Thread: State's Rights
#1 State's Rights07-18-2008, 04:08 PM
Gator, you should love this.
Oklahoma is headed in the right path. I asked our State Representative yesterday about GA. He said he hasn't heard anything about it.
Please don't accuse me of trying to give a civics lesson because I'm not qualified, but this much I do know.
There are three branches of our federal government, the executive, which is the President, the legislative, which is Congress, including the House of Representatives and the Senate and the judicial, which is the Supreme Court.
It's Congress' job to craft legislation and pass it on to the President who can sign it or veto it. If he vetoes it, it goes back to Congress where a majority vote can override the President's veto.
The Supreme Court is supposed to come into play when there is a question on how something relates to the Constitution, and only then.
But first and foremost, it is the job of all three branches to reflect the wishes of "We the People" and protect the rights of the individual. That's what the Constitution is all about.
The judicial branch was never meant to be able to legislate, only to interpret the Constitution as it applies to the law of the land. Unless an amendment is passed and signed into law, the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution as it is written, not as they wish it was written.
I feel that the will of the people is being usurped by nine people in black robes who are not even subject to the vote of the American electorate, men and women who are appointed for life and cannot be removed by anything less than impeachment.
The farther removed you get from the people the laws affect, the more isolated and elite all three branches of the government gets, until it becomes a power unto itself, neither representing nor particularly caring about the opinions of the people they supposedly represent, but the interests of their accursed political parties.
The federal government is too far removed from everyday contact with the people. They don't know what's going on in the street and have no first hand knowledge of what's happening in America.
We need a strong federal government to protect our country from foreign invaders, to maintain national law enforcement, to build our interstate highways and all the many other things which can only be handled by a central authority.
There definitely needs to be federal law about discrimination, uniformity of business practices, prosecution of interstate crimes and the like.
But the problem with Washington is that it has become a monolithic juggernaut of self-serving, outdated, self-inflated men and women, who lack the morality and the courage to stand against the crowd when the crowd is wrong.
Self-preservation has become the norm in D.C. and political partisanship, right or wrong, has become the coin of the realm.
In my humble opinion, the lion's share of domestic political decisions would be better served if left to the individual states. Issues like gay marriage, abortion on demand, the death penalty and many more issues would more perfectly reflect the opinions of the people than anything the Congress could pass.
Why do I say that? For two reasons.
One, due to the outright refusal of the people in power to deal with term limits, we can only vote for two senators and whatever our allowance of representatives is. We have no control over the others who, through earmarks and secret pork barrel amendments manage to send enough public money back to their states to buy their votes, while being a downright sorry Congressman or Senator when it comes to the rest of the country.
The second is that whoever is in the White House has the authority to name judges to the federal bench and will pick the judicial candidates, with the Senate's approval, who subscribe to their ideology, whether liberal or conservative. Which means if you can't get something through both houses of Congress and the President, you get it made into law by the Supreme Court. This is dangerous and puts the power of the other two branches of government into the hands of nine people
For America to ever have a true representative government, I believe it has to begin on the local level, where we are more acquainted with the candidates and more apt to hold them accountable.
What do you think?
Pray for our troops
God Bless America
July 18, 2008I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad
07-18-2008, 07:10 PMThe judicial branch was never meant to be able to legislate, only to interpret the Constitution as it applies to the law of the land. Unless an amendment is passed and signed into law, the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution as it is written, not as they wish it was written.
- Join Date
- May 2008
07-18-2008, 07:20 PM
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
Judicial Branch, the portion of the United States national government that decides cases arising under federal laws and under the Constitution of the United States. The judicial branch interprets laws that have been passed by the legislative branch (Congress) and approved by the president of the United States, who leads the executive branch.
Article III of the Constitution vests the judicial power in “one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time establish.” This means that apart from the Supreme Court, the organization of the judicial branch is left in the hands of Congress. Beginning with the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress created several types of courts and other judicial organizations, which now include lower courts, specialized courts, and administrative offices to help run the judicial system.
Judicial Branch:Role in the American Political System
Federal courts have a leading role in interpreting laws, rules, and other government actions, and determining whether they conform to the Constitution. This function of judicial review was asserted in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison. Judicial review includes both interpreting the law and judging cases. First, in Marshall’s words, “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This need to explain the law stems from the fact that the Constitution and many laws include vague words or phrases. The ambiguity of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, for example, makes it one of the most important sources of cases argued before the Supreme Court. The amendment guarantees citizens “due process of law” and “equal protection of the laws.” The meaning of these phrases is unclear, leading to protracted court battles over the application of the 14th Amendment to groups such as racial minorities, women, people with disabilities, and legal and illegal aliens. Confusion and disagreement over the amendment have thrust the courts into disputes over affirmative action, abortion, sexual preferences, welfare benefits, and the rights of the disabled.
Striking down laws or practices that violate the Constitution is another function of judicial review. Although the Court voided few laws during its first hundred years, it proved much more willing to take such strong steps in the 20th century. Since Marbury v. Madison, about 150 federal laws have been struck down in whole or in part, along with about 1000 state laws and more than 100 municipal ordinances.
The courts do not always have the final say in settling issues of legal interpretation. Working together, Congress and the states can compel the courts to accept a legal principle by amending the Constitution. After the Supreme Court ruled that income taxes were unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. in 1895, for example, Congress and the states ratified the 16th Amendment in 1913 to permit such taxes. Amending the Constitution is difficult and is usually time consuming, however. The president and members of Congress have their own ideas of what the Constitution permits, and on occasion they may try to impede or simply ignore the courts’ decisions.
The president of the United States appoints federal judges, but these appointments are subject to approval by the Senate. Once confirmed by the Senate, federal judges have appointments for life or until they choose to retire. Federal judges can be removed from their positions only if they are convicted of impeachable offenses by the Senate, but this has happened on only a few occasions. The life-long appointments of federal judges makes it easier for the judiciary to stay removed from political pressure. The long terms mean that presidential appointees to federal courts will have an influence that lasts for decades, so the Senate closely scrutinizes many appointments, and sometimes blocks them altogether.
07-18-2008, 09:37 PMSection 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
- Join Date
- May 2008
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Must have been the activist courts that made that rule.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|