification over time than the teachings of Christ do.

Just like certain parts of the Bible are up for re-evaluation if a message is not clear, certain wordings in the Constitution are also under scrutiny.
You did read the bit where I said the original was tongue in cheek.

[clocker]

I would hope that a few of you could read this to see if you glean from it an understanding of what some feel ails and afflicts the Judiciary here in the United States, and render likewise a few relevant thoughts.

Mind, now: This is not to cause a row, but to provoke reasoned discourse.

Please and Thank you. :)

I tried.
I really did, pal.
I can't see how to conduct a "reasonable discourse" about such an unreasonable premise (although major props due to 3R1AN1AC and hobbes for beautifully written attempts...).

Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be "living"? Depending on "evolving standards," maybe my two pair could beat your flush.

Where to begin?
Every sentence in this excerpt is either inflammatory ("contempt for our Constitution"?Disagreeing with Williams=contempt, apparently), patronizing ("Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution." Thanks, but I can decide what a "living document" is all by myself) or illogical (" For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed." What happens when the situation for the which the rules were originally designed
has radically altered or disappeared altogether? What "meaning" do the rules have then?).
If the makeup of the deck of cards Mr. Williams and I are playing with changes, then yes, my flush might lose to two pair.

I don't think that our "standards" have changed all that much, but the world to which we must apply them certainly has.
Mr. Williams premise would dictate that we "preserve" the Constitution beyond the point of relevance.

[lynx]

Seems to me that the judiciary are doing exactly what they are paid for.

If a legal document is unclear (and your Constitution, for all it's importance, is no more than that) someone has to make an interpretation, and the Judges are the ones appointed to do just that.

There are then 2 possible outcomes.

Either the judges have got it right (or near enough) in which case those who disagree can STFU. This seems to be the case here, but the author doesn't under the STFU clause.

Or they have got it wrong. If they are wrong, the parties involved (in this case your government) have to add a codicil to the original document (an amendment to your Constitution) to make sure that the desired interpretation is achieved.

The trouble with the latter is that it is then back in the hands of the politicians, and the risk is that the interpretation proposed by the ruling party is even less likely to achieve agreement than that put forward by the Judges.

[JPaul]

So you feel you should pay no never mind to international opinion.

The rest of the world (for which I speak) is singularly unshocked by this position.

[vidcc]

Small point, as an example of the author's intent:

The column quotes Justice Kennedy's belief that "...the overwhelming weight of International opinion..." is properly taken into account in the formation of the court's decision.

By what Constitutional fiat does he deign to do this?

The Constitution makes no appropriate allowance, and the international community (last I checked) has no entree.

If he believed as he did, he should be able to give forth with his opinion without using "International opinion" as a backstop.

Perhaps our Constitution should be reproduced here for communal reference?
I suspect at some point someone (so it may as well be me) will ask what part of the constitution allows for America to be "activist" in the "constitution" of other lands, especially by force.

[3RA1N1AC]

The Constitution makes no appropriate allowance, and the international community (last I checked) has no entree.
the U.S. Constitution has no prohibition against judges being familiar with international opinion or allowing it to influence their way of thinking, either.

going to the Constitution as a way to back up one's distaste for foreign opinion just doesn't work 'cause it makes no mention at all, good or bad, of foreign opinion. the U.S. Constitution itself was the PRODUCT of foreign opinion, and didn't just spring fully formed from the American imagination. the authors of the Constitution were well-versed in foreign ideas, opinions and laws, and were influenced by them... in contrast to our current president's attitude.

[JPaul]

Do you contend that the U.S. has at any time acted to rewrite/edit the constitutional documents of another country?


Not all countries have a written constitution.

Any action you (or anyone else) takes which changes the fundamental regimes / freedoms / rights of another country, or it's citizens is in effect changing their constitution.

I am not saying that is a bad thing, you can change things for the better (in your view, or the view of some of the citizens of the other country), however you are changing things.

We've been doing it for years, feck we even made them subject to our laws.

[vidcc]

J2

Notice the "" around constitution. Jpaul beat me to the reply. We go in an "fiddle" or completely change other nations. I only raised the point because of the "international opinion" should have no consideration part. But and I am not going to go off thread much, you mentioned Iraq. It was sold incorrectly as Iraq being a threat because of WMD...now it is "to bring democracy"...well we have no constitutional decree to do this in any land other than ours.
The authors point about international opinion was made as if the ruling was solely based on that, (a convenient cherry pick).... but it wasn't. The case was about what classes punishment as cruel or unusual so to look at other nations as an aid in deciding the level is quite acceptable.

But on subject of "activist judges" my very first post says it all really.

Recent event especially have highlighted an incredible hypocrisy from some prominent right wing public figures...the right wing "elite".

Those that wish to use the constitution as an article of convenience seem to be the ones that object the loudest when it comes to freedom, equality and protections for anyone who's lifestyle they disapprove of..... This is why we need unaccountable judges, so they can rule on issues correctly even if those issues are unpopular without fear of losing their jobs.

[Biggles]

Walter is a rascal is he not? :)

If the law was so watertight that ducks would give their approval, then a society would become hidebound and incapable of reacting to change within a generation.

The Constitution surely delinates certain freedoms and rights. However, from the moment its ink was drying it was breached by the continuation of slavery. Interpretation began from the first second.

The purpose of Judges is to make a decision - that is the power invested in them. However, to say they are Activist suggests that they are seeking to impose something unwanted. I would suggest Judges are Re-activists. Lawyers and individuals bring cases to the courts, not Judges. The Judges interpret the law based on the case in front of them and the merit of the legal arguments or (as is often the case) the demerits of the procedures of the police and the prosecuting office if it is a criminal case.

There does seem to be a perception that some Judges (all Judges?) are unduly whacky and liberal and will award the case to the nearest black lesbian whale, regardless of whether they in fact even brought the case before him. This would seem to be a tad alarmist. Most Judges are white, elerdly, upper middle class males with a strong conservative (small c) streak. They do, to a small degree, take predominate external value systems into account but take to a much larger degree legal precedent.

As I undertand it, the Supreme Court rules if any decision taken by a minor court has breached the freedoms enshrined by the Constitution. This is, I suspect, easier said than done and may give rise to the charge of activism whereas the situation is actually more one of a consevative dislike of upsetting legal applecarts that have already been neatly stacked by another court.

[JPaul]

Nicely said Les, tho' if one were to be ubber picky delineates may have been a better choice of words.

The other thing to bear in mind is that, as I understand it the constitution relates to everyone (including said slaves you refer to, good point btw). So in making decisions the Judges must ensure that in preserving one person (or groups) constitutional rights they are not denying the same rights to another.

I also agree with your point re who are likely to be Judges. However, for no particular reason I imagine that those in the USA are made up of a group a bit more widespread than our own. Our own being more likely to offend the liberal (small l :P ) element than to support them.

[Biggles]

Nicely said Les, tho' if one were to be ubber picky delineates may have been a better choice of words.

The other thing to bear in mind is that, as I understand it the constitution relates to everyone (including said slaves you refer to, good point btw). So in making decisions the Judges must ensure that in preserving one person (or groups) constitutional rights they are not denying the same rights to another.

I also agree with your point re who are likely to be Judges. However, for no particular reason I imagine that those in the USA are made up of a group a bit more widespread than our own. Our own being more likely to offend the liberal (small l :P ) element than to support them.

Be ubber picky - (I really ought to give my pride a rest and spell check :) )

Not sure about the US Judges - most of the senior ones I have seen on tv could be dopplegangers for our ones, but I daresay the minor courts have a better ethnic spread.

[JPaul]

but I daresay the minor courts have a better ethnic spread.
I would be stunned, stunned I tell you, if they did not.

We are still very much a right school, right University attitude. Particularly when it comes to QCs. Any muppet who went to a secondary modern can become an Estate Agent, sorry Solicitor.

I presume that is the same for the senior ecelons of the judiciary in the USA. Not known for their liberal thinking one would wager.

[vidcc]

I presume that is the same for the senior ecelons of the judiciary in the USA. Not known for their liberal thinking one would wager.

"Activist judges" is a term coined by the right to describe the judges that make rulings that don't agree with their conservative view.... the term "liberal elite" tends to be used in the same sentence.

[JPaul]

.... the term "liberal elite" tends to be used in the same sentence.
A tad oxymoronic one would have thought. Or perhaps those who use it wallow in the irony.

[vidcc]

A tad oxymoronic one would have thought. .

It is a funny term but meant to describe those who are wealthy, educated and have influence or power that have a more "social" or less "christian" agenda.......the right say they are trying to tell others how to live while forgetting that they are doing the same.

It's kind of sad really.

[vidcc]

Herewith, a bit of interesting reading (I promise); I shant name it's author just now, as none of you ever seem to get past the name, for the most part.





well you know Phyllis Schlafly isn't exactly unbiased...........don't you ? :rolleyes: :lol:

[Biggles]

J2

There are so many issues in that piece that I fear they swamp the overall argument that the US Judiciary are somehow out of control

Purely as an aside, if criminals persuaded a 12 year to pull the trigger would he too be executed? If a 15 year has sex it is considered a violation of childhood, yet is it ok to execute that 15 year old should he or she be involved in a murder? Cakes and eating it spring to mind. Even a hundred years ago most European countries did not execute those under 18 (21 in many countries - including the Austro-Hungarian Empire). The logic of the piece would dictate these countries should by now be over-run by pyschopathic teenagers.

All countries take cogniasance of what is happening in the world. I think we would applaud those countries who currently allow children to work in sweat shops to take note of generally accepted standards worldwide and let their Judiciary stamp the practice out.

The argument appears to be that the US should exist in a bubble with regards legal matters and the interpretation of the Constitution. Now there is nothing wrong with this per se but it would ill behove those who adopt such an argument to try to prick the bubble of others.

[vidcc]

I suppose that was a bit too easy, but:

Sure she has a point of view.

Care to parse it?

Or merely dismiss it?

Her agenda aside. I have already given an opinion on why it was justified to look at the rest of the world. On a side note I agree with the ruling that death is not a suitable sentence for those below the age of majority. We don't feel them mature enough to vote, marry without their parents permission...have sex or even drink so why should they be considered mature enough to be put to death. This doesn't mean that I am defending the crimes or saying that there should be light punishment, just there has to be a cut off..... what age would you make it? 17..16...12...10...6..



I have a point of view, as do you, vid.

What of that?

Who said you don't have a point of view? I would like to read it some day though. ;)

There have been occasions where I didn't like the rulings because of the nature of the cases, however that doesn't mean that the ruling was wrong.

Take the schrivo case. Congress overstepped its powers and the judiciary rightly ruled. The mouthpiece for the overstepping was Mr. delay who no doubt feels that roe v wade is wrong, yet he tried to overrule the FL. state court to get it into federal court.

Now much as I abhor the hypocrisy shown by those members of congress I would like to see cases such as that go to federal level because I believe in "one nation, under that make believe character" and not different nations..... But that isn't how it is.

[Biggles]

Who Phyllis? :blink:

[vidcc]

Who Phyllis? :blink:

this might give you some idea (http://www.eagleforum.org/)

[Biggles]

this might give you some idea (http://www.eagleforum.org/)


:fear2:

Frightenly similar to that truechristian.com website I posted a while back.

[3RA1N1AC]

The Supreme Court's main argument was the "trend" since 1989 that seven countries (Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, Congo, and China) have banned juvenile capital punishment. Justices Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter changed U.S. law so we can follow the lead of those seven countries.
do these columnists read the things to which they refer, or do they all just rely on Cliff Notes and hearsay? there's an awful lot of taking-for-granted going on, that Kennedy's opinion substitutes "international opinion" for a legal explanation.

Kennedy's full opinion, for anyone who may be curious to read what the thread is actually about:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZO.html

the main argument is not that a juvenile death sentence defies international opinion, but that putting children to death qualifies as a cruel and unusual punishment. first by American standards, and second by international standards. if the eighth amendment were to specify "cruel and unusual ONLY by 18th century American notions, with no regard for later notions or for international notions" then i'd say these columnists have hit the nail on the head.

this columnist goes on to say

Furthermore, most other countries don't allow jury trials or other Bill of Rights guarantees, so who knows if the accused ever gets what we would call a fair trial?
so what? we don't have a constitutional amendment prohibiting generous and unusual freedoms, but we do have one prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments. intentionally or not, she misses the nail completely.

[clocker]

[I][COLOR=Blue]The big majority of countries reject U.S.-style abortion on demand, so the supremacist justices conveniently omitted that "international opinion."


If however, the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade based solely on "international opinion", I'll bet conservatives would have no problems with that at all.
As usual, "activist judiciary" and "international opinion" are the bogeymen in the closet...hustled onstage when necessary to scare the kiddies and ignored when convenient.
If I recall correctly, Bush made quite an effort to curry international favor in support of his Iraq invasion, why was their opinion of worth then and not now?

[JPaul]

The problem with referenda and the like is that few people express their opinion (at least where I come from). This leads to decisions being made by those with a positive agenda in the particular area. (I know the same can be said for elections, however in a democracy we really need to have them.)

In my mind what you then have is decisions made by a specific and limited demographic, in short those who care enough to be arsed to vote. The other option is to have bodies who make these decisions, but enjoin them to consider the wishes and rights of all parties in their deliberations.

The only argument I can think of to counter this is to say that those who can't be bothered to express their opinion forfeit their rights. I can't agree with that. Unless your constition specifically precluded the terminally apathetic (the majority of folk it would appear).

[vidcc]

J2 my feeling on roe v wade is that state rights should not be overruled unless the state is denying individual rights given in the national constitution. Denying the right of individual choice on abortion and I feel gay marriage goes against the US constitution. ...and we are Americans first and members of the individual states second.

You have freedom of religion, what if your state decided to ban religion?...it can't because you are protected.

your freedom of religion does not mean that your moral beliefs should be forced on those that don't share them. I have seen many times people say the wording is freedom of and not freedom from.

It's everyone else's America as well. If you disagree with gay marriage , don't marry someone of the same sex. If you disagree with abortion....don't get one.... you have no right to force your values on those that don't share them.

[hobbes]

J2 my feeling on roe v wade is that state rights should not be overruled unless the state is denying individual rights given in the national constitution. Denying the right of individual choice on abortion and I feel gay marriage goes against the US constitution. ...and we are Americans first and members of the individual states second.

You have freedom of religion, what if your state decided to ban religion?...it can't because you are protected.

Thusly your freedom of religion does not mean that your moral beliefs should be forced on those that don't share them. I have seen many times people say the wording is freedom of and not freedom from.

It's everyone else's America as well. If you disagree with gay marriage , don't marry someone of the same sex. If you disagree with abortion....don't get one.... you have no right to force your values on those that don't share them.

I echo this verbatim.

You cannot aggregate people within this country and create your own rules under the guise of States rights. You cannot vote blacks into slavery just because the people in your State support that idea. Blacks are equal citizens and are protected by the national Constitution.

States rights that violate Constitution rights are unacceptable.

In a free country, you must be willing to tolerate those things which you do not care for, but are allowed under the Constitution, just as others tolerate your right to live as you chose.

Gay marriage is a right granted by the Constitution under pursuit of happiness, it should never have been put to a vote. Such as vote is just as absurd as voting for slavery.

[vidcc]

There actually is a constitutionally-described recall process for the Justices, but for some reason, it hasn't given any of the Justices pause.

What do you think of that?

I think they are not concerned about it because they are making the correct rulings (mostly)

[Everose]

Stock Market Crash of 29 and Franklin Roosevelt? :ph34r:

[Everose]

Prohibition and Carrie Nation? :lol:

[hobbes]

While this may seem a bit antiquated, it is precisely what the founding fathers had in mind.

You see, then, how far we've come.

The individual states were intended to be allowed to tailor their laws to the wishes of their citizenry.

I'll bet most of you don't know what historical event precipitated the (unintentional) move away from this stance, nor who was (unwittingly) it's driving force.

First one with the correct answer wins the prize, but only if you answer within 15 minutes of this post.

For Americans, the limit will be 7 minutes, 30 seconds. :)


Then what is the point of writing a national Constitution? Tailor the laws yes, but within the boundaries of what the Constitution allows.

So you like a slavery state, one which violates an Americans' rights.

In Texas we have no state income tax, you cannot sue a person for his home, the schools operate on trimesters not semesters, we elect to have daylight savings time and a hundred other little things.

Tailoring is not descrimination or enfringement upon the rights of others.



States Rights:
Rights guaranteed to the states under the principle of federalism. Under the Constitution, states have considerable autonomy to pass, enforce, and interpret their own laws and to pursue their own public policy programs. Proponents of states’ rights argue that the states should be governed with a minimum of interference from the federal government.

1
‡ The relationship between federal and state responsibilities has often been controversial. Until the middle of the twentieth century, for example, the Supreme Court left the interpretation of many civil rights guarantees to the states, resulting in hostile and widespread discrimination against minorities.



Federalism:

A system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and various regional governments. As defined by the United States Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. With their own legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch, states are empowered to pass, enforce, and interpret laws, provided they do not violate the Constitution.


One nation, one language, one Constitution.

Freedom and liberty for all, void where prohibited is not my style.

[3RA1N1AC]

Stock Market Crash of 29 and Franklin Roosevelt? :ph34r:
it'd have to be before that, since The War Of Northern Aggression and Abraham Tyrannus were considered by many to be a giant nail in the coffin of states' rights. John Wilkes Booth for example would've seen it as the demise of states' rights. so... Civil War or pre Civil War, i'm sure.

i find the question a bit vague. there's one and only one event which is to be credited/blamed for starting the U.S. on the path toward a more centralized gov't?

how about... John Adams' appointment of William Marbury to a DC court bench. John Marshall then presides over the case of Marbury vs Madison and it's the beginning of the end for states' rights.

[Everose]

[QUOTE=3RA1N1AC]it'd have to be before that, since The War Of Northern Aggression and Abraham Tyrannus were considered by many to be a giant nail in the coffin of states' rights. John Wilkes Booth for example would've seen it as the demise of states' rights. so... Civil War or pre Civil War, i'm sure.



Do you have a winner, J2? Yeah 3rainiac!!!! :D

[vidcc]

BTW-

Vid:

There is no hay to be made by pointing out that "Judicial activism" is a term, which in the main, was coined by the right.

It merely serves to indicate their notice of the arrogance exhibited by those whose lifetime appointment, augmented by a cowed legislature, makes them unaccountable.

The term is also used by the left to cause alarm over the prospect of Bush appointing a constructionist Justice to the court, and guarantees more Democrat filibustering.

I believe the hand is placed on the bible to swear to uphold the constitution...not the other way round.
As to the filibuster...how many judges have been approved and how many denied? We do not live in a dictatorship

[3RA1N1AC]

Who said "one and only one event"?

The critical event, surely.

perhaps that's a better way of putting it. my intention was along the lines of this: does the American timeline consist of an era where states' rights are the priority, then this critical event happens, and then the national gov't moves in to start trampling all over the rights of the states? or had there been an ongoing dispute from the very beginning, Federalism Vs Republicanism, which would linger for a while and inevitably be settled in favor of one doctrine or the other?


"Abraham Tyrannus"?

Booth's declaration after he jumped from the balcony of Ford's Theater, 'course. ;|

but yes. Lincoln has long been regarded as something of a hero for preserving the Union and moving to abolish slavery. however during his presidency there was a huge segment of the country (both in the North and the South) who felt that he'd thoroughly violated the rights of the southern states and transformed the gov't into much more of a top-down hierarchy. i'd reckon the abridged story, if someone wanted to tell such a story, of the decline of states' rights in the early U.S. might begin with Marbury Vs Madison and end with the conclusion of the Civil War... rather than begin with the Civil War.

[Biggles]

Would it be fair to say that Lincoln's enforced remainder of the Southern States into the Union effectively ended the dream of the original founding fathers?

It would seem that post Civil War (which was probably the first modern war as we know it) the US became a country governed more akin to what Europeans would consider a centralised bureaucratic entity.

[3RA1N1AC]

Would it be fair to say that Lincoln's enforced remainder of the Southern States into the Union effectively ended the dream of the original founding fathers?
i'm sure there are plenty of historians & political scholars who'd say this is precisely the case. and prolly a lot who'd say that's not the case at all. the founders of the U.S. were not all of the same mind, so it's difficult to attribute one dream to all of them. some of them favored the idea of a loosely knit federation, some favored the idea of a centralized gov't, some were primarily concerned with getting a guarantee of individual rights... and what they ended up with was a compromise that everyone was not necessarily completely satisfied with, but were willing to nevertheless give it a try.

[Rat Faced]

and what they ended up with was a compromise that everyone was not necessarily completely satisfied with, but were willing to nevertheless give it a try.

And if it didnt work, and they decided that they didnt want to be part of the "Federation", then that was tough...

I aways thought the American Civil War a little hypocritical..

I mean, the US states broke away from Britain because they didnt feel that they were represented properly.

The Southern States of the USA did the same thing, didnt they? (Slavery was only part of the argument, although well used for its propaganda value ;) )

It did, however squash the theory that the US was a federation of Independant States as its impossible to leave the "Federation", hence have no sovereignity :ph34r:

[Tikibonbon]

Sorry, wrong window, wrong topic, I apologize.

[Mr JP Fugley]

And if it didnt work, and they decided that they didnt want to be part of the "Federation", then that was tough...

I aways thought the American Civil War a little hypocritical..

I mean, the US states broke away from Britain because they didnt feel that they were represented properly.

The Southern States of the USA did the same thing, didnt they? (Slavery was only part of the argument, although well used for its propaganda value ;) )

It did, however squash the theory that the US was a federation of Independant States as its impossible to leave the "Federation", hence have no sovereignity :ph34r:
But what about the Prime Directive.

[Rat Faced]

But what about the Prime Directive.

The Human Race has never followed the Prime Directive and never will, except by not invading Denmark for the 100 years or so it had a standing army of only 7... Maybe we were still wary of that Viking Heritage then ;)

We know we shouldnt, but theres always a smart arse around that does anyway.. fully justifying his right to interfere in the internal affairs of others, whilst defending like a lunatic the right to do what the f*ck he wants where he is; without anyone else criticising.

Hmmm, bet i get told that that was anti-american... and i wasnt even thinking of USA when i wrote it ;)

[Mr JP Fugley]

The Human Race has never followed the Prime Directive and never will, except by not invading Denmark for the 100 years or so it had a standing army of only 7... Maybe we were still wary of that Viking Heritage then ;)

We know we shouldnt, but theres always a smart arse around that does anyway.. fully justifying his right to interfere in the internal affairs of others, whilst defending like a lunatic the right to do what the f*ck he wants where he is; without anyone else criticising.

Hmmm, bet i get told that that was anti-american... and i wasnt even thinking of USA when i wrote it ;)
The UK is surely the biggest breacher of the directive, how many cultures have we interfered with or destroyed. The majority of which was to steal assets, at least in more recent times.

The sun never sets .... and so forth.

We now have the type of people who would have supported this "foreign policy" crying foul at European integration and other cultures forming part of our everyday life in the UK.

It's obviously OK when one is the imperialist, but a bad thing when one sees oneself as the oppressed minority. Twas ever so.

[vidcc]

One nation, one language, one Constitution.




I found out today something that I didn't know.... English IS NOT the official language of the USA.

In fact the USA has no "official" language.


Wish I knew that in the debate we had a while back ;)

source (http://www.lifeintheusa.com/landhistory/official.htm)

another source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Languages)
they did try though (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/langleg.htm)

[JPaul]

It is quite apparent that English is not the official language of the USA. Why would anyone ever have thoughten otherwise.

[bigboab]

I found out today something that I didn't know.... English IS NOT the official language of the USA.

In fact the USA has no "official" language.


Wish I knew that in the debate we had a while back ;)

source (http://www.lifeintheusa.com/landhistory/official.htm)

another source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Languages)
they did try though (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/langleg.htm)


I was led to understand that the USA does not have any official language. Individual states have an official language. The most of them opting for English or conforming according to Federal Statute. In another ten or so years their version of English will be unrecognisable to academics anyway. What the hell is a Xing. :rolleyes:

[JPaul]

Interestingly Aluminum was the original spelling. The English scientific community didn't like it, coz' it didn't fit in with things like sodium, magnesium, calcium, lithium or whatever, so the "i" was added, twixt the "n" and the "u".

[vidcc]

I was led to understand that the USA does not have any official language. Individual states have an official language. The most of them opting for English or conforming according to Federal Statute. In another ten or so years their version of English will be unrecognisable to academics anyway. What the hell is a Xing. :rolleyes:
Not all states have opted for an official langauge yet, and it goes well with the "one nation one language" bit hobbes wrote....

It was just something i found interesting, and would have been better had i known in the other debate :ermm: