Changing law does not mean changing the meaning of words. That is Stalinistic.
We do not change the meaning of words. We do not change the meaning of understood concepts. If we don't like them, we use different words that mean what we like, and different concepts that suit us.
We follow a clearly laid out methodology for changing our laws. If we make changes without following this process we are committing Tyranny. We are usurping powers against the will of the people.
At post 468, I agreed with Jefferson about that issue. Like him, I do not believe that we have any right to try to bind the world for all time to our views about anything. I still agree with Jefferson about that.
Now you are repeating your incorrect reiteration of my and others position. No one is suggesting that people cannot change laws. They can change them to suit their heart's content.
The objection is to this underhanded backdoor deceit of changing the meaning of words, and then asserting the laws mean what those changed words say.
In other words, a propaganda technique to deliberately obfuscate a correct interpretation of something.
THAT is the thing to which we are objecting.
You want to change the law? Go through the process. If the Public doesn't support your attempt to change the law, too bad! Simply redefining the words or concept to mean something else is an effort to impose your will on others, and it ought not be tolerated.
Yes, that is correct. You do disagree with us about the proper role of courts. I am ok with that.
I disagree with an objection to a system without putting forth an explanation as to how it should be done another way.
If you have a better idea than Judicial review, let's hear it. If you don't, then you will have to learn to grasp what Winston Churchill meant about Democracy.
Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
If you don't think the courts should determine whether or not a law falls within the permissible allowance of the U.S. Constitution, then who do you think should do it?
And "nobody" isn't an answer. It is a task which needs to be done from time to time.
No one should disagree with you about that. Jefferson meant only that no generation should attempt to prevent future generations from changing the laws as they see fit. To most people that is obvious. To begin with, we will not be there to stop them. They will and should do as they wish.
I disagree with an objection to a system without putting forth an explanation as to how it should be done another way.
Jefferson believed and I believe that this country can function without granting to the judiciary more power than other branches or states to interpret the Constitution.
For example, in 1973, in a case called Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court claimed that it had the power to declare unconstitutional a Texas statute that made abortion illegal. I believe that this country could function without the Supreme Court having the power to do that. However, by 1973, most people had grown to accept that the Supreme Court has that power, even though, as Jefferson pointed out, that power is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
A few months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals have a constitutional right to get married. I believe that this country could function without the Supreme Court having the power to do that. Again, however, most people have grown to accept that the Supreme Court has that power, even though, as Jefferson pointed out, that power is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
All of this goes back to 1803, when the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison and declared that, why, of course, the Supreme Court should have the power to have the last and final say about what is or is not constitutional. Jefferson believed that that case constituted a usurpation of power that is not provided for in our Constitution. I agree with him. At post 479, I described how this country could function without a Supreme Court that has the last and final word about everything constitutional. How did we function before 1803?
If you don't think the courts should determine whether or not a law falls within the permissible allowance of the U.S. Constitution, then who do you think should do it?
I believe that a court should determine questions of constitutionality when that determination is necessary to perform a judicial function - to decide the case before it. If, for example, a prosecutor shows up and says, "Judge, we want to put this guy in a cage for 20 years, but we need this court to give us a piece of paper called Judgement of Conviction along with a sentence. We know that he is guilty because after we tortured him he confessed." In that case, the court should tell the prosecutor that he better have some other evidence because the court does not feel it can constitutionally rely upon a confession procured by torture and is unwilling to do so. That is an example of a court properly determining a question of constitutionality. The prosecutor goes home unhappy and the defendant goes home, too.
I will give you another example. The government attempts to prosecute a fellow for "willfully criticizing the mayor of our fine city." "And, judge, this statute says that it is illegal to say such things about our mayor. This guy is a no-good troublemaker." The judge could properly refuse to proceed with the case because he believes that he cannot constitutionally convict a defendant for exercising his First Amendment rights. That is another example of a court properly determining the constitutionality of a statute. And, if the next day, the prosecutor shows up with another defendant who cursed the mayor, the judge can send the prosecutor home again. A prosecutor of ordinary intelligence will soon catch on and all will be well in our fine city.
We could live under a system where courts restrain themselves. It is not necessary for them to be searching around for new rights and new definitions. I think Jefferson was right about Marbury.