Posted on 03/03/2005 5:34:47 AM PST by totherightofu
Chief Justice Rehnquist said in his report on Friday that it had been clear since early in the country's history that "a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment."
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldtribune.com ...
No you have not answered that question at any place in this thread but that is ok since your refusal to do so only confirms my position.
justshutupandtakeit,
Against my better judgement, which suggests you are beyond all hope of succour, I shall reply and rebut one last time. After this, I shall no longer attempt your redemption.
You say:
"There is no doubt that the meaning of the phrase "cruel and unusual" has changed.... there is no doubt that the Founders wrote that phrase knowing that it would not mean the same in 2005 as it did in 1789 THEY weren't idiots."
No, the Founders were NOT idiots.
They were well aware of the need for mutability, just as they were aware, unlike YOU, that such mutability had to be difficult and controlled.
This is why they built into the Constitution exactly TWO mechanisms for its alteration: AMENDMENT and CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Of which, NEITHER has been enacted for the alteration of either the Eighth or the Fourteenth Amendments - which Amendments being those this Court has twisted to support their fiat.
And yet... you have stated, repeatedly now, that the mechanisms for altering the meaning of the Constitution are a mere matter of opinion.
You, sir, are daft.
You are also no conservative.
As to the remainder of your lunatic burbling: you call me a liar, you assert that I spread falsehoods?
You didn't even read the damned majority ruling, did you, smart-guy? Allow me to rub your nose in the words of the ruling itself!
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01mar20051115/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-633.pdf
***
You say: "(No one ever claimed )...that they checked to see if a majority of states believed one way or the other about the execution of young killers"
roper v simmons, syllabus, part a:
"the objective indicia of national consensus here - the rejection of the juvenile death penalty in the majority of States"
(spuriously derived, as Antonin Scalia eloquently explains in the dissenting view)
***
You say: "No one ever claimed that their opinions used foreign law as a basis."
roper v simmons, syllabus, part c:
"The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court's determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18."
(given that the "consensus" argument is void, and the "changed meaning" of the constituton argument is pure baloney, relying as it does on the validity of EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS for enacting such a change, this third and final "justification" for the Court's finding is the ONLY ONE REMAINING. DEAL WITH IT, SMART GUY)
my latest is my last to this daft creature.
justshutupandtakeit wrote:
Instructions from you to study Marbury are hilarious.
Marshall never said government officials can ignore laws they consider "repugnant" nor has any other rational person.
Each and every individual does not have the option of deciding which laws are acceptable the him. There are many I would consider "repugnant" and would like to ignore but I don't have that freedom.
_____________________________________
Marshall's main point in Marbury is that any law, made at any level of fed, state or local government -- or any court ruling on a law, -- is null and void if it does not conform to the US Constitutions principles.
-- And that all judges & officials at any level are honor bound by their oaths of office to reject such repugnant laws, refuse to enforce them, or work to repeal them.
Obviously this is not being done, and it is a failure of our political system, not one of our Constitution .. 211
Marbury v. Madison
Address:http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Marbury/
______________________________________
Here above is what I wrote about Marbury, and what Marshall wrote.
Your imaginings about what I wrote are ludicrous, --- and your ignorance of Marshall's main point is evident to anyone that reads the decision.
this is exactly why lifetime appointments MUST END! one 15 year term, and out.
You cannot change the FACT that the meaning of the term "cruel and unusual punishment" has changed. There is no need to change the Constitution since the meaning of the language outside the document has changed. It is still relevent and still controlling.
There IS a "national consensus" as referenced in the ruling against the Death Penalty for juveniles. The Court considered actions of state legislatures and "...the Court's own determination in the exercise of its independent judgment..." as well as the "trend" against its use and the infrequency of use even where allowed. This is FAR different than merely consulting state laws contrary to your allegation.
Your quote shows the falsity of your prior claim since the ruling clearly states that the international consensus "...is NOT controlling here..." "but provides significant and respected confirmation for the Court's determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18."
Don't you even read what you quote? This completely confirms what I have claimed- that the Court did NOT BASE its ruling on international law. Now an honest man would admit I am correct but I don't expect that from you given your method of argument through distortion.
Your argument is in shambles to any who rely on logic rather than ideological blindness to form an opinion.
Marbury does not instruct officials to ignore laws they don't wish to obey. It states a truth but does not pretend that Moe, Larry and Curly get to decide upon constitutionality.
your daftness is appalling.
If he feels that way, then let him declare all Jews to be exterminated.
The problem with judges uis that they are lawyers, and lawyers are taught that courts and judges are dictators without question.
In many ways, Mr. Justice Marshall's words are foolish. On the one hand, he declares:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
But then he announces:
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
The two statements are absolutely contradictory. No one can maintain a pretense of being "bound by" the Constitution, while simultaneously claiming a right to "say what the [Constitution] is." It is an logical impossibility, directly equivalent to a claim that 'A>B and B>A'...
;>)
;>)
In many ways, Mr. Justice Marshall's words are foolish. On the one hand, he declares:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
But then he announces:
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
The two statements are absolutely contradictory. No one can maintain a pretense of being "bound by" the Constitution, while simultaneously claiming a right to "say what the [Constitution] is." It is an logical impossibility, directly equivalent to a claim that 'A>B and B>A'...
;>)
What can be said to counter your complete inablity to understand Marshall's main point?
-- Read the first line you quoted in context:
" --- If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect?
Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it were a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.
If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each.
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case.
This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. ---- "
Galt, you really do need to take a remedial reading course if you see Marshall contradicting himself above.
Actually, you "need to take a remedial reading course" if you fail to see the absolutely illogical nature of Mr. Justice Marshall's claims. As John Taylor of Caroline noted almost two centuries ago:
"The word supreme is used twice in the constitution, once in reference to the superiority of the highest federal court over the inferior federal courts, and again in declaring "that the constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby"... Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution supreme over the court?"
Once again, you can't have it both ways (although that is quite obviously your usual preference). What say you: is the Constitution supreme over the 'high' court, or is the court supreme over the Constitution (able to "say what the law is")?
;>)
(Sorry - I forgot to include the citation for that quote. It's from John Taylor's "New Views of the Constitution of the United States," published in 1823. BTW - the "New Views" part of the title refers to "views" such as yours, not his... ;>)
Actually, you "need to take a remedial reading course" if you fail to see the absolutely illogical nature of Mr. Justice Marshall's claims. As John Taylor of Caroline noted almost two centuries ago:
"The word supreme is used twice in the constitution, once in reference to the superiority of the highest federal court over the inferior federal courts, and again in declaring "that the constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby"... Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution supreme over the court?"
Marshall had the answer in 1803:
" --- It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
Once again, you can't have it both ways (although that is quite obviously your usual preference). What say you: is the Constitution supreme over the 'high' court, or is the court supreme over the Constitution (able to "say what the law is")? ;>)
As I said, a remedial reading course would make it evident to you that the Marshall quote answering your question was posted before you asked it..
Do try to keep up..
Try to answer the question (for once)...
;>)
"Is the Constitution supreme over the 'high' court, or is the court supreme over the Constitution (able to 'say what the law is')?"
Even your fevered imagination must be able to make a simple choice like this...
;>)
Marshall had the answer in 1803:
" --- It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. -- "
As I said, a remedial reading course would make it evident to you that the Marshall quote answering your question was posted before you asked it..
Do try to keep up..
Try to answer the question (for once)...
As Marshall says, just above, " -- Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, -- [ qualifiers redacted for clarity] -- that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. -- "
You really don't understand Marshall's way of writing, do you?
--- Yes; -- the Constitution is supreme over the court.
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.