Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Us Supreme Court

  1. #1
    Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Southern California USA
    Posts
    571
    You asked for it Clocker
    I was going to state my full opinion, but I fear it would turn into a full blown essay.
    Let me start with - I'm not 100% sure, but I'm leaning towards the position that they're getting far to big for their britches.
    I believe States should be able to make their own laws, but at the same time we don't want them to make such a law that obviously fly's in the face of the Constitution.
    It's like having 9 all powerful kings.

    Here are some Examples that I have to question.

    Supreme Court nixes copyright challenge
    10:09 Thursday 16th January 2003
    Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com

    Activists argue that the decision hands the entertainment industry too much power over artistic works such as Mickey Mouse cartoons, and damages freedom of speech

    The US Supreme Court on Wednesday said Congress had the power to extend the duration of copyrights, a decision that dealt a grave blow to a growing movement against more expansive legal protections of artistic works.
    In a strongly worded ruling, the court said by a 7-2 majority that the legislature had great leeway in allowing repeated delays to when copyrighted works would enter the public domain. The ruling means that Walt Disney's first Mickey Mouse cartoons, poems by Robert Frost and other works created in the 1920s fall under a retroactive copyright extension of 20 yearsFull Article
    --------------------------
    This one is a very good read!

    The Rutherford Institute
    The Supreme Court Grants Police Too Much Power
    John W. Whitehead
    05/01/2001

    On an early spring day four years ago, Gail Atwater, a mother of two, was driving her pick-up truck through a neighborhood in Lago Vista, Texas. Her 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter were with her in the front seat. The only thing unusual about the scene was that Mrs. Atwater was breaking the law—specifically, she had failed to buckle up herself and her two children, although she was driving at a speed of less than 20 miles per hour.

    A police officer spotted the violation and signaled for Mrs. Atwater to pull over. When he pointed out her omission, she apologized immediately—but that wasn’t enough. The officer began yelling at her, saying, “You’re going to jail.” As her terrified, weeping children cowered in their seats, Mrs. Atwater asked if she could first take them to a neighbor’s house. But the officer refused, telling her, “You’re not going anywhere!”
    Intresting? Click here
    ----------------
    “The Supreme Court has too much power for an unelected body.
    Nick Carter

    Ever since the debate over ratification of the Constitution in 1787, worries have been expressed over the power of the Supreme Court. More recently, concerns were raised when the Court declared several of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies unconstitutional; its ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954); and the line taken on abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973). Surely, it is argued, unelected and unaccountable justices should not have the power to overturn the democratically expressed will of the people? Did the Warren Court not effectively take executive decisions well outside its proper jurisdiction? These questions, amongst others, are cited by those who feel the Supreme Court is over-powerful. Others claim that the Court’s power is in fact quite limited, citing its lack of enforcement powers, its inability to initiate policy, and its dependence upon popular support and respect for its authority. To explore this title, two main discussions will be necessary, one determining how much power the Court has, the other to debate the significant of the Court not being directly elected.

    The Supreme Court derives its power from three main sources.....
    Full Article

    Well that should get us going.

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    clocker's Avatar Shovel Ready
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    15,388
    Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@29 June 2003 - 23:37

    I believe States should be able to make their own laws, but at the same time we don't want them to make such a law that obviously fly's in the face of the Constitution.
    It's like having 9 all powerful kings.

    Nine " all powerful kings" as opposed to what? Fifty squabbling barons?

    We are after all a 'Federation' of states and without a body to oversee continuity amongst the individual participants we would be more like Europe than what (ever) we are today.
    Obviously we could both throw S.C. decisions back and forth to illustrate our dis/agreement with specific instances, but overall do you question the need to have such a body?
    Like any part of our form of government, the Supreme Court must struggle with the intent of the Founding Fathers and the realities of the world in which we live today. A world unimaginable to those who wrote the Constitution.
    Overall, I think that the concept has worked out pretty well, but I'm willing to consider alternatives.
    How would you suggest modifying the duties/powers of the Court to better suit your vision?
    "I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    We are after all a 'Federation' of states and without a body to oversee continuity amongst the individual participants we would be more like Europe than what (ever) we are today.
    Excuse me, but in this area at least...EU is closer to being one country than the USA.....(dammit, and ive been saying we arent losing soveriegnity )

    If someone is arrested in UK, they can take the matter to the European Court, if they believe the Law in the UK is wrong. If the majority of Europe follows one "law" and the UK doesnt, then we are made to conform...eg: 13 years ago, most issues of Playboy in the USA would have got you arrested in the UK under the obscene Publications Act. Now hardcore is freely available over the counter...because it was legal elswhere in Europe, and we had to conform.

    In the US, every state has its own Laws; that are nothing to do with the USA as a whole....all you have to do is go over the border...that doesnt work in the EU. You will be arrested in that country too.

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    clocker's Avatar Shovel Ready
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    15,388
    S&A,
    While I appreciate the delicate balance we need to strike between 'Federal" and 'State's' rights, don't forget that the balance has also tipped too far in the wrong direction vis a vis 'State's rights' also...
    "I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Southern California USA
    Posts
    571
    Rat Faced
    I was not aware of that.
    I know your not going to agree with me on this, but that is scary!
    It's Biblical even!
    That blows me totally away!

    Clocker
    That is a stupendous picture to Illustrate what your saying.
    It's late and I'm tired and can't form a credible opinion until tomorrow.
    I'll sleep on it!

    Btw, if you commit a crime and cross a state border (however small the crime may be) it turns immediately into a felony.

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,946
    Originally posted by Rat Faced@30 June 2003 - 18:46
    We are after all a 'Federation' of states and without a body to oversee continuity amongst the individual participants we would be more like Europe than what (ever) we are today.
    Excuse me, but in this area at least...EU is closer to being one country than the USA.....(dammit, and ive been saying we arent losing soveriegnity )

    If someone is arrested in UK, they can take the matter to the European Court, if they believe the Law in the UK is wrong. If the majority of Europe follows one "law" and the UK doesnt, then we are made to conform...eg: 13 years ago, most issues of Playboy in the USA would have got you arrested in the UK under the obscene Publications Act. Now hardcore is freely available over the counter...because it was legal elswhere in Europe, and we had to conform.

    In the US, every state has its own Laws; that are nothing to do with the USA as a whole....all you have to do is go over the border...that doesnt work in the EU. You will be arrested in that country too.
    Not quite right mate. As I have posted elsewhere, the UK will not extradite someone for an "offence" which is not an offence here, even to another member state.

    There are two Italians resident in Scotland who are wanted to stand trial for being members of the Mafia. They have not been extradited and there is no proceedings in place to do so, even though there is a "red notice" (international arrest warrant) for both of them. They have been here for many years and no action has been taken.

    If they were to go to Canada (as an example) they would be arrested and returned to Italy to stand trial.

    With regard to the European Court thing, I believe you are referring to appeals, where the criminal has been through the entire appeal procedure in the relevant part of the UK. I don´t believe it is all that common.

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    With regard to the European Court thing, I believe you are referring to appeals, where the criminal has been through the entire appeal procedure in the relevant part of the UK. I don´t believe it is all that common

    Thank God


    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Southern California USA
    Posts
    571
    You know what....
    I don't have an answer!
    But 9 people who weren't elected have an awful lot of power.
    I know, I know..your gonna say the pres. was elected and therefore they are vicariously elected.
    I know, I know...you are next going to point out the problems with them actually being elected.
    Oh man, can you imagine the corruption?!!

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    But 9 people who weren't elected have an awful lot of power.

    Surely these are posts that you would want people to get for their ability, not their carisma.........

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    clocker's Avatar Shovel Ready
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    15,388
    I think that the primary fear regarding the Court has always been that a President can appoint (as vacancies occur) a Justice who reflects his individual ideology as opposed to being the most intellectually qualified.
    This, almost certainly, has happened.
    Over the course of time however, the system has seemed to work out.
    The recent SC ruling on gay sex would seem to fly in the face of expectation and point to the fact that most of the time the Court is actually more responsive to effective legal argument as opposed to percieved political bias.

    Also, keep in mind that only a handful of cases even make it as far as a hearing before the Supreme Court. Thus, the States really do have quite a bit of leeway interpreting the law, as only a very small percentage of decisions ever get appealed all the way to Washington.
    "I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •