NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to know what everyone thinks about this. Do you think Congress is violating the separation of powers? Do you think the Federal Courts have gone too far? Do you think this is just making a mountain out of a molehill??

Alright, here's my opinion, feel free to respond to it, but I'd prefer to keep this relatively civil(haha yeah right...) so if possible, just respond to the original post and try not to flame and/or post trollbait.

Anyways, I think this is basically Congress making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm going to use the a similar defense to those who defend the patriot act. Basically, the amount of people affected is practically non-existant. In fact, some of the examples given by the Rep. from Texas(his name slips my memory) on C-SPAN didn't seem like they were done by Federal Courts. He cited examples of specific states, which most likely means that a state court made the decision, but then it was pushed to a Federal Court, which most likely just respected the previous ruling.

Granted, I think taking "under god" out of the pledge and banning a private Bible reading by a student in study hall is too far. I think this is a case of a small minority making the wrong decision. If you ask me, why not just make a law that says that reciting the pledge is optional? It isn't in most schools, and you shouldn't be forced to pledge allegiance to anything. You should be able to read a bible in private, but a person should not be forced to hear a prayer in school.

And in fact, I almost think that this is almost a counter-strike on what they perceive as an attack on religion. As much as I hate to admit it, Terry Schaivo is being made into a martyr. There was no law that gave her parents the right to keep her alive and the courts made the correct decision. It's similar to pulling the plug on a terminally ill patient, the husband has a right to do it.

So in reality, all they are doing is forcing religion upon us to make up for religion being "taken away" from us.

Last time I checked, I was able to worship whatever religion I wanted wherever I wanted, so how is this happening? I have yet to meet one person who has been directly affected, so how is this an issue??

Go ahead, post, don't flame please

I want to know what everyone thinks about this. Do you think Congress is violating the separation of powers? Do you think the Federal Courts have gone too far? Do you think this is just making a mountain out of a molehill??

Alright, here's my opinion, feel free to respond to it, but I'd prefer to keep this relatively civil(haha yeah right...) so if possible, just respond to the original post and try not to flame and/or post trollbait.

Anyways, I think this is basically Congress making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm going to use the a similar defense to those who defend the patriot act. Basically, the amount of people affected is practically non-existant. In fact, some of the examples given by the Rep. from Texas(his name slips my memory) on C-SPAN didn't seem like they were done by Federal Courts. He cited examples of specific states, which most likely means that a state court made the decision, but then it was pushed to a Federal Court, which most likely just respected the previous ruling.

Granted, I think taking "under god" out of the pledge and banning a private Bible reading by a student in study hall is too far. I think this is a case of a small minority making the wrong decision. If you ask me, why not just make a law that says that reciting the pledge is optional? It isn't in most schools, and you shouldn't be forced to pledge allegiance to anything. You should be able to read a bible in private, but a person should not be forced to hear a prayer in school.

And in fact, I almost think that this is almost a counter-strike on what they perceive as an attack on religion. As much as I hate to admit it, Terry Schaivo is being made into a martyr. There was no law that gave her parents the right to keep her alive and the courts made the correct decision. It's similar to pulling the plug on a terminally ill patient, the husband has a right to do it.

So in reality, all they are doing is forcing religion upon us to make up for religion being "taken away" from us.

Last time I checked, I was able to worship whatever religion I wanted wherever I wanted, so how is this happening? I have yet to meet one person who has been directly affected, so how is this an issue??

Go ahead, post, don't flame please

Actually the funny thing is Republicans (or is it conservatives, hard to tell) say that their is a sanctity of marriage, but deny the sanctity of it when Terry was likely to have feeding tube removed.

The Husband according to bible and the sanctity of mariage says husband has final word. So this case never should have been in trial to the higher courts(federal is higher).

But don't worry this will back fire of them.

Granted, I think taking "under god" out of the pledge and banning a private Bible reading by a student in study hall is too far. I think this is a case of a small minority making the wrong decision. If you ask me, why not just make a law that says that reciting the pledge is optional? It isn't in most schools, and you shouldn't be forced to pledge allegiance to anything. You should be able to read a bible in private, but a person should not be forced to hear a prayer in school.

Reciting the pledge is optional.

Reciting the pledge is optional.

Not in my school. I saw students get detention for refusing to recite the pledge. Please explain to me how that is optional.

Not in my school. I saw students get detention for refusing to recite the pledge. Please explain to me how that is optional.
Either you go to a private school or your school/teacher is breaking the law.

Not in my school. I saw students get detention for refusing to recite the pledge. Please explain to me how that is optional.

Just call the ACLU, they will fight for you!

Seriously in that situation I bet they will come running for that fight. It is supposed to be optional, but some schools are breaking the law.

Granted, I think taking "under god" out of the pledge and banning a private Bible reading by a student in study hall is too far. I think this is a case of a small minority making the wrong decision. If you ask me, why not just make a law that says that reciting the pledge is optional? It isn't in most schools, and you shouldn't be forced to pledge allegiance to anything. You should be able to read a bible in private, but a person should not be forced to hear a prayer in school.

I would like to point out that our nation isn't "one nation under God." Due to the level of religious diversity in this country, that is an outright lie.

Also, how about us patriotic atheists who would like to show our allegiance to the US?

The Federal Courts, heck the whole Judiciary System needs to be put back in its place

Yeah forcing people to recite a pledge of allegiance to their country. That's the Land of the "Free" for you.

I so wish NPR had free transcripts from their shows.

There was this awesome speech made by a minister about how he thinks the Govt. trys to use Christianity in a way that is against Christianities principles. That the Govt. uses it to legitimize itself and in doing so cheapens the religion. I can't explain it but his points were awesome.

If I can find anything I will post it.

I would like to point out that our nation isn't "one nation under God." Due to the level of religious diversity in this country, that is an outright lie.

Also, how about us patriotic atheists who would like to show our allegiance to the US?

Just reverse the word "God" and say, "One nation under dog..."

nobody will hear the difference and you will continue to be seen as an upstanding American citizen.

hehe

Just reverse the word "God" and say, "One nation under dog..."

nobody will hear the difference and you will continue to be seen as an upstanding American citizen.

hehe

I just say "One Nation Under Rod," because everyone loves Rod Stewart.

It is the Executive and the Congressional Branches that need their powers stripped away. The Founding Fathers NEVER wanted the Executive Branch, especially the President, to have as much power as it does now. Any attack by the Republican controlled Executive and Congressional branches upon the Judicial Branch should be considered a attack on the Constitution of the United States and the principals of distributed government and power it was founded on.

The problem with America is that no one reads the constitution anymore...

Congress seriously overstepped the boundries laid out in the Constitution. The whole idea behind three branches is that one branch can't control the others. Congress passing laws to force courts to hear cases clearly goes beyond what their job is. The Supreme COurt should reprimand Congress for passing that bill. THe whole Schiavo case should never have gone as far as it did. At every level it was defeated. It should have stopped where it was, Congress had no right to do what they did, and the Supreme Court did the exact right thing to refuse to hear the case.

Yet the Bush administration is so great and can do no wrong. :rolleyes:

It is the Executive and the Congressional Branches that need their powers stripped away. The Founding Fathers NEVER wanted the Executive Branch, especially the President, to have as much power as it does now. Any attack by the Republican controlled Executive and Congressional branches upon the Judicial Branch should be considered a attack on the Constitution of the United States and the principals of distributed government and power it was founded on.

The problem with America is that no one reads the constitution anymore...
I actually know quite a few who sadly believe the constitution is outdated and irrelevant...

The Federal Courts, heck the whole Judiciary System needs to be put back in its place

Pfft.

The federal courts are occupying the place they were put by Article III of the Constitution.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article VI) and the courts are the interpreters thereof.

If you wish to make a complaint, identify the problem, please.

It is the Executive and the Congressional Branches that need their powers stripped away.
I read somewhere that the Executive Branch was supposed to be the weakest branch....

Anyways, while we're at it we should abolish the Federal Government :p
But seriously, the Feds need to be cut down to size.

Don't get me wrong, we need Federal Government, but we need a Federal Government that knows it's place and respects the rights of Local Government and Local Courts.

We need to look back to the Constitution and the founding fathers to do this.


...


...


Dear God I sound like a conservative trying to get America to go back to a existance of Puritan Morality that never existed in the first place.

Originally the judicial branch was meant to be the weakest branch. When plans were made to move the Capitol to Washington D.C. everyone forgot about the Supreme Court (they didn't do much) and didn't give them a place to meet. Luckily someone remembered and they found a basement for them.

The Executive branch (outside of war) is weak. The power is mostly symbolic. The reason the President seems so powerful is we expect him to be powerful. A lot of credence is given to his ideas because so many people respect or fight tooth and nail against them.

Nikoko has a good point. though. Too much power has been given to the Legislative and Executive branches. I don't think the Judiciary has too much power, they have enough. THey don't need any taken away. The Executive and Legislative do need to lose some power.

Pfft.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article VI) and the courts are the interpreters thereof.

If you wish to make a complaint, identify the problem, please.
Judicial Activism does NOT judge Constitutional law on the construction of the Constitution - it flourishes on what judges believe what the law *should be in their opiion*.

I know this is drastic-sounding, but what about an amendment which directly states that a judge's decision must come from the basis of the Constitution's construction (writing)?

Granted, I think taking "under god" out of the pledge and banning a private Bible reading by a student in study hall is too far. I think this is a case of a small minority making the wrong decision. If you ask me, why not just make a law that says that reciting the pledge is optional? It isn't in most schools, and you shouldn't be forced to pledge allegiance to anything. You should be able to read a bible in private, but a person should not be forced to hear a prayer in school.

which is why we have appellate courts. anyone denied the right to read the bible on their own time will have that stupid ruling reversed somewhere along the line.

the republicans are on some kind of power trip. they have got it into their head that everything they think should be done. the courts fully reviewed the schiavo case. more than fully. there was no activism involved, every last judge followed the law as it was written. that they didnt LIKE it is the republicans problem. its scary that they think that their policies are above the law.

if they keep up with this insanity they are going to lose the center that they have so carefully courted over the last 8 years.

That would be an absurd amendment. The whole point of the amendment system is to allow the Constitution to be changed to adapt to current times. Part of the way the Constituiton allows for those changes is through the interpretation of the courts.

Forcing them to work directly from the Constituition makes no sense anyway. The Constituion makes no mention of many situations that may come into the courts today. What would the court do with those, dismiss them all?

I'm sorry, but the proposal that we limit how the courts interpret the Constituiton goes directly against the Constituiton, and is, therefore, completely wrong.

Judicial Activism does NOT judge Constitutional law on the construction of the Constitution - it flourishes on what judges believe what the law *should be in their opiion*.

I know this is drastic-sounding, but what about an amendment which directly states that a judge's decision must come from the basis of the Constitution's construction (writing)?
the only judicial activism that counts is the supreme court (ala roe v. wade) the lower courts are bound by law, precident, and the oversight of higher courts, the highest of which is the supreme court.

if congress doesnt like what the supreme court rules they can change the law or the constitution (whichever applies).

I know this is drastic-sounding, but what about an amendment which directly states that a judge's decision must come from the basis of the Constitution's construction (writing)?

Then you get into the problem that the Constitution is vague and was written in a time when guns were considered the new item on the block and military size determined military power. Which allows for interpretation (that is the job of the Supreme Court) and the judge having to make decisions on items the Constitution has not covered.

If the Congress changes the laws to contravene the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court could strike down those laws. That is the check they have over the Legislative body. The Congress can't pass laws "around" the Supreme Court. It just doesn't work that way.

Nikoko has a good point. though. Too much power has been given to the Legislative and Executive branches. I don't think the Judiciary has too much power, they have enough. THey don't need any taken away. The Executive and Legislative do need to lose some power.
Why should those two branches lose power? Or, more particularly, the legislative branch?

If the Congress changes the laws to contravene the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court could strike down those laws. That is the check they have over the Legislative body. The Congress can't pass laws "around" the Supreme Court. It just doesn't work that way.

It depends.

Congress can pass laws to change any statutory interpretation they disagree with.

Congress can (with the states) amend the Constitution to effect constitutional interpretations.

The President and Congress can also change constitutional interpretations by controlling who is appointed to the Court.

It depends.

Congress can pass laws to change any statutory interpretation they disagree with.

Supreme Court's reply: Unconstitutional. You don't like it, amend the Constitution.

Congress can (with the states) amend the Constitution to effect constitutional interpretations.

Reply of the general populous: Congress, go screw yourselves.

The President and Congress can also change constitutional interpretations by controlling who is appointed to the Court.

Supreme Court's reply: Unconstitutional. You don't like it? Change the Constitution.

Supreme Court's reply: Unconstitutional. You don't like it, amend the Constitution.

Wasn't referring to a ruling that the law was unconstitutional. Just a statutory interpretation issue. :rolleyes:

Even with constitutionality, Congress can keep passing versions until the Court likes one or gives in (or the Court changes).

Reply of the general populous: Congress, go screw yourselves.

Doesn't go to the general populous. Goes to the state legislatures or constitutional conventions -- whichever Congress chooses. Article V (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article05/).

Anyway, answer should usually be "go screw yourselves." But t'ain't always.


Supreme Court's reply: Unconstitutional. You don't like it? Change the Constitution.

Can't.

And new Justices A, B, & C join old X & Y to uphold Congress's law.

Wasn't referring to a ruling that the law was unconstitutional. Just a statutory interpretation issue. :rolleyes:

Even with constitutionality, Congress can keep passing versions until the Court likes one or gives in (or the Court changes).

The problem is that it is the job of the Supreme Court, not of Congress, to deal with interpretations of the Constitution and the job of the courts to deal with interpretations of laws and how to deal with them. The Supreme Court often has to refer back to state laws on an issue when making their decision, as the state may cover it where the Constitution doesn't. The Supreme Court has established this through practice and doesn't like being told what to do.

Doesn't go to the general populous. Goes to the state legislatures or constitutional conventions -- whichever Congress chooses. Article V (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article05/).

Anyway, answer should usually be "go screw yourselves." But t'ain't always.

True. But state legislatures are free to give it to the general populous and the general populous can always remove an entire legislature if they don't like the decision.

Can't.

And new Justices A, B, & C join old X & Y to uphold Congress's law.

I misread it. Must give you the point on this issue.

I think I've made it clear where I stand on this issue in several threads, but to reiterate: The Courts are fine. The attack on the Judiciary by Congress is motivated purely by Republican politics - the Courts are seen as blocking their fundamentalist Christian agenda [which they are, thank god], and so in order to appease their base [which gets to watch their chosen champions flounder] attacks the Courts. That's what this is about. The Courts aren't ruling the Republicans' way, so they're getting upset. Didn't seem upset at Bush v. Gore, though.

Anyway, this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/politics/08judges.html?ex=1270612800&en=d4c2932f876ee779&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland) is of particular interest. If you have a nytimes.com account. Try putting the link in here (www.bugmenot.com) to get around that.

Can't.

And new Justices A, B, & C join old X & Y to uphold Congress's law.

Not really, because no judge, no matter what their political beliefs be, is going to uphold a law that strips power away from themselves.

Why should those two branches lose power? Or, more particularly, the legislative branch?

The legislative branch is dominated by party politics, lobby groups and corporate interests. It is no longer a representitive body of the people, therefor, something needs to be done to minimize the impact of the legislative branch. Either by restricting powers or setting up new regulations in accordance with the checks and balances of the original constitution.

The legislative branch is dominated by party politics, lobby groups and corporate interests. It is no longer a representitive body of the people, therefor, something needs to be done to minimize the impact of the legislative branch. Either by restricting powers or setting up new regulations in accordance with the checks and balances of the original constitution.
Can you elaborate? You realize that in the original constitution, the legislative branch was set up to be by far the most powerful branch, right? And that the legislative branch is more representative of the people than the executive and judicial branches, the latter of which isn't even elected?

Yes, I understand that is was the founding fathers original intentions the Legislative Branch have the greatest power. Perhaps I spoke to soon. My intention is that the American people should exercise it's democratic powers, pressuring and electing representitives that would pass regulation that would limit the power of those who do not have the same interests as those of average American citizens.

I keep thinking that this whole attack on the judiciary is really 'Buyers remorse.'

Most of the Supreme Court appointees where appointed by conservative administrations, and as Salon (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/03/25/republicans_and_schiavo/index_np.html) points out many of the members of the 11th court that made this 'devil judgement' where also republican appointees:
Of the appeals court's 12 active judges, only two dissented. One was the aforementioned Wilson[Clinton appointee who dissented on the ruling]; the other was Judge Gerald Tjofelt, a Republican appointed in 1975 by President Ford. The remainder, who evidently concurred with that Clintonite elitist Whittemore, included six Republicans: Reagan appointee and Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson; George H.W. Bush appointees Carnes, Stanley Birch, Joel Dubina, Susan Black; and, most ironically, William Pryor Jr., who was given a recess appointment by George W. Bush two years ago in the midst of controversy and filibuster by Democratic senators.

So if the majority of these demon judges are already conservative appointees, then this leaves two conclusions (maybe more, but I'll leave that to you all...) This one-
In a Weekly Standard essay titled "Runaway Judiciary," Hugh Hewitt promoted that opportunistic theme. Hewitt predicted confidently that public fury over the Schiavo case will increase support for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's plan "to break the Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees and ... a backlash against any Republican who sides with the Democrats on the coming rules change vote."
or my little quip about buyers remorse. I'm leaning more on the hyper agenda part...

I love that when a decision goes the Republican way, it's the right way. When it goes the other direction, it's whacked out liberal judicial activisim.

If the Supreme Court only ruled based on what it says specifically in the constitution, most federal laws would end up unconstitutional because they aren't listed under the powers of Congress. Where does it say in the constitution that Congess has the right to regulate marriage? I must have missed that clause.

Necessary and Proper. It's a pretty vague idea, and the source of a lot of these whacky moral laws.

"The problem with courts is sometimes they make decisions you don't like."
-- The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

.

"The problem with courts is sometimes they make decisions you don't like."

Jon Stewart is great.