Override the Supreme Court?

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote:
>> Easily. "Equal protection of the laws" is obviously defined by the
>> specifics of the actual laws.
>
>But the Amendment never changed or was modified.
>It is still the same 14th Amendment that was ratified.
>
>> Furthermore, the 14th is left to Congress to enforce per the last
>> paragraph,
>
>But the courts have taken on that responsibility.

As directed by Congress in law.

>> This is all abstract, but turn to the concrete of the 8th amendment.
>> "Cruel and unusual punishment" has clearly changed in meaning from
>> 1620s Massachusetts, when a common punishment was to be put in the
>> public stocks for a period.
>
>That is not cruel nor is it unusual.

It certainly is unusual! How many people have been punished by
putting them in stocks in, say, the last century?

>Actually we should use public stocks today for punishment of crimes like
>vandalism and shoplifting.

But we don't, so therefore punishing someone that way would be
unusual.

>> >What changed was the personal view of the Justices, not the Constitution.
>
>Bingo, they used their own opinions,

They used their JUDGEMENT, which is what the Constitution says that
they are supposed to do. That is what the "judicial power" is.

>vice using the Constitution as their
>guide. Thank you for admitting that the Justices are using their own
>personal views to determine the cases, and not using the intent of the
>Constitution as they should.

Where in the constitution does it state that they "should" use the
undocumented "intent of the Constitution"?

>> What changed was the concrete application of the words, which in turn
>> changed the meaning of the words.
>
>The meanings of the words have not changed.

Yes they have.

>We look at the Constitution as
>the founders wrote it, using the founders definitions of the words in
>question.

No we don't, because their definitions are often irrelevant to modern
situations.

Is a nuclear weapon "arms" per the 2nd amendment? Why would one
expect the Founders to have specified the answer?

>> >So
>> >we have unelected Justices making up new laws without being authorized to
>do
>> >so.
>>
>> They do not make up new laws; they do not legislate.
>
>You just said they were by using their own opinion and beliefs.

I did not say that. They do issue "opinions" however, which are their
own.

>> They make Law.
>
>They are not empowered to make law.
>The legislature makes law.

They are empowered to make case law. They are explicitly given the
power to decide "cases arising under this constitution". Those
decisions constitute case law. They are law. They are not, however,
legislation.

>> The sense in which they make law is explicitly authorized in the
>> Constitution when it says
>> >The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
>Court
>
>That does not say they can make law.

The judicial power makes judicial law.

>> >> How is interpreting the meaning of words, "ignoring" them.
>> >
>> >They ignored the meaning of the Amendment, when they changed it without
>> >going through Article 5 procedures.
>>
>> They haven't changed the amendment, which still has the same words
>> that it did before.
>
>You just said they changed the meaning of the words.

No they did not. They *recognized* that the meaning of the words have
changed.

>They cannot do that as
>it made a change to the Amendment in an unconstitutional way.

No it doesn't, since the Constitution is not meaning, but merely
words.

>> >> The choice of "standards of justice" does not contradict the
>> >> constitution. It indicates how some phrases are to be understood.
>> >
>> >Wrong, the only thing to base our Constitution on is by the writings of the
>> >people who wrote the Constitution and all of the Amendments.
>>
>> There is no justification for that claim,
>
>There sure is, it is our Constitution that makes such a justification.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the only basis for
interpreting it is "by the writings of the people who wrote the
Constitution and all of the Amendments"?

>> >International opinion has nothing to do with the interpretation of the
>> >American Constitution.
>>
>> False.
>
>No, you are wrong. International opinion has no bearing on the American
>Constitution and it's meaning.

Of course it does, if only because the Constitution grants treaties a
status equal to itself.

>> >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;
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> >This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
>> > made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
>> > Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
>> > Contrary notwithstanding.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

Scott Erb wrote:
>
> "Carol Lee Smith" <human.DeleteThis@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1040527092037.13353M-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > On Thu, 27 May 2004, David Lentz wrote:
> >
> > > On what basis is the Constitution an evolving,
> > > read meaningless, document? Please be specific?
> >
> > On what basis is it determined that by evolving the Constitution becomes
> > meaningless.
>
> The bottom line is that David has an untenable view of the Constitution. He
> believes that its meaning is set in stone, and that what he interprets the
> meaning to be (and that's all he can offer is his interpretation) is by
> definition the right one.
>
> But why should we privilege David's interpretation over that of you, I or
> Sandra Day O'Connor? Who gets to determine the proper meaning of the
> constitution? Who gets to decide (and this is another point he misses) what
> it means in different contexts, some of them not imaginable over 200 years
> ago?
>
> He is just mad that his view is not the one most people believe or follow,
> and rather than accept that he might be wrong, and follow the political
> process through, he wishes for a solution that would magically put his view
> in place -- get rid of the current court, then replace it with people who
> think like he does. Understandable, but not very realistic on his part. I,
> for one, disagree with many ways the Supreme Court interprets the
> constitution, sometimes profoundly. But while I believe I am right, I
> recognize that as one individual, I can't demand that the entire system bow
> to my analysis and beliefs. I think David has to understand that too -- no
> matter how much he is convinced he's right, that doesn't mean he IS right.

He must recognize that any decision of the Supreme
Court represents "consensus" or general agreement
among a majority of the (usually) nine justices. It is
no secret that their deliberations are frequently hard
fought and acerbic. There is no shame in being wrong,
except when one attempts to deny the facts of the case.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Jingo" <Jingo DeleteThis @AFreeAmerica.com> wrote in message
news:q77db0t3liio9a3e3j15c1tc3jul2gltlm@4ax.com

<snip>...

> >The ultimate meaning of the Constitution is not the intention of its
authors
> >but rather the perception of the public who ratified it at the time of
> >ratification.
>
> The people who thought women should not vote and that slaves were
> 3/5th of a person?
>
> I'll ask again. Where do you get this ignorance nonsense, Dave?

At the time the Constitution was ratified women could not vote. You don't
have to approve of such an attitude. You only have to recognize the legal
ideas which existed circa 1799.

As for the canard that the Constitution considered slaves to be three fifths
of a person, that is ignorant rubbish.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.TakeThisOut@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lNEtc.97856$hY.21335@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Jingo" <Jingo.TakeThisOut@AFreeAmerica.com> wrote in message
> news:q77db0t3liio9a3e3j15c1tc3jul2gltlm@4ax.com
>
> <snip>...
>
> > >The ultimate meaning of the Constitution is not the intention of its
> authors
> > >but rather the perception of the public who ratified it at the time of
> > >ratification.
> >
> > The people who thought women should not vote and that slaves were
> > 3/5th of a person?
> >
> > I'll ask again. Where do you get this ignorance nonsense, Dave?
>
> At the time the Constitution was ratified women could not vote. You
don't
> have to approve of such an attitude. You only have to recognize the
legal
> ideas which existed circa 1799.
>
> As for the canard that the Constitution considered slaves to be three
fifths
> of a person, that is ignorant rubbish.

Slaves were 3/5ths of a person in the Constitution.

Read it. You'll see.

The slave states didn't want them to be REAL people, as far as treating them
that way, but they wanted them counted for representation.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Roger" <rogerfx.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sTEtc.58181$Zx1.41834@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:lNEtc.97856$hY.21335@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > "Jingo" <Jingo.RemoveThis@AFreeAmerica.com> wrote in message
> > news:q77db0t3liio9a3e3j15c1tc3jul2gltlm@4ax.com
> >
> > <snip>...
> >
> > > >The ultimate meaning of the Constitution is not the intention of its
> > authors
> > > >but rather the perception of the public who ratified it at the time
of
> > > >ratification.
> > >
> > > The people who thought women should not vote and that slaves were
> > > 3/5th of a person?
> > >
> > > I'll ask again. Where do you get this ignorance nonsense, Dave?
> >
> > At the time the Constitution was ratified women could not vote. You
> don't
> > have to approve of such an attitude. You only have to recognize the
> legal
> > ideas which existed circa 1799.
> >
> > As for the canard that the Constitution considered slaves to be three
> fifths
> > of a person, that is ignorant rubbish.
>
> Slaves were 3/5ths of a person in the Constitution.
>
> Read it. You'll see.
>
> The slave states didn't want them to be REAL people, as far as treating
them
> that way, but they wanted them counted for representation.

Only idiots, and raving lunatics like Al Gore, contend that Constitution
considers slaves to be three fifth human. Rather the Constitution said
that "other person shall count as three fifths towards representation and
taxation. It was a compromise.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

On Fri, 28 May 2004 14:10:34 GMT, "David Lentz"
<dlentz10 DeleteThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Roger" <rogerfx DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:sTEtc.58181$Zx1.41834@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>> "David Lentz" <dlentz10 DeleteThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:lNEtc.97856$hY.21335@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> >
>> > "Jingo" <Jingo DeleteThis @AFreeAmerica.com> wrote in message
>> > news:q77db0t3liio9a3e3j15c1tc3jul2gltlm@4ax.com
>> >
>> > <snip>...
>> >
>> > > >The ultimate meaning of the Constitution is not the intention of its
>> > authors
>> > > >but rather the perception of the public who ratified it at the time
>of
>> > > >ratification.
>> > >
>> > > The people who thought women should not vote and that slaves were
>> > > 3/5th of a person?
>> > >
>> > > I'll ask again. Where do you get this ignorance nonsense, Dave?
>> >
>> > At the time the Constitution was ratified women could not vote. You
>> don't
>> > have to approve of such an attitude. You only have to recognize the
>> legal
>> > ideas which existed circa 1799.
>> >
>> > As for the canard that the Constitution considered slaves to be three
>> fifths
>> > of a person, that is ignorant rubbish.
>>
>> Slaves were 3/5ths of a person in the Constitution.
>>
>> Read it. You'll see.
>>
>> The slave states didn't want them to be REAL people, as far as treating
>them
>> that way, but they wanted them counted for representation.
>
>Only idiots, and raving lunatics like Al Gore, contend that Constitution
>considers slaves to be three fifth human. Rather the Constitution said
>that "other person shall count as three fifths towards representation and
>taxation. It was a compromise.

Well, Davie, why don't you give us a quote from Al Gore in which he
contends that slaves are three-fifths human.

Sure. We'll wait. We all know how important you credibility is to
you.

Ha ha ha.

Oh, and yes, the constitution did consider slaves to be 3/5ths of a
person each. What Trent Lott would consider "the good old days".
>
>David
>

-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"

-- CNN, 4/30/2001.


Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uLHtc.97897$hY.8668@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Roger" <rogerfx.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sTEtc.58181$Zx1.41834@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> > "David Lentz" <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:lNEtc.97856$hY.21335@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Jingo" <Jingo.RemoveThis@AFreeAmerica.com> wrote in message
> > > news:q77db0t3liio9a3e3j15c1tc3jul2gltlm@4ax.com
> > >
> > > <snip>...
> > >
> > > > >The ultimate meaning of the Constitution is not the intention of
its
> > > authors
> > > > >but rather the perception of the public who ratified it at the time
> of
> > > > >ratification.
> > > >
> > > > The people who thought women should not vote and that slaves were
> > > > 3/5th of a person?
> > > >
> > > > I'll ask again. Where do you get this ignorance nonsense, Dave?
> > >
> > > At the time the Constitution was ratified women could not vote. You
> > don't
> > > have to approve of such an attitude. You only have to recognize the
> > legal
> > > ideas which existed circa 1799.
> > >
> > > As for the canard that the Constitution considered slaves to be three
> > fifths
> > > of a person, that is ignorant rubbish.
> >
> > Slaves were 3/5ths of a person in the Constitution.
> >
> > Read it. You'll see.
> >
> > The slave states didn't want them to be REAL people, as far as treating
> them
> > that way, but they wanted them counted for representation.
>
> Only idiots, and raving lunatics like Al Gore, contend that Constitution
> considers slaves to be three fifth human. Rather the Constitution said
> that "other person shall count as three fifths towards representation and
> taxation. It was a compromise.

A distinction without a difference.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court?