Skip to comments.
How about Amendment XXVIII to our Constituion? (The Supreme Court shall make no law..."
Free Republic ^
| 26 MARCH 2005
| R. DeWynne Brown, III
Posted on 03/26/2005 9:01:02 AM PST by rdb3
I'm making this post of mine available to all of FR for discussion:
To: Red Badger; jwalsh07; Southack; mhking; Howlin
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.........The best part of The Constitution.
The Supreme Court shall find no flaw........Should be in there somewhere........
I'm surprised that no one replied to your post here. You may have posted in jest, but you're on to something!
Think about it. Article III , Sections 1 & 2 of the Constitution provide for the functions of the Supreme Court, and the inferior courts. Only the Supreme Court is Constitutionally mandated. The inferior courts are not.
But let's get back to what you said. "The Supreme Court shall find no law..." That's actually in the Constitution! Take a look at Article III, Section 2. It explicitly states:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...
There you have it. The Supreme Court's power only extends to matters of laws on the books, not the Justices opinion(s).
To rectify this situation, and to prevent federal courts from legislating as opposed to interpreting, Amendment XVIII should be added to our Constitution which says exactly what you wrote: "The Supreme Court shall find no law".
Where would I be wrong?
453 posted on
03/26/2005 10:00:54 AM CST by
rdb3 (I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice.)
TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; schiavo; scotus; terri; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Thoughts?
1
posted on
03/26/2005 9:01:07 AM PST
by
rdb3
To: rdb3
Well past time. Should have been thought of shortly after Marbury v. Madison.
2
posted on
03/26/2005 9:04:10 AM PST
by
WinOne4TheGipper
(He's (Bush) ruining everything we worked for. ~Aging communist, who lives at a "Red" nursing home.)
To: rdb3
You'd better add an X...
I know you meant the 28th amendment, not the 18th... unless you think we need to fill up the hole created when we repealed the first 18th amendment? ;-)
3
posted on
03/26/2005 9:04:54 AM PST
by
mwyounce
To: rdb3
You need, what 3/5 of the states to pass an Amendment.
The republicans hold a tad more than 50% of the state governors offices and ?? of state legislatures.
Something as sensitive as limiting socialist causes might not stand much of a chance, regardless of how sensible.
Might be worth the try, though. Possibly further limit the influence of MSM and ultra-libs.
4
posted on
03/26/2005 9:05:34 AM PST
by
Prost1
(New AG, Berger is still free!)
To: rdb3; TexasCowboy; MeekOneGOP
BTTT
(Hit your ping lists)
5
posted on
03/26/2005 9:05:42 AM PST
by
Fiddlstix
(This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
To: rdb3
They'd get around it. They'll just twist existing laws.
6
posted on
03/26/2005 9:07:42 AM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
To: Prost1
You need, what 3/5 of the states to pass an Amendment.
Make that 3/4. And 2/3 of both houses of Congress.
7
posted on
03/26/2005 9:14:58 AM PST
by
UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
(Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
To: Prost1
The republicans hold a tad more than 50% of the state governors offices
Oh, and governors have nothing to do with it. Constitutional amendments don't get signed by any executives.
8
posted on
03/26/2005 9:17:48 AM PST
by
UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
(Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
I know that. But it takes local support to push the issue through the state legislatures. Knowing the political balance is one metric for measuring success.
9
posted on
03/26/2005 9:24:43 AM PST
by
Prost1
(New AG, Berger is still free!)
To: rdb3; Fiddlstix; Alamo-Girl; onyx; ALOHA RONNIE; SpookBrat; Republican Wildcat; Howlin; ...
How about Amendment XVIII to our Constituion?
(The Supreme Court shall make no law...)
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.
10
posted on
03/26/2005 9:25:57 AM PST
by
MeekOneGOP
(There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
To: mwyounce; Admin Moderator
You're right. I was typing in a hurry with something on the stove. Admin, could you please edit the title? It should be XXVIII, not XVIII.
11
posted on
03/26/2005 9:28:55 AM PST
by
rdb3
(I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice.)
To: WinOne4TheGipper; rdb3
To rectify this situation, and to prevent federal courts from legislating as opposed to interpreting, Amendment XVIII should be added to our Constitution which says exactly what you wrote:
"The Supreme Court shall find no law".
Where would I be wrong?
453 rdb3
______________________________________
Should have been thought of shortly after Marbury v. Madison.
2 WinOne4TheGipper
You would be wrong in thinking that our Constitution allows federal courts to legislate 'law', as opposed to interpreting whether the law in question is itself Constitutional.
Marbury made clear that the USSC is just as bound to support the principles of the Constitution as Legislators. - Or the Executive.
Nothing has changed since 1803 except our political system, - and the men in that system who dishonor their oaths to support the Constitution.
In Marbury vs Madison Jefferson Saw the Beginning of Judicial Tyranny
Address:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368285/posts
12
posted on
03/26/2005 9:29:47 AM PST
by
P_A_I
To: rdb3
The USSC will just "interpret " it to mean that they can do what they want. "its a living, breathing document"
13
posted on
03/26/2005 9:40:24 AM PST
by
avile
To: rdb3
Amendment (X)XVIII should be added to our Constitution which says exactly what you wrote: "The Supreme Court shall find no law". The following practical problem must be solved first. The judicial can make totally illogical and nonsensical twists of logic to make a clear law do the opposite of what the legislature intended. It happens all the time.
How do we prevent that?
A clear example of this is the RICO laws. They were passed to fight organized crime and terrorism; at least that was my understanding.
They have been applied mostly against individuals and anti-abortion groups.
The court's role should be limited to stating why a proposed law is unconstitutional, and send it back to the legislature to clarify; as many times as it takes.
The judicial should never be allowed to modify, substitute, or to twist the original intent of the legislature. That is clearly unlawful usurpation of the powers of the legislature.
14
posted on
03/26/2005 9:53:21 AM PST
by
Publius6961
(The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
To: MeekOneGOP; rdb3
Ha! Fat chance of this happening.
Why do we need the other branches of government, when the judicial branch can do it all?
They can create law, interpret law, enforce, execute, and even over-ride law.
Judges have the ability to be dictators in their own court rooms. That power has got to go to their heads. No one challenges them, except maybe a judge higher up the chain. But they do allow each other professional courtesy. Consider the Schiavo case.
- And our Congress and President aren't going to challenge them either.
They in effect, now rule our land, and the great unwashed masses abide with it.
All Rise!
15
posted on
03/26/2005 9:57:06 AM PST
by
FBD
( “The measure of a society is how it treats the least of us.)
To: rdb3
No amendment needed, Art 3 states the congress's power.
Just no longer fund the current court system.
The Supremes ( apologizes to that soul group) as envisioned as being necessary to only take care of differences between the states and the states and the federalis.
16
posted on
03/26/2005 10:01:26 AM PST
by
dts32041
(When did the Democratic party stop being the political arm of the KKK?)
To: dts32041
No amendment needed, Art 3 states the congress's power.
True, but this amendment would drive the point home.
17
posted on
03/26/2005 10:05:10 AM PST
by
rdb3
(I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice.)
To: rdb3
If they don't have money they don't exist, and they can enjoy that most pleasant of deaths starvation.
BTW when will that be the new form of Capital Punishment.
18
posted on
03/26/2005 10:07:30 AM PST
by
dts32041
(When did the Democratic party stop being the political arm of the KKK?)
To: Publius6961
"The court's role should be limited to stating why a proposed law is unconstitutional, and send it back to the legislature to clarify;"
But that is exactly what the SC did here in MA< and instead of that being done, same sex marriage went thru as law.
19
posted on
03/26/2005 10:52:31 AM PST
by
gidget7
To: FBD
All Rise! More like all rise UP!
Time for ALL of Bush's judicial nominations to get and up or down VOTE!!
I'm sick of the filibustering of judges by the 'RATS.
20
posted on
03/26/2005 11:02:17 AM PST
by
MeekOneGOP
(There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson