But this is the problem I have with that argument:
If people interpret the constitution the way I see it, they are preserving and letting democracy thrive. If people interpret it your way, they are undermining democracy. I believe both are jumps in logic.
And you're questioning the right to privacy by pointing to the Dred Scott case? Yes. The vague nature of the constitution allows rulings to run both ways, but that would seem to be appropriate. The Dred Scott case would be considered horrible now, but it seems to fit in fairly well with the time. Flexible rulings through interpretations of a vague precendent will always be the way of the court. Every freedom which "should be" can not be explicitly stated in the constitution. As such, these situations occur. This brings me back to my first pararaph.
Sandra Day O'Connor Retiring
Mitharx,
First off, you don't need the constitution to have rights and freedoms. Our Democratically elected Congress and State Legislators are more than capable of doing so. For instance, if Roe v. Wade did not exist, most states would grant the right to abortion to its citizens anyway.
Secondly, The Constitution protects us from the government. The government cannot limit our speech. They cannot stop us or search us without probable cause. To say that the Constitution should be flexible enough to create new rights that really don't exist, is to also say that it should be flexible enough to remove rights, such as the ones i listed, that are already there.
First off, you don't need the constitution to have rights and freedoms. Our Democratically elected Congress and State Legislators are more than capable of doing so. For instance, if Roe v. Wade did not exist, most states would grant the right to abortion to its citizens anyway.
Secondly, The Constitution protects us from the government. The government cannot limit our speech. They cannot stop us or search us without probable cause. To say that the Constitution should be flexible enough to create new rights that really don't exist, is to also say that it should be flexible enough to remove rights, such as the ones i listed, that are already there.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth
Goddamned slippery mage.
Goddamned slippery mage.
That seems questionable. There have been cases were people felt legislators were infringing on their rights and took their case to court. The legislators don't have to protect the rights of everyone. They just have to protect the rights of the majority (democratically elected) and can infringe on the rights of the minority. The courts are one way to limit this power of infringement.
The government does limit speech and I believe you know how. The right to speech is not absolute. That's something the courts decided (and probably with good reason). The limiting of rights is not always a bad thing as long as it's done in the name of justice (or reasonable doen in the name of justice).
As for whether or not rights exist if they're not put forth in the constitution, that's also questionable. To say that something must be explicitly in the constitution before it is a valid right removes the flexibility of government (or at least part of it) to adapt to changing environments. If this is the way the constitution actually is, it becomes as much a limiter of freedoms uninterpretted as interpretted.
The government does limit speech and I believe you know how. The right to speech is not absolute. That's something the courts decided (and probably with good reason). The limiting of rights is not always a bad thing as long as it's done in the name of justice (or reasonable doen in the name of justice).
As for whether or not rights exist if they're not put forth in the constitution, that's also questionable. To say that something must be explicitly in the constitution before it is a valid right removes the flexibility of government (or at least part of it) to adapt to changing environments. If this is the way the constitution actually is, it becomes as much a limiter of freedoms uninterpretted as interpretted.
Corth,
I think you're unintentionally making it seem that amending the constitution is an easy task. From what I've gathered, it is one of the toughest things for the legislative branch to do.
As far as the Roe vs. Wade and it being subversive to a democracy, I don't think I can agree. While it was an off-the-wall inturpretation, judicial "legislature" is a necessity at times. Given that amending the constitution is extremely hard, this process (SC decisions) is a way to band-aid fix a problem so that the legislative branch can deal with it when they see fit. When you add the presidents power of executive order to the equation, I think it becomes rather obvious that it was intended for decisions like Roe vs. Wade to be handled by other branches of government -- at least temporarily.
On a side note: If the decision of Roe vs. Wade was truely undermining democracy or our nation, it would be extremely easy for congress to correct this decision by writing legislature banning abortion...not even specifically. The president, given the appellate court would let it slide, would then be able to take this vague legislature and use his EO to ban abortion. But, regardless of how the judical branch justified its decision, since Roe vs. Wade was a good decision, it has not been challenged with enough power to be overridden.
Mitharx,
It is my belief that the constitution was made extremely vague for several reasons. The first being that nobody could come to agreements. Among the framers you had anti-feds/feds, anti-slavery/slaver, etc... The most blatent example of this is the 3/5ths compromise. Secondly, the founders were quite aware that it would be impossible to write every single law necessary for their time, or ours, in any sort of timely fashion -- if it is even possible at all. Our laws and amendments continue to be vague because of the process involved to pass laws and amendments. I'm not about to outline this process because it would take hours and hours of writing, and I have other things to do. The last reason I'll give here is that they are vague because they are the legislative branch. They outline the laws, baring specifics, and let the executive branch execute the laws. I hate to sound repetative, but this is where executive order comes in.
I think you're unintentionally making it seem that amending the constitution is an easy task. From what I've gathered, it is one of the toughest things for the legislative branch to do.
As far as the Roe vs. Wade and it being subversive to a democracy, I don't think I can agree. While it was an off-the-wall inturpretation, judicial "legislature" is a necessity at times. Given that amending the constitution is extremely hard, this process (SC decisions) is a way to band-aid fix a problem so that the legislative branch can deal with it when they see fit. When you add the presidents power of executive order to the equation, I think it becomes rather obvious that it was intended for decisions like Roe vs. Wade to be handled by other branches of government -- at least temporarily.
On a side note: If the decision of Roe vs. Wade was truely undermining democracy or our nation, it would be extremely easy for congress to correct this decision by writing legislature banning abortion...not even specifically. The president, given the appellate court would let it slide, would then be able to take this vague legislature and use his EO to ban abortion. But, regardless of how the judical branch justified its decision, since Roe vs. Wade was a good decision, it has not been challenged with enough power to be overridden.
Mitharx,
It is my belief that the constitution was made extremely vague for several reasons. The first being that nobody could come to agreements. Among the framers you had anti-feds/feds, anti-slavery/slaver, etc... The most blatent example of this is the 3/5ths compromise. Secondly, the founders were quite aware that it would be impossible to write every single law necessary for their time, or ours, in any sort of timely fashion -- if it is even possible at all. Our laws and amendments continue to be vague because of the process involved to pass laws and amendments. I'm not about to outline this process because it would take hours and hours of writing, and I have other things to do. The last reason I'll give here is that they are vague because they are the legislative branch. They outline the laws, baring specifics, and let the executive branch execute the laws. I hate to sound repetative, but this is where executive order comes in.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Congress cannot ban abortion, nor can the president do so with an EO. There is an explicit Constitutional right to an abortion. Defying the Supreme Court in that manner would throw our government into a crisis the likes of which we have not seen in our lifetime.
And I agree it is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution. Which shows that the framers intended that in order to change these fundamental rules that govern our lives, there must be broad political consensus. It cuts both ways. It makes it difficult to grant a right.. and it also makes it difficult to take one away. On the other hand, I personally believe that the 'super majority' needed to amend the constitution is perhaps a bit onerous and should be eased a bit. I think the Constitution should be amended more often so that the job of a judge becomes less political in nature, and they can concentrate on interpreting the law rather than making it.
And I agree it is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution. Which shows that the framers intended that in order to change these fundamental rules that govern our lives, there must be broad political consensus. It cuts both ways. It makes it difficult to grant a right.. and it also makes it difficult to take one away. On the other hand, I personally believe that the 'super majority' needed to amend the constitution is perhaps a bit onerous and should be eased a bit. I think the Constitution should be amended more often so that the job of a judge becomes less political in nature, and they can concentrate on interpreting the law rather than making it.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth
Goddamned slippery mage.
Goddamned slippery mage.
As a side note, I don't believe the Constitution is overly vague. Try reading it some time. It becomes vague when interpretations are forced upon it that have no basis in the text itself.
Article 1, Section 8:
The above are the SOLE powers that the legislative branch of the United States are authorized to use. They are fairly specific really. Between Clause 3 and clause 18, the entire section is rendered obsolete. Why? Those two clauses read together by the modern Supreme Court allow the Federal Government to do just about anything that it wants. Try and figure out exactly how that works. Its interesting that the framers would bother to enumerate all of these powers, considering the fact that just about all of them are authorized by a modern reading of #3 and #18. I guess the key phrase is.. 'modern reading'.
Corth
Article 1, Section 8:
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The above are the SOLE powers that the legislative branch of the United States are authorized to use. They are fairly specific really. Between Clause 3 and clause 18, the entire section is rendered obsolete. Why? Those two clauses read together by the modern Supreme Court allow the Federal Government to do just about anything that it wants. Try and figure out exactly how that works. Its interesting that the framers would bother to enumerate all of these powers, considering the fact that just about all of them are authorized by a modern reading of #3 and #18. I guess the key phrase is.. 'modern reading'.
Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth
Goddamned slippery mage.
Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth wrote:Congress cannot ban abortion, nor can the president do so with an EO. There is an explicit Constitutional right to an abortion. Defying the Supreme Court in that manner would throw our government into a crisis the likes of which we have not seen in our lifetime.
I beg to differ -- Congress can ban abortion. It is well within their powers. Would it be hard? Of course. I believe it was a SC decision that burning the American flag was protected by the first amendment; however, it has not stopped congress from trying to reverse this decision with legislature ever since.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Interesting debate.
I haven't had my coffee yet, so bear with me.
Congress would have to amend the Constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade. Even then, it could probably be argued that it flies in the face of other parts of the Constitution and that discrepancy would have to be remedied by the Supreme Court as well. An easier way to overturn that landmark case is to fill the Supreme Court with (un)sympathetic justices bent on taking away the right to abortion. You guys have no idea how close Roe v. Wade has come to being overturned in subsequent rulings already. O'Connor's retirement is really all that's needed if the "right" justice is confirmed to take her place. If I recall correctly, it was she who was one of the 5 justices who protected Roe v. Wade in the 80s and later. She really was one of the key justices during the last 24 years (her tenure on the Court).
Corth-- The issue with enumerating powers is--again--that men 200+ years ago could not have foreseen what events would occur and what powers were necessary in our day and age. It is impossible to get Congress to shift powers away from the States and to the Federal government--or vice versa--through legislation as politicians will always be politicians and will always be concerned about the next election year. So adding to or deleting from Article 1, Section 8 through an Amendment will never happen. You believe the remedy for the Constitution's rigidity is to make the Amendment process easier. Frankly, that would make me run screaming to Canada (or the Netherlands!).
In the end, I think Corth and I agree the Constitution is an imperfect document. We simply disagree on how to fix the problems.
I'm going to get some coffee...
I haven't had my coffee yet, so bear with me.
Congress would have to amend the Constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade. Even then, it could probably be argued that it flies in the face of other parts of the Constitution and that discrepancy would have to be remedied by the Supreme Court as well. An easier way to overturn that landmark case is to fill the Supreme Court with (un)sympathetic justices bent on taking away the right to abortion. You guys have no idea how close Roe v. Wade has come to being overturned in subsequent rulings already. O'Connor's retirement is really all that's needed if the "right" justice is confirmed to take her place. If I recall correctly, it was she who was one of the 5 justices who protected Roe v. Wade in the 80s and later. She really was one of the key justices during the last 24 years (her tenure on the Court).
Corth-- The issue with enumerating powers is--again--that men 200+ years ago could not have foreseen what events would occur and what powers were necessary in our day and age. It is impossible to get Congress to shift powers away from the States and to the Federal government--or vice versa--through legislation as politicians will always be politicians and will always be concerned about the next election year. So adding to or deleting from Article 1, Section 8 through an Amendment will never happen. You believe the remedy for the Constitution's rigidity is to make the Amendment process easier. Frankly, that would make me run screaming to Canada (or the Netherlands!).
In the end, I think Corth and I agree the Constitution is an imperfect document. We simply disagree on how to fix the problems.
I'm going to get some coffee...
Bleh, I'm gonna be late for class...
You wouldn't have to amend the constitution to overturn Roe vs. Wade. You can completely toss the SC out of the loop by creating legislature for the president to work with. With the state of Congress now, it would be well in the realm of possibility for this to happen too. As an example, the PATRIOT act has lessened the freedoms afforded by the 4th amendment. Again, all that would need to be done would be for congress to pass legislature related to the issue, the president to pass an executive order specifically banning abortion, and the appellate court to let it slide. The SC would be completely out of the picture and would have no vagueness to make another decision like Roe vs. Wade.
You wouldn't have to amend the constitution to overturn Roe vs. Wade. You can completely toss the SC out of the loop by creating legislature for the president to work with. With the state of Congress now, it would be well in the realm of possibility for this to happen too. As an example, the PATRIOT act has lessened the freedoms afforded by the 4th amendment. Again, all that would need to be done would be for congress to pass legislature related to the issue, the president to pass an executive order specifically banning abortion, and the appellate court to let it slide. The SC would be completely out of the picture and would have no vagueness to make another decision like Roe vs. Wade.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle wrote:Bleh, I'm gonna be late for class...
You wouldn't have to amend the constitution to overturn Roe vs. Wade. You can completely toss the SC out of the loop by creating legislature for the president to work with. With the state of Congress now, it would be well in the realm of possibility for this to happen too. As an example, the PATRIOT act has lessened the freedoms afforded by the 4th amendment. Again, all that would need to be done would be for congress to pass legislature related to the issue, the president to pass an executive order specifically banning abortion, and the appellate court to let it slide. The SC would be completely out of the picture and would have no vagueness to make another decision like Roe vs. Wade.
Yeah. And you are forgetting the last step--the appeal to the Supreme Court in this situation. Cases don't begin at the Supreme Court, they end there. Any U.S. law enacted is subject to being argued in the Supreme Court. All that's needed is for someone to disagree with the law, be affected by said law and for the Supreme Court to agree the matter is relevant and worthy of discussion. And trust me, any new debate (ie. new facts, new circumstances, new legislation) on abortion would be deemed worthy of discussion.
Birile wrote:Kifle wrote:Bleh, I'm gonna be late for class...
You wouldn't have to amend the constitution to overturn Roe vs. Wade. You can completely toss the SC out of the loop by creating legislature for the president to work with. With the state of Congress now, it would be well in the realm of possibility for this to happen too. As an example, the PATRIOT act has lessened the freedoms afforded by the 4th amendment. Again, all that would need to be done would be for congress to pass legislature related to the issue, the president to pass an executive order specifically banning abortion, and the appellate court to let it slide. The SC would be completely out of the picture and would have no vagueness to make another decision like Roe vs. Wade.
Yeah. And you are forgetting the last step--the appeal to the Supreme Court in this situation. Cases don't begin at the Supreme Court, they end there. Any U.S. law enacted is subject to being argued in the Supreme Court. All that's needed is for someone to disagree with the law, be affected by said law and for the Supreme Court to agree the matter is relevant and worthy of discussion. And trust me, any new debate (ie. new facts, new circumstances, new legislation) on abortion would be deemed worthy of discussion.
I was just arguing for the possibility not for the probability. I know it isn't very likely that that will happen, since we have checks and balances, but it is possible. Also, in this case the order, wouldn't the D.C. circuit have jurisdiction over this matter rather than the supreme court? Hrm...now that I think about it, it would just be a cyclical process if this were to happen this way.
Also, while any law is subject to being argued in the supreme court, it is only on the basis that it is a constitutional matter.
I honestly don't know how I pulled us into this tangent, so I'm just gonna shut up now :)
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kennedy is not intellectually and ideologically consistent. I hate having him as the swing vote.. even if lately he has been voting correctly.
Now imagine if GB I nominated someone.. anyone but Souter. Sigh.
You know Stevens will freaking stay on artificial life support if necessary until another democrat administration. Ginsberg will just take a nap until the dems are back in power.
Now imagine if GB I nominated someone.. anyone but Souter. Sigh.
You know Stevens will freaking stay on artificial life support if necessary until another democrat administration. Ginsberg will just take a nap until the dems are back in power.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth
Goddamned slippery mage.
Goddamned slippery mage.
Ooh, opinion thread.
The SCOTUS cannot be allowed to slip any further toward the fundamentalist right. Their decisions are already swaying too far in the favor of religious groups and religious agendas. For example, the decision to allow the White House to fund "faith-based initiatives" is incorrect, as it establishes a precedent which allows the Executive branch to establish and fund religious organizations that promote one religion over another. The SC, acting against precedent, decided the case on a procedural level rather than a Constitutional one.
Alito: "If every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus."
This is not a Constitutional ruling, it is a ruling designed to prevent a clog in the court system. Every federal taxpayer should retain the right to challenge government expenditure which violates the Constitution of the United States.
Let's hope we see a surge of retires during the upcoming Democratic presidency, so we can ensure that the court sways back toward the correct side of the political spectrum.
The SCOTUS cannot be allowed to slip any further toward the fundamentalist right. Their decisions are already swaying too far in the favor of religious groups and religious agendas. For example, the decision to allow the White House to fund "faith-based initiatives" is incorrect, as it establishes a precedent which allows the Executive branch to establish and fund religious organizations that promote one religion over another. The SC, acting against precedent, decided the case on a procedural level rather than a Constitutional one.
Alito: "If every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus."
This is not a Constitutional ruling, it is a ruling designed to prevent a clog in the court system. Every federal taxpayer should retain the right to challenge government expenditure which violates the Constitution of the United States.
Let's hope we see a surge of retires during the upcoming Democratic presidency, so we can ensure that the court sways back toward the correct side of the political spectrum.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Also, hey, let's let manufacturers and retailers collude to create "mandatory minimum pricing" for goods. Sounds like that'll be GREAT for competition! After all, if retailers don't have to worry about competition over pricing, they can spend their efforts improving customer service, right Justice Kennedy?
Yay!
Yay!
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ragorn wrote:Alito: "If every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus."
This is not a Constitutional ruling, it is a ruling designed to prevent a clog in the court system. Every federal taxpayer should retain the right to challenge government expenditure which violates the Constitution of the United States.
I completely agree with you here, but I'm almost positive this is a precedent ruling. A single taxpayer, or group of tax payers, do not have standing to sue based on the fact that they are tax payers; however, I think I remember a few cases where inappropriate tax expenditures by the federal government were heard in the SC, but I can't think of the specific one(s) right now.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle wrote:I completely agree with you here, but I'm almost positive this is a precedent ruling. A single taxpayer, or group of tax payers, do not have standing to sue based on the fact that they are tax payers; however, I think I remember a few cases where inappropriate tax expenditures by the federal government were heard in the SC, but I can't think of the specific one(s) right now.
You cannot sue because you disagree with governmental spending.
You CAN sue if governmental spending violates the Constitution. Such as, y'know, appropriation of government funds to support one religion over others.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
The contention is that Christian charity groups are eligible to receive funding under Bush's "faith-based initiative" program that non-Christian and non-religious groups do not qualify for.
If Bush wants to earmark money for all charity groups, be they Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, or non-affiliated, that's great and I hope he does that. But he can't carve out a bucket of money specifically intended to support charity groups affiliated with the single religion of his choice.
If a Muslim charity applied for "faith-based" funding, would they get it, and would they get the same amount as a Christian group of the same size? If not, we've got an issue.
If Bush wants to earmark money for all charity groups, be they Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, or non-affiliated, that's great and I hope he does that. But he can't carve out a bucket of money specifically intended to support charity groups affiliated with the single religion of his choice.
If a Muslim charity applied for "faith-based" funding, would they get it, and would they get the same amount as a Christian group of the same size? If not, we've got an issue.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ragorn wrote:Kifle wrote:I completely agree with you here, but I'm almost positive this is a precedent ruling. A single taxpayer, or group of tax payers, do not have standing to sue based on the fact that they are tax payers; however, I think I remember a few cases where inappropriate tax expenditures by the federal government were heard in the SC, but I can't think of the specific one(s) right now.
You cannot sue because you disagree with governmental spending.
You CAN sue if governmental spending violates the Constitution. Such as, y'know, appropriation of government funds to support one religion over others.
That's exactly what I'm saying... a taxpayer still can't sue the federal government because they are a taxpayer -- they don't have standing. Even if the spending is unconstitutional, they have to have some other reason that they are sueing.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
When I read this thread, I lost track of which parts were supposed to be sarcastic and which were not.
That probably speaks volumes about our modern political process.
Well, we did apparently give air time to Muslim terrorists. So you never know!
That probably speaks volumes about our modern political process.
Ragorn wrote:If a Muslim charity applied for "faith-based" funding, would they get it, and would they get the same amount as a Christian group of the same size? If not, we've got an issue.
Well, we did apparently give air time to Muslim terrorists. So you never know!
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Kifle wrote:That's exactly what I'm saying... a taxpayer still can't sue the federal government because they are a taxpayer -- they don't have standing. Even if the spending is unconstitutional, they have to have some other reason that they are sueing.
No, what you're thinking of is a ruling that simply said you need MORE grounds to sue than simply "I'm a taxpayer and I don't like how my money is being spent." That was tried once, and didn't hold up.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ragorn wrote:Kifle wrote:That's exactly what I'm saying... a taxpayer still can't sue the federal government because they are a taxpayer -- they don't have standing. Even if the spending is unconstitutional, they have to have some other reason that they are sueing.
No, what you're thinking of is a ruling that simply said you need MORE grounds to sue than simply "I'm a taxpayer and I don't like how my money is being spent." That was tried once, and didn't hold up.
Yeah, it's been a while since I took law classes :) I've pushed all that info the the parts of my brain where useless information goes to die.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Ragorn wrote:Let's hope we see a surge of retires during the upcoming Democratic presidency, so we can ensure that the court sways back toward the correct side of the political spectrum.
The only retirees/deaths I can foresee in the near future (ie. the next two four-term presidencies) are Stevens and Ginsberg, both of whom are arguably the two most liberal members of the Court. The 5 conservatives simply aren't going anywhere for several decades (barring an unfortunate health disaster). In that regard, a Democrat is needed as President simply to keep the current 5-4 split (in favor of the Conservatives).
As far as Kennedy is concerned... it's interesting to see how easily malleable he has turned out to be. I used to think the issue was that he was a lot more liberal than was expected when he was nominated, but the issue really is that he's all for being controlled by a very persuasive other on the court (it used to be O'Connor, now it seems to be Roberts). Or, at least, that's the best I can make of it. I'm finding it difficult to believe the guy ever has an independent thought in his head!
I miss O'Connor all the more simply because, in all honesty, she (and maybe Souter) seemed to be the more level-headed of all of the recent Justices. We lost a very large "common sense" factor when she retired. :(
I completely agree with you, Birile, about Justice Kennedy being an easily manipulated second stringer..
With regard to Justice O'Connor.. She may have had common sense, but often times her 'correct' outcome made bad law or failed to provide much guidance looking forward. When a supreme court justice is guided by solid and consistent intellectual and philosophical underpinnings, the decisions they draft are more broadly applicable than many of Judge O'Connor's decisions which were often fact based and applicable only to the case at hand. My impression has always been that O'Connor and Kennedy were each intellectually vacuous, with Justice O'Connor being capable of persuading Kennedy to join her in most instances, allowing her in essence to control the court. Justice O'Connor often seemed to be trying to find a way to get to the preferred outcome, at the expense of solid legal reasoning, and with often inconsistent results.
With regard to Justice O'Connor.. She may have had common sense, but often times her 'correct' outcome made bad law or failed to provide much guidance looking forward. When a supreme court justice is guided by solid and consistent intellectual and philosophical underpinnings, the decisions they draft are more broadly applicable than many of Judge O'Connor's decisions which were often fact based and applicable only to the case at hand. My impression has always been that O'Connor and Kennedy were each intellectually vacuous, with Justice O'Connor being capable of persuading Kennedy to join her in most instances, allowing her in essence to control the court. Justice O'Connor often seemed to be trying to find a way to get to the preferred outcome, at the expense of solid legal reasoning, and with often inconsistent results.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth
Goddamned slippery mage.
Goddamned slippery mage.
Someone needs to customize an elegant football helmet for justice Roberts that will compliment his robes.. and maybe another one for casual outings. Poor guy.. he already had a bad enough reputation with liberals without living up to their rabid (foaming at the mouth) conservative stereotype. But seriously.. gotta protect that noggin.. its one of only four functioning ones on the Supreme Court bench!
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth
Goddamned slippery mage.
Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth wrote:Justice O'Connor often seemed to be trying to find a way to get to the preferred outcome, at the expense of solid legal reasoning, and with often inconsistent results.
http://www.slate.com/id/2171508/fr/flyout
-
teflor the ranger
- Sojourner
- Posts: 3923
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Waterdeep
I'm afraid that I will have to agree with both Kifle and Corth on the issue of abortion. The action of abortion could not be banned specifically by Congress under the current powers of Congress and acknowledged definitions of human life.
It is, however, within the powers of Congress to define what is or is not human. Under Amendment 14, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" .. blah blah blah are guaranteed to their rights and the due process of law, as well as equal protection of the laws.
The language is curious, it could also be changed. Should Congress decide to extend equal protections and due process of the law to unborn fetuses, abortion may indeed become pre-meditated murder.
Short answer, I'm afraid that while Congress does not have the direct power to ban abortion, they certainly do have the power to change what it means until they do.
It is, however, within the powers of Congress to define what is or is not human. Under Amendment 14, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" .. blah blah blah are guaranteed to their rights and the due process of law, as well as equal protection of the laws.
The language is curious, it could also be changed. Should Congress decide to extend equal protections and due process of the law to unborn fetuses, abortion may indeed become pre-meditated murder.
Short answer, I'm afraid that while Congress does not have the direct power to ban abortion, they certainly do have the power to change what it means until they do.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Return to “General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests