Skip to comments.
Are the courts the final arbiter of the Constitution? RE: CFR, more
GeronL
Posted on 03/20/2002 10:01:16 PM PST by GeronL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
To: GeronL
Like Roe Vs Wade. It was an issue the courts had no business deciding. Indubitably. I am merely pointing out that the histrionics on these threads are pathetic. "If the SC rules against something that I like, then it's time to end this awkward period and begin the open armed revolt!" Sheesh. The ideologues need to get a life.
To: Cultural Jihad
I am merely seeking that the Imperial Court should be reigned in to its Constitutional limits.
Bork: It is possible to be at once critical of the majoritys legal performance in Bush v. Gore and yet recognize that such performances are inevitable, or at least almost irresistible, when the pressure is high enough. Very few people today are critical of the courts 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, though this first broad assertion of the power of judicial review came in a case over which the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction and which required the wilful misconstruction of a congressional statute in order to gin up a bogus constitutional issue
22
posted on
03/20/2002 10:48:59 PM PST
by
GeronL
To: GeronL
I would agree with that.
I started reading Bork's opinion, I will save it for morning when I will be in better shape to digest it.
Thanks
To: Pistias
I'm afraid I'm going to have to cite you, sir--Wanton use of Churchill. It's a Class C misdemeanor. This fellow Winston should never have been allowed to plagiarize my best lines.
To: Fish out of Water
I'm afraid it only touches on the purview of the courts, but it is clear he doesn't believe that courts have the power to throw out whatever they want. He also thinks it might be a lost cause =o(
25
posted on
03/20/2002 10:55:01 PM PST
by
GeronL
To: GeronL
Like Roe Vs Wade. It was an issue the courts had no business deciding. Then you can thank the 14th amendment for that one. Now the 14th amendment, which I hate with a passion, is a part of the constitution. It allowed the R v. W case to be heard in front of them since the amendment has been used to whittle away states rights since its inception sometimes for the good but mostly for ill. Once one state law is found unconstitutional every other state law that is similar in major parts are also unconstitutional. Now as to Bork's words on the election. The only thing the Republicans did was to turn the dagger of "equal protection under the law" back at the Liberals for once. It gave them the opening to argue the issues that the case was decided on.
To: Cultural Jihad
The Gutenberg Project has many of his writings available for download. I downloaded 'The Crossing'. First I have to finish reading the autobiography of Ben Franklin.
27
posted on
03/20/2002 10:56:24 PM PST
by
GeronL
To: Texasforever
But the courts, the first court it came to should have thrown it out. It should have refused to change the laws after the election.
28
posted on
03/20/2002 10:57:48 PM PST
by
GeronL
To: GeronL
But the courts, the first court it came to should have thrown it out. It should have refused to change the laws after the election You are mixing state courts up with federal courts.
To: Texasforever
Any court. No court, state or federal should have even considered changing the rules ex post facto
30
posted on
03/20/2002 11:04:09 PM PST
by
GeronL
To: GeronL
But the courts, the first court it came to should have thrown it out. It should have refused to change the laws after the election. I believe that was the intended result, of the majority SC ruling. Didn't the USSC throw it back to the FSC, directing them to act according to existing election laws, passed by the Fla. legislature?
Meaning stop illegal FSC directed recounts (ad infinitum), observe legislated cutoff dates; Bush wins Fla. electoral votes and becomes 43rd President?
To: truth_seeker
That was their point the first time. The second time they actually had to violate their own principles to smack that stupid little court around.
32
posted on
03/20/2002 11:22:17 PM PST
by
GeronL
To: *CFR list; *Silence, America!;*Constitution list;*Gov_Watch
Check the
Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.
To: GeronL
"The Law of Five" (Justices). It will be until we say "NO!"
To: Buffalo Bob
Hell NO! American gun owners are!!!!!!!!!! Exactley what I was thinking....
To: GeronL
Are the courts the final arbiter of the Constitution? "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone"
(James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
We are coming closer and closer to the point where we the people will have to exercise the authority that we possess to return to the Constitutional Republic that the founders gave us. It is a gift too precious to let slip away.
To: patent
I saw on another thread that you are a lawyer. I thought you might be able to add something to this and give some background on the Supreme Court's power grab.
Thanks
To: Fish out of Water
>>>>give some background on the Supreme Court's power grab.
Ooof. That is a 20 page paper. I don't quite have the time to do that. A couple quick comments, yes the SC is the final arbiter of the Constitution, but that does not mean that they are our overlords. They can be impeached, and that is a check on their power. Congress can also change the nature of the Court to some degree, cahnge some of its jurisdiction, things like that. Its all part of the checks and balances. All that is meaningless though if Congress is either as corrupt as the Court or if Congress is spineless.
patent
38
posted on
03/22/2002 7:55:53 AM PST
by
patent
To: patent
I can imagine that an explanation of the Supreme Courts power grab could be quite lengthy. I would agree that the way our system has evolved that the Supreme Court is now the final arbitrator of what is Constitutional but from my reading of history I dont believe that was intended when the Constitution was written.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Maybe you could point me to a good source for more information. I have a great deal of interest in our Constitution and how our government operates in accordance with it. I read Borks opinion on the Gore Bush Supreme Court opinion linked above and have read some on Marbury v Madison.
To: Fish out of Water
I would love to recommend a book but right now I can't think of a good one. I know I've read a couple, but its a couple years back and I don't own them or recall their names. Things related to the Marbury case are probably a pretty good place to start, by the way. I apologize that I'm not more help.
patent
40
posted on
03/22/2002 1:57:34 PM PST
by
patent
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41 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