I voted for the Constitutionalist in '04, and will be voting for either Barr or Baldwin in November.
Roe v. Wade
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
I voted for the Constitutionalist in '04, and will be voting for either Barr or Baldwin in November.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
I believe you'll find something about the tyranny of the majority in your quote book.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Yeah, had you pegged.
Better than tyranny of the minority.
No government is perfect, but I'd certainly rather have the people put a law in place than a few unelected officials. But then, I'm not a communist pig like you.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Thorn, judges cannot make laws, they can only strike them down. I didn't know libertarians like yourself were such huge fans of new laws.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Better than tyranny of the minority.
No government is perfect, but I'd certainly rather have the people put a law in place than a few unelected officials. But then, I'm not a communist pig like you.
I wasn't aware that allowing the supreme court to interpret constitution made me a communist. Oh wait, it doesn't. It just makes you a moron. And probably a bigot too, since you're going to vote for Barr.
At the very least, you are NOT a Democrat.
You have no clue what 'Representative Democracy' means.
You trust a few unelected officials to decide what the law means, and that their decisions are FINAL, and cannot be questioned. That's oligarchy.
Wow...what an insightful comment. Please, do enlighten me.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Would you prefer that no one oversee that the constitution is being violated? Whenever congress passes a law that's unconstitutional, are the courts just supposed to turn a blind eye and adjudicate as if the constitution didn't exist?
Judges do effectively make "laws."
In California, for example, the courts struck down a law that defines marriage between one man and one woman, essentially making a new "law" defining marriage as between any two persons, regardless of gender.
If the California legislature (or voters) decided to allow gay marriage, fine. But the current method (judicial fiat) is contrary to American governmental principles.
That's why there's a three-point check system.
If the Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, the President can veto it, for example. However, the Congress and override the veto. They can also override a Supreme Court decision. Most of the founders intended the Congress to be the most powerful branch of government.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
They struck down the provision in the law that limited marriage to between one man and one woman. This is not making a new law. It's making less laws.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The president can veto a law, but he very, very, very, very rarely does it on constitutional grounds.
The only part of government that operates mostly on constitutional grounds is the supreme court. And the theory behind that is that they can't adjudicate something that's not constitutional - the constitution supercedes any law that congress may pass.
But the precedent stands as a law, in that no law thereafter may conflict with it. How could you possibly argue otherwise?
That's because we don't elect Presidents who respect the Constitution.
Nice thought, but the Supreme Court isn't always correct.
I'd argue they are very often incorrect.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The supreme court may not adjudicate a law that conflicts with the constitution. Any part of a law the conflicts with the constitution, they can nullify, by refusing to adjudicate it in the future. By refusing to adjudicate it they strike that portion of the law null and void, because the legislature and executive can't move forward without judicial compliance. And judges can't conflict with the constitution. Asking them to rule favorably on an unconstitutional law would be asking them to ignore the oath they took before taking office.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
And you'd advocate removing a part of government that does nothing but check for constitutional compliance and replacing it with... nothing?
Whenever something is unconstitutional, the legislature may refuse to comply by not passing a law, the executive may refuse to comply by vetoing, and the judges may refuse to comply by refusing to rule favorably. The judges are the only branch that isn't elected, but that was clearly meant to balance the more democratic sides of government, who will get easily swept up in a national frenzy.
But they are NOT the final arbiter, any more than the executive branch.
Jefferson said,
"The Constitution ... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." (Letter to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51)
And, "each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal." (Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:214)
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Jefferson was just one voice in the many of the founders. The supreme court has been adjudicating so long on constitutional grounds that it is rarely challanged except by the radical group that has emerged since Brown v. board of education.