NationStates Jolt Archive

In the past we've seen the 9th Amendment get construed for some rather bizzare uses. Now, understand that I think the 9th amendment is vital to the Constitution; I do not wish to get rid of it.

However, a problem arises when the SCOTUS makes a decision around it. That problem is that because of judicial review, it causes the 9th Amendment (or whatever law in question for htat matter) to become "rewritten" (not literally but in an interprative sense) to suit the ruling of the court.

I say get rid of judicial review (whose origin is a bit of a farce, see Marbury v Madison), so that when the SCOTUS makes a ruling (be it good or bad), its effect is not as widespread. W/o judicial review anymore the Court has to return to a case-by-case interpretation of the law (precedent ruling is gone now).

What's the point of having a Supreme Court at all, then?

1:What is SCOTUS?
2:What does the 9th amendmant say?

1:What is SCOTUS?
Supreme Court of the United States

2:What does the 9th amendmant say?
It is the one that says not all rights of the people are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution?

1:What is SCOTUS?

SCOTUS (http://www.google.se/search?q=scotus&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)

2:What does the 9th amendmant say?

9th amendment. (http://www.google.se/search?q=9th+amendment&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

US Consitution Online (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

Before judicial review the Supreme Court was a court without teeth. Interpreting our laws is the entire point. The entire legal system is also built on precedents, without it most of our current civil rights would never have happened.

What's the point of having a Supreme Court at all, then?

Furthermore, what would be the point of the 9th Amendment? We would need to detail every single right that we are afforded if the court was not allowed to interpret the 9th amendment. We would go from everything not prohibited being legal to everything not allowed is illegal.

It is amazing, most of the people posting replies are not from the United States, unfortunately our interest in your laws etc. are not even considered shoot most of us couldn't tell you about the US. much less your countries.

A powerful, independent judiciary is the only protection we are afforded from the tyranny of the majority.

A powerful, independent judiciary is sine qua non in guaranteeing that we have rights.

(precedent ruling is gone now).

you really don't want that.

You aren't talking about Judicial review. Judicial review only means that the Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress or the President unconstitutional. This power is necessary if we have any intention of taking our consitution seriously.

What you are talking about is getting rid of stare decisis, which is frankly absurd and more or less means that you would be getting rid of the Supreme Court altogether, not to mention the very thing that gives our legal system some modicum of order.

It is amazing, most of the people posting replies are not from the United States, unfortunately our interest in your laws etc. are not even considered shoot most of us couldn't tell you about the US. much less your countries.

It's not that amazing. At least here, schools do teach the basics of other countries' legal and political systems, and how would you interact with people from other countries if you knew nothing about them?

how would you interact with people from other countries if you knew nothing about them?

BY TALKING REEEAALLY SLLLOOOWWW AND LOOOUUUUUDDD [/stereotype]

It's not that amazing. At least here, schools do teach the basics of other countries' legal and political systems, and how would you interact with people from other countries if you knew nothing about them?

Here they really only teach us the basics of other nations' forms of government, not which nations have which systems. So, most intelligent Americans could tell you the difference between a constitutional monarchy and a federal republic and such, but not which system Sweden has.

BY TALKING REEEAALLY SLLLOOOWWW AND LOOOUUUUUDDD [/stereotype]

Have any other Americans had this experience with someone speaking a language other than English? I was in the city the other day and some Haitian lady came up to me asking for directions in French, and when I looked confused (because I couldn't understand what she was saying), she repeated herself, still in French, very slowly. I always just figured that Americans were the only ones that arrogant.

BY TALKING REEEAALLY SLLLOOOWWW AND LOOOUUUUUDDD [/stereotype]

Slowly and loudly. I didn't learn your language to see you butcher it! ;) :fluffle:

Here they really only teach us the basics of other nations' forms of government, not which nations have which systems. So, most intelligent Americans could tell you the difference between a constitutional monarchy and a federal republic and such, but not which system Sweden has.

For the record: Sweden is a constitutional monarchy based on a representative, parliamentary democracy, which sees the unicameral parliament as the strongest of the governing institutions and the government subordinate to it, constantly in need of its support and approval. The Judicial branch is divided into criminal and administrative courts, neither of which applies a jury system, with the Supreme Court being the highest criminal court, and not a Constitutional Court. Constitutionality is safeguarded through a plethora of Ombudsmen and a parliamentary committee on the constitution. The Monarch, who is head of state, has no political power, but only representative duties. The non-representative rolls played in other countries by the Head of State are divided between the Prime Minister, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the Speaker of Parliament - all different persons.

I guess that would cover the basics.

Have any other Americans had this experience with someone speaking a language other than English? I was in the city the other day and some Haitian lady came up to me asking for directions in French, and when I looked confused (because I couldn't understand what she was saying), she repeated herself, still in French, very slowly. I always just figured that Americans were the only ones that arrogant.

Tha Francophones have even you beat! :p

you really don't want that.
And all that would do is waste the court's time. Stare decisis is just a way of either saying "we defer to the judgment of a higher court" or "we're agree with the arguments made in X" instead of restating the arguments again and again.

What you are talking about is getting rid of stare decisis, which is frankly absurd and more or less means that you would be getting rid of the Supreme Court altogether, not to mention the very thing that gives our legal system some modicum of order.

hey man, it'd be fun. decisions based interpretations based on the random whims of some lunatic judge, with no continuity between one decision and the next. now that's a party.

Have any other Americans had this experience with someone speaking a language other than English? I was in the city the other day and some Haitian lady came up to me asking for directions in French, and when I looked confused (because I couldn't understand what she was saying), she repeated herself, still in French, very slowly. I always just figured that Americans were the only ones that arrogant.


If you have a weak grasp of a foreign language, it is much much easier to understand it when spoken slowly and clearly.

In the past we've seen the 9th Amendment get construed for some rather bizzare uses. Now, understand that I think the 9th amendment is vital to the Constitution; I do not wish to get rid of it.

However, a problem arises when the SCOTUS makes a decision around it. That problem is that because of judicial review, it causes the 9th Amendment (or whatever law in question for htat matter) to become "rewritten" (not literally but in an interprative sense) to suit the ruling of the court.

I say get rid of judicial review (whose origin is a bit of a farce, see Marbury v Madison), so that when the SCOTUS makes a ruling (be it good or bad), its effect is not as widespread. W/o judicial review anymore the Court has to return to a case-by-case interpretation of the law (precedent ruling is gone now).

...you DO realize that Judicial Review is the ONLY power the Supreme Court weilds over the other branches correct? Eliminating it makes SCOTUS effectively pointless except for a few occasional ceremonial purposes.

Look, if another case comes up, it is reviewed again through the proper channels because of appeal.