Posted on 03/02/2005 1:24:42 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Well then maybe _I_ need to reread the document. But I don't see that the Executive can act as an appellate Court to the Supreme Court. As I understand it, the ONLY avenue then open is to literally amend the Constitution. Thus people talked of pro-life Amendments. People talked last year of a defense of marriage Amendment.
It's difficult to cast this sort of thing into law. To some extent, the Court has always been a bit of a challenge to the functioning of the Republic. Some never did like the idea of 'judicial review'. Many on FR still call for the abandonment of this which is one of the first 'benefits' often cited by lib professors in undergrad Constitutional Law courses. How does one properly check and balance the Judiciary? How would such an Amendment read? That no Constitutional dispute can be resolved by resort to foreign law and practice? Common law goes back to foreign law and practice. I'm sure some more conservative lawyers have suggested an appropriate amendment in this or that journal. I just don't know what it would be.
The Supreme Court couldn't deliver a warm pizza.
I'm in.
Of Course, we're there. WE'RE MAD AS HELL AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just looked at the results of the FR poll and I'm really disappointed. Heck fire, in the old days we FReepers moved mountains with our passion for justice! And if JimRob called a protest we honored that call.
What's happening around here? Has this turned into a chat forum or what?
Everytime I use this argument to say that Bush could end abortion tomorrow if he wanted, I am flamed like there is no tomorrow. He has no duty to adhere to UNConstitutional rulings and could declare that life starts at conception and that unborn children have a right to life liberty ...shall I go on?
For the reason you mention, the SCOTUS ruling on executions could be ignored. WE are the government, not those black robed devilish globalists.
But, unfortunately, according to Justice Kennedy, not to international opinion.
justice kennedy is an idiot, we need to spread that far and wide, when a supposed weak-kneed judge thinks that international law is more important than the Constitution of the United States, and bases his decisions on such tripe. There are several other idiots that populate the so-called Supereme Court, we need to rid the Court of all of them, and install True Constitutionalist Jurists, those that only follow the Constitution of the United States, not idiots that would legislate from the Bench, such as Kennedy and his ilk did in this stupid decision not to kill, killers at any age!!!!!!!!!!!!Bye the way, there was a killing today by a 14 year old, I am sure he was encouraged by the idiotic scotus ruling of yesterday. He killed because he was ruled not available for a death sentence. Way to go kennedy, and the other stupid 4 idiots that voted with him. Are you going to the funeral in Tenn.?
"Are we forgetting POTUS has the final say over decisions he feels SCOTUS makes badly??"
Huh?!? Did you leave off the sarcasm flag or something?
Please explain, My civics class did not cover this. Can POTUS overturn SCOTUS rulings? I HOPE SO, THAT WOULD BE GREAT! WE CAN OVERTURN 10 YEARS OF BOGUS SCOTUS CRAP!
Thanks for the ping! Will now read the article.
Yes! Let's do it!
Thank you for the ping!
Sorry, you're mistaken. POTUS has no authority of SCOTUS whatsoever.
So...a 5 year old recently killed his 3 year old sister here. Are you going to strap a crying 5 year old to the gurny and push the meds that will kill him? I for one have a major, major problem with that.
"Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial determinations regarding the meaning of U.S. laws should not be based on foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements are incorporated into the legislative history of laws passed by the House and Senate or otherwise inform an understanding of the original meaning of U.S. laws." More
What is this about? Where is the More.............This cannot go forward, U S Laws are based on the US Constitution. we don't give a shit about foreign judgments, laws or pronouncements........... WAKE UP STUPIDOS, WE ONLY ADHERE TO THE US CONSTITUTION, YOUR STUPIDO FOREIGN SO CALLED LAWS DON'T COUNT, WE WILL NOT RECOGNISE THEM, YOU ARE OBSOLETE! THAT INCLUDES YOU SCOTUS GOOF BALLS THAT MIGHT BE LOOKING TO DESTROY THE US! WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE! IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE UNITED STATES IF YOU RETIRED, SOON. DON'T YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY?
As a newbie I was surprised too. I put down that "I hope I can" since no date has been set and it isn't easy for me to leave work. This decision is about more than executing juveniles.
Are we forgetting POTUS has the final say over decisions he feels SCOTUS makes badly??"
I think we got rid of this principle in 1776.
Not exactly. The USSC has no way to enforce it's rulings. We the people could just as easily rumple their hair and say: "Aw, you made a ruling, how cute!" as to obey what they say.
As Jackson said: "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
195 posted on 03/02/2005 6:10:33 PM EST by whd23
What? does this mean?
Impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution all need to be considered.
We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.
I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny. The nebulous references to "growing national consensus" and citations of "international law" are just too much to countenance. What does it take to make 5 of these justices cognizant of the fact that their authority to preside originates in the US CONSTITUTION?
When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?
To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.
Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful. Congress can and should impeach federal judges for blatently unconstitutional rulings that manufacture law.
Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.