How to stop this court ruling (and put Libs on the defensive)

myself | 25 june 2003 | Finalapproach29er

[Finalapproach29er]

A Question for lawyers:

Why can't the Congress pass a provsion that prohibits any higher education institution, that gets federal money, to forbid them from asking any (application)question that might indicate the race of that applicant?

Can this be done?

Would Democrats look stupid blocking this when 70 % of the people want color-blind policies?

[Finalapproach29er]

Please respond if this may be possible.

[Finalapproach29er]

SP= provision

[Nitro]

That question is designed to end America!

[netmilsmom]

Rush had a question like this yesterday and said that they could do it but none of them were brave enough.

You are smart. Consitutionally it would work, but it would be political suicide. Could you imagine the reaction from Rainbow Push??

[HitmanLV]

People don't want a color blind America. Polls notwithstanding, when they go into the pollbooth, enough people vote to support such a system, fair or not.

People posture a lot, but when it comes to voting, they vote 'what's in it for them.' Very bad.

[Skywalk]

Lowell Ponte had some interesting ideas for Executive Orders that would still be constitutional(and one or two that might not be) just to turn Gephardt's idea on its head.

Bush would have some options but seeing as how this administration caves continually to the opposition on certain issues, I doubt Bush would take Ponte up on these offers.

[Jim Noble]

Why can't the Congress pass a provsion that prohibits any higher education institution, that gets federal money, to forbid them from asking any (application)question that might indicate the race of that applicant?

Congress can do more than that.

The Supreme Court's appellate power exists "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" (Article III, section 2).

If Congress were so inclined (which obviously it is not) it could forbid the Supreme Court from hearing on appeal cases arising out of racial classification of citizens, or arising out of State's determination about the legal status of unborn children, or a whole lot of other things (the free exercise of religion, for example).

The Court's ability to perform social engineering is purely a result of an abdication of power by Congress-of its failure to regulate, and to make exceptions to, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as commanded by Article III, section 2.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Perhaps we need a Constitutional amendment conveying that the SCOTUS SHALL without exception obey and rule only on cases pursuant to the exact wording of our Constitution, the sole source and scope of their authority and power, that the SCOTUS shall obey the Law of the Land or be in contempt of the Constitution and be removed from high office within 90 days, without future pay and benefits. Such impeachment and removal from the SCOTUS shall to be determined by a single task and final vote assembly of 535 randomly selected citizens in good standing, their numbers allocated according to the distribution of the several states' house and senate members, but shall be any public servants so employed currently in at any time during the preceeding 21 years. Such determination by this citizens' review assembly shall not be influenced or appealed to any other person, persons, or any branch of government, under penalty of law.

These 5 utopian blackrobes usurped their limited authority, intoxicated by their asumed powers not granted in our Constitution. Because they say so is not legal authority. Up yours, Miss Brown (v. Board of Education, circa 1954).

Again we see fanciful, social engineering, racist bench law in direct violation of our "equal protection" of our 14th Amendment.

These five justices are in clear violation of the "good behavior" requirement of their term of office. They should refer to their own oath of office, clear their desks, and leave the building this Friday noon.

This is fascists' "living" Constitution where it means only what blackrobe politicians say it means, not what our Constitution actually means. The Law of the Land is NOT comprised of grand, "living" doctrines to be creatively interpreted from time to time by politicians, but our Constitution sets forth the powers and their limits, affirming certain God-given individual citizen rights for clarity while establishing the temporary authority of temporary office holders.

With this repeated flagrant violation of the source of SCOTUS legal authority, none of our "rights" are safe from such doubledspeak usurpations. Think the 1st or 2nd Amendments mean what the words mean? No way.

Political speech restrictions will be under penalty of law to protect those currently enjoying power. By government's permission and licensing, citizens may "keep and bear" arms except that this notion is not an individual's right, but a "right" of the states.

We either elect Constitution limited officials or our Coinstitutional Republic is finished without waiting for another Clinton or Politburo designate. GW is as guilty of unConstitutional usurpations as this court. Power is corrupting those willing to be corrupted, never mind the source of their only legal authority.

[jammer]

As you and I discussed in another thread, I think people vote for "goals" rather than what attempting to reach those "goals" entails. If the politicians stayed focused enough to keep repeating "color blind", rather than allowing discussions to get into specifics, it might work.

[GaConfed]

Bush would have some options but seeing as how this administration caves continually to the opposition on certain issues, I doubt Bush would take Ponte up on these offers.

That's because Bush is just another one of the rich white elite who see the white middle and working class as the most able opposition to thier designs of world hegemony. In thier minds we must be destroyed.

[PGalt]

Great points. Bump.

[GaConfed]

We either elect Constitution limited officials or our Coinstitutional Republic is finished without waiting for another Clinton or Politburo designate. GW is as guilty of unConstitutional usurpations as this court. Power is corrupting those willing to be corrupted, never mind the source of their only legal authority.

You said it all there my friend. GW might be even more dangerous than the Toon. The Toon's designs were very transparent to most of my aquaitances. Bush has pulled the wool over the eyes of most of them.

[Jim Noble]

Perhaps we need a Constitutional amendment conveying that the SCOTUS SHALL without exception obey and rule only on cases pursuant to the exact wording of our Constitution, the sole source and scope of their authority and power, that the SCOTUS shall obey the Law of the Land or be in contempt of the Constitution and be removed from high office within 90 days, without future pay and benefits

I share your love for the Constitution, but you are wrong about the scope and source of the authority of the Supreme Court.

The authority to hear, much less to rule on, cases arising on appeal from state and lower Federal (Article III) courts is granted by Congress, specifically in Article III, section 2:

"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

A Constitutional Amendment is never necessary to reverse the Supreme Court, and in fact if regulating the jurisdiction of the Court (over abortion, for example, or the free exercise of religion in school) lacks a simple majority an amendment could surely not command 2/3.

[Montfort]

Think of Iran. There is a civil, elected government, which can do its thing.

Then, there are a bunch of unelected guys in black robes who can veto anything they don't like.

Is there a difference? Okay, our guys in black robes include two women.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Any other rogue court could rule any other law unConstitutional since they act without Constitutional constraints in the first place.

Courts have ruled as if our Constitution is broad, vague, suggested doctrines rather than organizational matters and definitions of the lawful limits on governments' powers and some of the clear protections of indivual's and states' rights.

The SCOTUS blackrobes politicians are good at usurpation. SCOTUS did wait long for Marbury v Madison 1803 to announce who had the power to rule.

These "living" Constitution bench law rulers are not constrained by this Constitution. Who else is designated to rule? Congress? Congress will not muster a majority, especially the Senate, to strip power from SCOTUS. They're accomplices.

No president, except for XX-XX-44 Hillary would even consider signing such a bill unless the federalized right to kill unborn babies or recognition of the 2nd's RTKABA of individuals was in jeopardy.

However, that pesky Article III sec. 2 clause "...as the Congress shall make." does not mention a presidential role is such exceptions and regulations. Who'll rule on that question? SCOTUS. Why be constrained by the Constitution on a matter of cluse fruit falling from the same Constitutionally uncontrained tree?

I am beginning to understand the national politics of 1860 as the political power structure continues to undermine their lawful limits, while we live under penalty of law and Mt. Carmel.

Power is authority.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Now that this economist is coffeed and lunched: If you are a lawyer -

With what Constitutional authority is the power to violate our Constitution by contemporarily created "compelling State interests" conferred upon the judiciary, legislative, or executive, and/or regulatory branches of govervment?

The Constitution is "not a suicide pact"? For government or liberty?

[nanook]

You are absolutely right in what you say.
I think it is time to select 3 or 4 politicians for recall,be they elephants or jackasses.
That might wake them up.
I think a survey of all of them as to how they feel about the constitution and then force them to live up to it.