Override the Supreme Court?

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>This is interesting, the argument that the Constitution means what it meant
>at the time of ratification is counted with derision and scorn but is not
>rebutted by a single fact.

There is nothing to rebut. Your argument is without any basis.

>On what basis is the Constitution an evolving, read meaningless, document?

"Evolving" is not "meaningless".

The basis is "reality", something about which you are clueless.

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? 

"Carol Lee Smith" <human.RemoveThis@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.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:rvr9b01v8hq8psj2mmspdvis37l6aa8gdb@4ax.com...
> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >The constitutional role of the Supreme Court is to act on the laws of the
> >United States.
>
> No. The role is to adjudicate cases arising under the Constitution.
>
> >The Court has no constitutional role as the keeper of the nation's
morals.
>
> Court has the constitutional role of ensuring justice.

Cite the constitutiounal authority.

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:rvr9b01v8hq8psj2mmspdvis37l6aa8gdb@4ax.com...
>> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> >The constitutional role of the Supreme Court is to act on the laws of the
>> >United States.
>>
>> No. The role is to adjudicate cases arising under the Constitution.
>>
>> >The Court has no constitutional role as the keeper of the nation's
>morals.
>>
>> Court has the constitutional role of ensuring justice.
>
>Cite the constitutiounal authority.


>The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one
> supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from
> time to time ordain and establish.

>Clause 1: 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;...

>Main Entry: ju·di·cial
>Pronunciation: ju-'di-sh&l
>Function: adjective
>1 a : of or relating to a judgment, the function of judging, the
> administration of justice, or the judiciary <judicial processes>
^^^^^^^

>Main Entry: jus·tice
>Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&s
>Function: noun
>1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by
> the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of
> merited rewards or punishments b : JUDGE c : the administration of
^^^^^^^
> law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights
^^^^^^
> according to the rules of law or equity
>2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the
^^^^
> principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS c : the quality of
> conforming to law

I see lots of morality in there.

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? 

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:coltc.14419$j24.103@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Roger" <rogerfx.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:KEetc.73367$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.

I see you think you know better than all nine. You know how to "read and
respect the Constitution" and they don't.

What an ego. What a fool.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

In article <1ba69227ae24073c91a6cbebfa5ecfc0.RemoveThis@news.meganetnews.com> "Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> writes:
<http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040522-102507-1868r.htm
<Override the Supreme Court?
<By Arnold Beichman
<
<Rep. Ron Lewis, Kentucky Republican, has just introduced a bill to allow
<congressional override of Supreme Court decisions. Trying to curb the
<Supreme Court's power is about as hopeless as the fate of Sisyphus doomed
<for eternity to roll up a steep hill a huge stone that tumbles back down
<when he reaches the top. Then the whole process starts once more. Will Mr.
<Lewis be a modern Sisyphus?
< Mr. Lewis' bill is doomed by the cowardice of his congressional
<colleagues who talk big about judicial tyranny but do nothing about it even
<though the U.S. Constitution gives Congress pre-eminent power over the
<court.

Nope, Mr. Lewis' bill is doomed by the fact that very few
in Congress feel that there is "judicial tyranny" in the
first place.


-- cary
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Carol Lee Smith" <human RemoveThis @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.
>
> Please be specific!!!

If the Constitution holds no more meaning that what five out nine perverts
in black robes happen to think it means at the time, there is no point to
having a constitution.

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

"Scott Erb" <scotterb RemoveThis @maine.edu> wrote in message
news:c954l5$gga$1@murdoch.unet.maine.edu...
>
> "Carol Lee Smith" <human RemoveThis @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.

My view of the Constitution as a static historical document is a stable and
predicable one, not subject to any personal whimsy. In stark contrast, the
views Sandra Day O'Connor holds of the Constitution on say Tuesday have no
relationship to the view she holds on Wendesday. O'Connor's views are not
stable, predicable or sound in reason. They are whim. I expect more from
the Constitution that whim.

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

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Bwutc.15942$j24.87@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "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.
> >
> > Please be specific!!!
>
> If the Constitution holds no more meaning that what five out nine perverts
> in black robes happen to think it means at the time, there is no point to
> having a constitution.
>
> David
>
>

David,

That horse is dead and so is the constitution as a document of law. The US
Gov is based on Case Law not the constitution and has been since FDR's new
deal. But if you think about it philosophically the biggest power grab of
all that completely eliminated states rights was the civil war. The Feds
won over states rights.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:nmkbb0hlmulj31sqrnbnoej36g40pq0l9j@4ax.com...
> "Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote:
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
> >news:lgr9b0h25hljojg9sd13ddqkgs7ujh030j@4ax.com...
> >> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >Impeachment of the entire sitting Supreme Court would constitute a
check
> >and
> >> >balance by Congress on the runaway Supreme Court.
> >>
> >> Evidence that the Supreme Court is "runaway"?
> >
> >Look at it's decisions.
>
> I have.

Maybe with blinders on.

> >Look at how some of the Justices say we should look at international law,
> >and international opinion when they make their decisions.
>
> I see nothing wrong with that.

Of course not, you do not feel that the Constitution is the supreme law of
our country.


> If international opinion contradicts
> the constitution, the constitution wins.

Not according to the justices in the lawerence decision.
> >Their job is to interpret the Constitution by looking at the
Constitution,
>
> Duh

Not international law and opinions.
>
> >and writings of the founders when they made the Constitution.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote in message
news:17lbb0pqv3aesd836ge73i04dm6s8si964@4ax.com...
> "Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote:
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote in message
> >news:3kr9b0lnkpmcc8dn1f829a80kelcumnp4c@4ax.com...
> >> "David Lentz" <dlentz10 DeleteThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >> ><OGLEBUTT DeleteThis @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.

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.

> 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.

That would be a most unusual punishment
> today,

Actually we should use public stocks today for punishment of crimes like
vandalism and shoplifting. Lets embarass the fool who likes to destroy
property, or the fool that steals what is not theirs.

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

Bingo, they used their own opinions, 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.
>
> 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. We look at the Constitution as
the founders wrote it, using the founders definitions of the words in
question.
>
> >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.


> They make Law.

They are not empowered to make law.
The legislature makes 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

That does not say they can make 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. They cannot do that as
it made a change to the Amendment in an unconstitutional way.
>
> >> >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,

There sure is, it is our Constitution that makes such a justification.

>
> >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.

>
>
> >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.
 >> 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?