Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dick: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Cade: Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable
thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should
be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled
o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings:
but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal
once to a thing, and I was never mine own man
since.
- Shakespeare, Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78.
. . .
As a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court, I am not free to make derogatory comments criticizing the justices and federal judges, or statements impugning the integrity of the courts and judicial system. An officer of the court holds privileges not extended to the lay public that come laden with responsibilities governed by rules of professional conduct, the violation of which is subject to severe sanctions. In this regard, my rights under the First Amendment are not the same as yours.
So After reading this entire thread, it does appear that right wing conservatives and libertarians would like the Supreme Court to be taken out of the Constitutional equation, leaving the interpretation of what it actually means to each individual citizen.
What an anarchistic joke that would be.
I stand by my original post on page 1.
The Constitution is meaningless unless you have a Supreme Body that has the ultimate power to interpret it. Our founders knew that with out a Supreme Court with the ultimate power of final arbitration, there would be chaos and governmental gridlock. Legislatures and executives would interpret the constitution to fit their political agenda and there would be no power in the land to check that.
The constitution is the greatest document ever created by man but is useless and just so many words with out the Supreme Court to interpret it and tell the rest of us how it is applied to law and legislation.
"Love It", but would have voted "Like It" if that were an option. It is a great document that has become a benchmark given how far back it was devised, long enough to have been twisted and convoluted in the name of "protecting it", and even the Supreme Courts have done so.
So, why "Like It"? In a way, some of the pandering was necessary to get the Union going, an example being delay of taxation on/discouraging slave trade by a generation, likely with hope that the populace will "grow up". As we know, even 200+ years weren't enough to give up the attitude, and it was one of the causes for the Civil War and all the political games for a few decades leading to it.
So After reading this entire thread, it does appear that right wing conservatives and libertarians would like the Supreme Court to be taken out of the Constitutional equation, leaving the interpretation of what it actually means to each individual citizen.
What an anarchistic joke that would be.
I stand by my original post on page 1.
The Constitution is meaningless unless you have a Supreme Body that has the ultimate power to interpret it. Our founders knew that with out a Supreme Court with the ultimate power of final arbitration, there would be chaos and governmental gridlock. Legislatures and executives would interpret the constitution to fit their political agenda and there would be no power in the land to check that.
The constitution is the greatest document ever created by man but is useless and just so many words with out the Supreme Court to interpret it and tell the rest of us how it is applied to law and legislation.
No. They serve and equal purpose in the Constitution as the other branches of government. I want the other 2 branches to execute their checks against the Judicial branch.
No. They serve and equal purpose in the Constitution as the other branches of government. I want the other 2 branches to execute their checks against the Judicial branch.
Thanks for the clarification.
My thoughts and beliefs are that the Legislative Branch makes the laws and passes the bills. The Executive Branch carries out and implements those bills and laws and the Judiciary (Supreme Court) determines whether or not the laws and bills passed by the legislature and the actions taken by the Executive are constitutional.
Did I misunderstand my Civics 101 class?
The plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment should require no interpretation (infringement) from the Supreme Court.
The entirety of the Constitution is a living document that was designed so that law can be made flexible enough to meet changes in society. The Amendments were addenda to the body whose meaning in a given context was meant to be decided in the courts.
In other words, it is not "infringement" when they offer interpretation - it is their sworn duty in upholding the document.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
