Override the Supreme Court?

"Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:3kr9b0lnkpmcc8dn1f829a80kelcumnp4c@4ax.com...
>> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.TakeThisOut@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> ><OGLEBUTT.TakeThisOut@Stupid.com> wrote in message
>> >news:58k7b0pqi4mdfsoutcqmoghj4iu4r3btck@4ax.com...
>> >> Are you so dense you don't "get it"
>> >>
>> >> There is NO evidence that the "court is ignoring the constitution"
>> >
>> >There is plenty of evidence that the Court simply ignores the
>Constitution.
>> >Sandra Day O'Connor talked about the meaning Fourteenth Amendment
>changing
>> >in twenty-five years.
>
>Since the Constitution was not Amended or changed in any way, how can the
>14th Amendment change in meaning if no change was made to the Amendment.

Easily. "Equal protection of the laws" is obviously defined by the
specifics of the actual laws. If a law is written that extends or
modifies a protection to some citizens, that changes the protections
which must be provided equally.

Furthermore, the 14th is left to Congress to enforce per the last
paragraph, and the nature of Congress's enforcement changes the
meaning of that which they enforce.

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 would be a most unusual punishment
today, but was common then - the meaning of "unusual punishment" has
changed.

>What changed was the personal view of the Justices, not the Constitution.

What changed was the concrete application of the words, which in turn
changed the meaning of the words.

>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. They make Law.
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

since the judicial power includes the power to make law by judicial
decision.

>> 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.

>> >Ruth Bader Ginsberg implore the Court to base
>> >decisions on internationals, read liberal European, standards of justice.
>>
>> 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, which contradicts the
constitution itself in the 9th amendment, as well as the Supremacy
clause quoted below which invokes treaties as being equal to the
constitution for binding the decisions of judges.

>International opinion has nothing to do with the interpretation of the
>American Constitution.

False. International opinion is relevant to the interpretation of the
word "cruel" in the 8th amendment.

International opinion is of course relevant

>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.

Since treaties depend on international opinion in order to be
negotiated, as well as in their interpretation, international opinion
determines part of the basis for judicial decision.


>> What constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment"? The constitution
>> does not say; the court decides. On what basis? All else being
>> equal, what Europeans think is a worthwhile consideration.
>
>Wrong, Europeans are Not Americans,

So what?

>the decisions are based on what Americans think,

The constitution does not say what decisions are based on, other than
per the supremacy clause that specifically invokes the power of
treaties, which in turn are based on what all parties to the treaty
think.

> and what the people who wrote the Constitution thought when
>they wrote the Constitution.

They are relevant only to the extent that the court finds them
relevant.

>> >Justices talk about evolving standards of justice.
>
>The Constitution does not evolve without going through the Amendment
>process.

False.

>The only way to change the Constitution is through Article 5.

The only way to AMEND the Constitution in through Article 5. The
Constitution changes constantly whether we want it to or not, human
beings being unable to completely control the molecular bindings of
200 year old pieces of paper.

>> >In short there is plenty of evidence of the Court ignoring the
>Constitution.

No evidence has been presented at all. Just your faulty opinion.

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? 

"Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message
news:6401f9e754f0cc48174ff417de285791@news.meganetnews.com...
> "Roger" <rogerfx.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:KEetc.73367$B81.33564@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> > "David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:ZD0tc.87881$hY.43012@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > >
> > > <OGLEBUTT.DeleteThis@Stupid.com> wrote in message
> > > news:u3k7b0dtnrnvb30khgcj2scphv34cupe6j@4ax.com...
> > > > On Tue, 25 May 2004 22:41:13 GMT, "David Lentz"
> > > > <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
> > > > >news:jf47b05dsfpj69bf11jbp9o19lvuep6grr@4ax.com...
> > > > >> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> a) YOU don't get to interpret what the constitution "means"
> > > > >> >> b) There is no accepted doctrine of "oringinal intent"
> > > > >> >> c) the "federalist society" is pure bullshit and the
federalist
> > > papers
> > > > >> >> are not law
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >How would it be wrong to impeach the entire court?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The court has done nothing impeachable.
> > > > >
> > > > >In fact, anything is impeachable.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit
> > > >
> > > > Either you're dense, or you don't understand the first thing about
> > > > "impeachment"
> > > >
> > > > Impeachment is an ACCUSATION, not a final end
> > > >
> > > > It is the BEGINNING of a process
> > > >
> > > > The FINAL act is Conviction by 2/3rd of the Senate.
> > >
> > > It is within the constitutional power of Congress to impeach and
remove
> > from
> > > office any official for any reason. Name one good reason why Congress
> > > should not exercise her power to impeach and remove from office the
> entire
> > > Supreme Court? If you can.
> >
> > Because 7 out of 9 are Republican appointees.
>
> Who appointed them is not the point. It is how they are legislating from
the
> bench that is the problem.

Why do you prefer ignorance to knowledge?

Are you afraid? Are you scared?

Are you afraid you've been wrong all these years.

If you aren't too scared, look up "common law."

Be man. Be courageous for a change. Use your mind for a change.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Roger" <rogerfx.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KEetc.73367$B81.33564@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...

<snip>

> > It is within the constitutional power of Congress to impeach and remove
> from
> > office any official for any reason. Name one good reason why Congress
> > should not exercise her power to impeach and remove from office the
entire
> > Supreme Court? If you can.
>
> Because 7 out of 9 are Republican appointees. Who do you think Bush would
> appoint and the Republican Senate would approve?

Republican Presidents can make mistakes, Sandra Day O'Connor, as well as
democratic Presidents, Ruth Bader Ginsberg. We need justices who read,
and respect the Constitution, and not ones who ignore it.

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

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:o8r9b0dlit80ifu17krg561esjru779r9s@4ax.com...
> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.TakeThisOut@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> ><Draccus874.TakeThisOut@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >news:ea8aeb4.0405251833.41460991@posting.google.com...
> >> You are to Constitutional scholarship what Dana is to well any thought
> >> whatsoever. The power of impeachment is limited, or should be, to very
> >> extreme circumstances. Now that brings us to what impeachment is,
> >> impeachment is not the removal from office of a person, it is the
> >> bringing of charges before the Senate for trial and to see if there is
> >
> >The above author is begging the question. He rightfully assumes that the
> >power of impeachment should be limited. He then leaps to the wrong
> >conclusion that Congress' power of impeachment is limited. While limits
> >are appropriate, there are no such limits contained in the Constitution.
>
> The limits are those of tradition and common sense. If impeachment
> becomes even slightly more a political tool than it was in the last
> administration, then the public confidence in Congress will drop
> through the floor
>
> Furthermore, every time one party got into power, their first step
> would be to impeach everyone of the wrong party at any level of
> government.

If tradition and common sense are appropriate guidelines, and I am not
saying there are not, then is not reasonable to expect the nation's highest
court to honor tradition and common sense? I say yes. Yet the Court
ignores both tradition, precedent, and common sense.

If the Court does not see the need to be bounded by common sense and
tradition, then neither should Congress. We do not need anymore
twenty-five year waivers on the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>If tradition and common sense are appropriate guidelines, and I am not
>saying there are not, then is not reasonable to expect the nation's highest
>court to honor tradition and common sense? I say yes. Yet the Court
>ignores both tradition, precedent,

They follow both, which they know far better than you, though
tradition apart from precedent is vastly overblown.

>and common sense.

You wouldn't know common sense if it bit you.

>If the Court does not see the need to be bounded by common sense and
>tradition, then neither should Congress.

Congress wants to be reelected, and therefore they choose to be
bounded by common sense.

>We do not need anymore twenty-five year waivers on the Fourteenth Amendment.

There haven't been any.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.DeleteThis@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? 

<Draccus874 DeleteThis @netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ea8aeb4.0405261858.541ed238@posting.google.com...
> "David Lentz" <dlentz10 DeleteThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<dM0tc.87996$hY.35756@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> > <Draccus874 DeleteThis @netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:ea8aeb4.0405251833.41460991@posting.google.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > You are to Constitutional scholarship what Dana is to well any thought
> > > whatsoever. The power of impeachment is limited, or should be, to very
> > > extreme circumstances. Now that brings us to what impeachment is,
> > > impeachment is not the removal from office of a person, it is the
> > > bringing of charges before the Senate for trial and to see if there is
> >
> > The above author is begging the question. He rightfully assumes that
the
> > power of impeachment should be limited. He then leaps to the wrong
> > conclusion that Congress' power of impeachment is limited. While
limits
> > are appropriate, there are no such limits contained in the Constitution.
> >
> > David
>
> David,
>
> That is what impeachment is it is the avenue of last resort not the
> first resort. It is hard to impeach and remove someone from public
> office because it must be serious and not to be used on the whim of a
> few zealots who have chosen to define the need for impeachment on the
> political whim of the moment. It is a matter for thoughtful discourse
> not political gamesmanship.

What other remedy exists to force the United States Supreme Court to honor,
and respect, the Constitution of the United States? Name one, anyone.
When justices start citing international opinion, instead of United States
law, it time for them to go.

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

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> That is what impeachment is it is the avenue of last resort not the
>> first resort. It is hard to impeach and remove someone from public
>> office because it must be serious and not to be used on the whim of a
>> few zealots who have chosen to define the need for impeachment on the
>> political whim of the moment. It is a matter for thoughtful discourse
>> not political gamesmanship.
>
>What other remedy exists to force the United States Supreme Court to honor,
>and respect, the Constitution of the United States?

Since they do, no remedy is needed.

>Name one, anyone.
>When justices start citing international opinion, instead of United States
>law, it time for them to go.

You still fail to comprehend. No one has cited "international opinion
instead of United States law". The argument was to cite international
opinion *in addition to* United States law.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.DeleteThis@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? 

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote in message
news:3kr9b0lnkpmcc8dn1f829a80kelcumnp4c@4ax.com...

<snip>

> What constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment"? The constitution
> does not say; the court decides. On what basis? All else being
> equal, what Europeans think is a worthwhile consideration.

What ever the standards "cruel and unusual punishment" were perceived to be
by the public at the time the Constitution was ratified, they still are.
Such standards are purely a historical question, of what was commonly
accepted at the time. As standards, frozen in time, they can not be
properly changed except by constitutional amendment. Constitutional
standard can not properly be said to evolve.

This is not an issue for which the Supreme Court should have to give a great
deal of though, only a little historical research. Modern liberal European
political thought as little, if any, relevance to United States
constitutional law. It never did.

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

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:3kr9b0lnkpmcc8dn1f829a80kelcumnp4c@4ax.com...
>> What constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment"? The constitution
>> does not say; the court decides. On what basis? All else being
>> equal, what Europeans think is a worthwhile consideration.
>
>What ever the standards "cruel and unusual punishment" were perceived to be
>by the public at the time the Constitution was ratified, they still are.

False.

>Such standards

They aren't standards. The constitution did not declare any standard.

>are purely a historical question, of what was commonly
>accepted at the time. As standards, frozen in time, they can not be
>properly changed except by constitutional amendment.

They aren't standards.

>Constitutional standard can not properly be said to evolve.

It does.

>This is not an issue for which the Supreme Court should have to give a great
>deal of though, only a little historical research.

Historical research is irrelevant, and the Court is expert in law, not
history.

>Modern liberal European
>political thought as little, if any, relevance to United States
>constitutional law. It never did.

The constitution derived from "Liberal European political thought" of
the time.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.DeleteThis@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? 

"Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message
news:66a88db56e1d3c38e34fee24fe2d211c@news.meganetnews.com...

<snip>

> > >Sandra Day O'Connor talked about the meaning Fourteenth Amendment
> changing
> > >in twenty-five years.
>
> Since the Constitution was not Amended or changed in any way, how can the
> 14th Amendment change in meaning if no change was made to the Amendment.
> What changed was the personal view of the Justices, not the Constitution.
So
> we have unelected Justices making up new laws without being authorized to
do
> so.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > >Ruth Bader Ginsberg implore the Court to base
> > >decisions on internationals, read liberal European, standards of
justice.
> >
> > 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.
> International opinion has nothing to do with the interpretation of the
> American Constitution.

Well not quite.

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 Constitution is essentially a written contract between
the People of the United States and her government. The ultimate meaning
of the Constitution is what the contemporary public believed it to mean at
the time of ratification.

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

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>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 meaning of the constitution right now is the meaning as perceived
by "we the people" right now.

There is no "ultimate" meaning of anything.

>The Constitution is essentially a written contract between
>the People of the United States and her government.

No. A contract requires two parties, agreement, and an exchange of
consideration. The constitution was ordained and established by one
party, "we the people". "Government" had no say in the matter, and
there was no exchange of consideration.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.DeleteThis@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? 

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote in message
news:17lbb0pqv3aesd836ge73i04dm6s8si964@4ax.com

<snip>...

> >Since the Constitution was not Amended or changed in any way, how can the
> >14th Amendment change in meaning if no change was made to the Amendment.
>
> Easily. "Equal protection of the laws" is obviously defined by the
> specifics of the actual laws. If a law is written that extends or
> modifies a protection to some citizens, that changes the protections
> which must be provided equally.
>
> Furthermore, the 14th is left to Congress to enforce per the last
> paragraph, and the nature of Congress's enforcement changes the
> meaning of that which they enforce.
>
> 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 would be a most unusual punishment
> today, but was common then - the meaning of "unusual punishment" has
> changed.

Interesting the Fourteenth Amendment empowers Congress, but not the
judicial, to enforce it. It can be argued that the Fourteenth means what
ever Congress holds it to mean. As such, the judicial branch lacks any due
authority to cite the Fourteenth as the basis for any decision.

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

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Interesting the Fourteenth Amendment empowers Congress, but not the
>judicial, to enforce it.

The judicial branch cannot enforce anything.

>It can be argued that the Fourteenth means what
>ever Congress holds it to mean.

You can argue whatever you want. The Congress defines how it will be
enforced and they have. Th court follows those rules.

> As such, the judicial branch lacks any due
>authority to cite the Fourteenth as the basis for any decision.

Your leap of illogic makes no sense.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.DeleteThis@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?