Posted on 06/30/2003 7:31:46 AM PDT by PhiKapMom
What Conservative Court?
By Bobby Eberle
June 30, 2003
There has been a longstanding charge by liberals, both in government and the media, that the United States Supreme Court is too conservative. This belief has led to scare tactics by Democrat legislators and pundits that President Bush's mission is to stack the entire court system with even more of the dreaded conservative judges. There are many who believe that efforts by Democrats to filibuster judicial nominees such as Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen are done merely to set the stage for when a vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court. But, do the charges from the left hold water? Is the Supreme Court really as conservative as they claim?
The recent rulings by the Supreme Court on a host of social issues proves that the cries by liberals are completely unfounded. Just ask leading social conservative leaders about the so-called "conservative court," and you'll get shaking heads, faces of disappointment, and sighs of defeat. In a week of rulings that could have set a new tone for America, the Supreme Court proved that social traditions take a back seat to mandated social change, states rights has little meaning, and discrimination for the sake of diversity is permissible.
Please Click Here for Full Article!
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
For example, one would say "I would die for my country" but one would not say "I would die for my government."
There is nothing socialist at all with Howlin saying our country should provide afffordable health care. It should. Nothing Howlin says indicates she thinks that the government should do so.
I also believe that we, as a nation, should provide better health care. I happen to think it should be done through a combination of private enterprise, charities, corporate help, and the government as a last resort. I suppose you think I am a socialist as well.
Apparently you and your cohorts do not understand plain English.
If you are a socialist for saying this, then count me in! The healthcare plan they are modeling the precription drug benefit and especially Medicare after is the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan! Since I am a member, I certainly don't consider it a socialist plan.
Can choose my own doctor, hospital, and either have them be part of the Preferred Provider Network or pay more -- my choice. I choose Blue Cross/Blue Shield's PPO plan and if Federal Employees and members of Congress and their staffs have a choice so should seniors.
I don't think sports terminology would be appropriate in this context since he apparently has trouble picking a team. Just MHO...
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.
In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.
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.