The Asylum   Search Private Messages Options Blogs Images Chat Cam Portals Calendar FAQ's Join  
Asylum Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.8 Asylum Forums > The Lost Forum > So what would be the point of having a Supreme Court then?
  Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread [new thread]    [post reply]
billgerat
Hope-nosis

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: ObamaNation
Posts: 26434
So what would be the point of having a Supreme Court then?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque...0:@@@L&summ2=m&

They could pass this bill all they want, but they'd still have to amend the Constitution.

Frickin' idiots.

__________________
"Republicans: the party that brought us 'Just Say No.' First as a drug policy, then as their entire platform." -Stephen Colbert -

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2004 01:54 AM
billgerat is offline Click Here to See the Profile for billgerat Click here to Send billgerat a Private Message Find more posts by billgerat Add billgerat to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
CHiPsJr
Ginger-headed Troll

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7505

The answer to the thread title is that they would still serve as the ultimate appellate court, would resolve discrepancies between state laws, and could fulfill their Constitutional function of "interpretation" without having the ultimate authority to overturn laws.

People think that the Supreme Court's authority to overturn laws is Constitutionally delegated. It isn't. The court took that authority upon itself in Marbury v. Madison.

As a matter of law, the Congress could indeed pass the bill, and the Court could invalidate it, and the Congress could overturn that decision...and who had ultimate authority would, well, be up in the air.

Not that it matters, because the law won't pass.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2004 02:07 AM
CHiPsJr is offline Click Here to See the Profile for CHiPsJr Click here to Send CHiPsJr a Private Message Find more posts by CHiPsJr Add CHiPsJr to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
J E B Stuart
Administrator

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beyond Mason-Dixon Line
Posts: 29960

I gotta agree with you on this one, Wild Bill, although I haven't seen the actual text of the proposed bill.

Imagine this --- Suppose a bill passes giving Congress authority to, in effect, nullify U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Some time later, the inevitable happens: Congress reverses a decision; the aggrieved party challenges the validity of the law with the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court determines the law is unconstitutional; Congress reverses that decision; and so on.

Talk about a dog chasin' its tail.

Amen.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2004 02:09 AM
J E B Stuart is offline Click Here to See the Profile for J E B Stuart Click here to Send J E B Stuart a Private Message Visit J E B Stuart's homepage! Find more posts by J E B Stuart Add J E B Stuart to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
zim
-

Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 3119

quote:
"I am introducing legislation today to address these serious, pressing issues [Judicial Activism] in a direct and forceful manner. The bill that I have authored, if enacted, will allow Congress, by a two-thirds majority of each House, to reverse a judgment of the Supreme Court. This additional check may only be enforced on rulings concerning the constitutionality of an act of Congress following the enactment of this bill."

-Ron Lewis (R) of Kentucky
hrmn. it would have to be a constitutional amendment, but in all honesty it sounds like a good, yet misplaced idea.

what mr lewis is proposing is a method to amend the constitution without the nasty business of saying "we're amending the constitution." it would allow the congress, by the same vote required for an amendment, to simply re-interpret the constitution as they see fit, as opposed to as the courts see fit. they wish to add another check upon the courts so that the courts say is not the end all and be all.

not necessary in my opinion, the courts say what the law is. the congress can then change constitutional law to allow for their own interpretation if they disagree with the court's decision...

as is sort of being attempted with the whole gay marriage amendment crap.

__________________
insert witty remark

Last edited by CHiPsJr on 11-09-2006 at 08:23 AM

Last edited by zim on 03-17-2004 at 02:18 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2004 02:11 AM
zim is offline Click Here to See the Profile for zim Click here to Send zim a Private Message Find more posts by zim Add zim to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
squee
the amen break

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 4879

I'm with Chips on this one.

Personally I would like to see someone be able to counteract the amount of authority the Courts have garnered for themselves.

The ultimate authority in the US ought to rest with Congress anyway--if power in government is going to be lopsided in any way then it ought to rest with the will of the people and in the deliberation of their representatives.

edit: I would note, Zim, others, that some people are wondering "What's the point of having a Congress" when the Supreme Court can overturn any law they write.

__________________
What does polite society know of the secret hearts of men?
What shows the shuttered window but all the evil you can imagine?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2004 02:17 AM
squee is offline Click Here to See the Profile for squee Click here to Send squee a Private Message Find more posts by squee Add squee to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
zim
-

Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 3119

squee, u may want to read my edit.

congress can amend the constitution to over-rule the supreme court. the supreme court cannot do that, therefore supreme authority _IS_ with the congress and the court cannot "overturn any law they write"

__________________
insert witty remark

Last edited by CHiPsJr on 11-09-2006 at 08:23 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2004 02:21 AM
zim is offline Click Here to See the Profile for zim Click here to Send zim a Private Message Find more posts by zim Add zim to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
J E B Stuart
Administrator

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beyond Mason-Dixon Line
Posts: 29960

Glad Junior made the reference to Marbury v. Madison. For those interested, click here for a little primer on it.

Amen.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2004 02:40 AM
J E B Stuart is offline Click Here to See the Profile for J E B Stuart Click here to Send J E B Stuart a Private Message Visit J E B Stuart's homepage! Find more posts by J E B Stuart Add J E B Stuart to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
zim
-

Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 3119

hey, i think that they should attach a rider to this lil bill that takes away the president's right to issue executive orders... another power that i believe is not fully granted in the constitution, and which was simply taken by the president ... lincoln i believe.

__________________
insert witty remark

Last edited by CHiPsJr on 11-09-2006 at 08:23 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2004 02:54 AM
zim is offline Click Here to See the Profile for zim Click here to Send zim a Private Message Find more posts by zim Add zim to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Paint CHiPs
Smartest Man in the World

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26816

quote:
Originally posted by squee


The ultimate authority in the US ought to rest with Congress anyway--if power in government is going to be lopsided in any way then it ought to rest with the will of the people and in the deliberation of their representatives.



I think part of the point of the constitution is that there IS no "ultimate authority." That's why we have three branches of government, and, accordingly, three equally ultimate authorities.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2004 04:59 AM
Paint CHiPs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Paint CHiPs Click here to Send Paint CHiPs a Private Message Visit Paint CHiPs's homepage! Find more posts by Paint CHiPs Add Paint CHiPs to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
zim
-

Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 3119

PC, except of course for the president, which is the ultimate authority vested in a single person, you know, he can literally ORDER people around... with no real means for the people to argue.

__________________
insert witty remark

Last edited by CHiPsJr on 11-09-2006 at 08:23 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2004 05:05 AM
zim is offline Click Here to See the Profile for zim Click here to Send zim a Private Message Find more posts by zim Add zim to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
3MTA3
Same Tired Monkey

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: I cant say I buy this completely,
Posts: 3062

I dont see how its a good thing at all to have congress unchecked in its legislating. The supreme court has done a fuckload of good for this country using its power of judicial review. Ron Lewis is really just trying to get the jump on faggotry...as it says on his website.

Executive orders set policy for the executive branch. They are not law, they do not carry the force of law and they do not over-ride law. In that they are policy directives issued within the executive branch, executive branch personell are obligated to comply with them...its the whole 'do what yer boss says' thing about a job. I really dont understand the gripe with them...

This whole thread is a waste...buncha masturbation...

__________________
pennis in the sluts machine

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2004 07:11 AM
3MTA3 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for 3MTA3 Click here to Send 3MTA3 a Private Message Visit 3MTA3's homepage! Find more posts by 3MTA3 Add 3MTA3 to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 36297

It is difficult to see how you can have a constitutional framework without a court that can overrule the legislature. Even in the UK that is the case; the difference in the UK is that, modulo the practical difficulties in changing things, the legislature can change the 'constitution' and even that is now limited by the European Human Rights legislation and (I think) other treaties. I imagine that the legislature can sign off those in theory, however, so our 'constitutional framework' is much weaker than that of the US because of the relative ease in which the 'constitution' can be changed. I guess that if the US wasn't a federal nation then something similar might work there but it seems to me that in order to respect the federal and constitutional natures of the US, you need the Supreme Court to mediate even when that means that they have to overrule the national legislature (as well as overruling state legislatures). It is interesting that that wasn't explicitly put into the constitution in the first place, although the Supreme Court (at least) thought that it was implicit in the constitution as written.

__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2004 08:43 AM
Smug Git is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Smug Git Click here to Send Smug Git a Private Message Find more posts by Smug Git Add Smug Git to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
zim
-

Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 3119

quote:
Originally posted by 3MTA3
I dont see how its a good thing at all to have congress unchecked in its legislating. The supreme court has done a fuckload of good for this country using its power of judicial review. Ron Lewis is really just trying to get the jump on faggotry...as it says on his website.

Executive orders set policy for the executive branch. They are not law, they do not carry the force of law and they do not over-ride law. In that they are policy directives issued within the executive branch, executive branch personell are obligated to comply with them...its the whole 'do what yer boss says' thing about a job. I really dont understand the gripe with them...

This whole thread is a waste...buncha masturbation...

yer a bit mistaken on executive orders. i believe lincoln ordered congress to begin a new session around the time of the civil war, i believe reagan ignored congress's part in the ratification of one of the salt treaties and began its implementation (directly contrary to one of the few powere exp[licitly outlined in the constitution) etc.

__________________
insert witty remark

Last edited by CHiPsJr on 11-09-2006 at 08:23 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 03-17-2004 07:18 PM
zim is offline Click Here to See the Profile for zim Click here to Send zim a Private Message Find more posts by zim Add zim to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:27 AM. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
  Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

Forum Jump:
 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - The Asylum >

Copyright © 2014- Imaginet Inc.
[Legal Notice] | [Privacy Policy] | [Site Index]