Of, By, and For the People.......

Discussion in 'Politics' started by DQuixote, May 17, 2007.

  1. DQuixote

    DQuixote
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is, government arises out of the people, legislation prepared, designed, categorized and presented by them, on behalf of themselves.

    Americans have forgotten that, apparently. Representative local, county, state, and federal government is spinning out of control, while we, the people, look the other way, as the Constitution goes down the tubes. What have you done, lately, to get the attention of your representatives? Congress has the authority to remove certain matters from the jurisdiction of the courts.

    View attachment 100
     
    #1 DQuixote, May 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 17, 2007
  2. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Congress is a reflection of us. We are not so good anymore.
     
  3. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. DQuixote

    DQuixote
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    The link in the OP was just an example of court rulings being superior to the Constitution. It wasn't related to HR-1094 in particular. I'd like for the thread to concentrate on how we, the people, fail to govern.

    :1_grouphug: <----We, the people.
     
  5. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not trying to hijack, just an observation.
     
  6. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Your post makes absolutely no sense to me. How on earth do you suppose court rulings are superior to the Constitution? Maybe you need a refresher course in Marbury v. Madison, (1803), and Chief Justice Marshall's opinion of the court.
     
  7. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    You gots to be kidding

    As Chief Justice John Marshall said, "The Constitution says what we say it says." In other words, case law.

    Second, we are governed by secret executive orders, not the constitution.
     
  8. DQuixote

    DQuixote
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry you don't get it, filmproducer. The simple truth is that case law is being written without regard to the Constitution. Even some of the Justices on the Supreme Court call the Constitution a "fluid document" that "changes with time." Yuk.

    Here is an example of the people doing something productive:

    AFA Online Newsletter:

    Your phone calls made the difference! The House Judiciary Committee voted to kill a proposed amendment (H.R. 2093) which would keep groups like the American Family Association from providing you with information on bills in Congress!

    The House Judiciary Committee has some of the most liberal members of Congress. But your phone calls changed enough minds that the bill was voted down! Members were inundated with calls. A majority of members decided they didn’t want to fight with their voters back home on this issue.

    Thanks for making a difference. This shows what can happen when you and others exercise your privilege to contact your representatives and senators!

    So I ask the question again: What have you done lately to govern?
     
  9. DQuixote

    DQuixote
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well?
    ............
     
  10. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    For pity's sake you understand very little of constitutional law if you believe it is being "written" without regard to the document. It is all about interpretation, and that is pretty much what Marshall claimed in Marbury. There are things in this world that our forefathers could not have even imagined. The Constitution was not intended to be frozen in time without regard to our changing and developing society. We can look to the fp's and the like for the framers original intent, but in many instances there will not be anything relevant, (i.e. the www, industrial revolution, intellectual property, etc.), the justices still must determine how these areas fall into line with the Constitution.

    (Oh, and don't be pompous, I have a life outside of the BB. I was not ignoring you. As for your question I do plenty to "govern", in your words, although probably not on the same issues you champion.)
     
    #10 Filmproducer, May 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 20, 2007
  11. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    If a situation arises that the Constitution and its original intent cannot address then the courts should defer to the legislative body rather than try to pull junk out of the air.
     
  12. DQuixote

    DQuixote
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you, 2 Tim. Words of wisdom that make it even more critical that we Christians vote for those of like faith. I heard an interesting comment yesterday. The dear lady on one of the cable news channels stated that our WASPC culture would become Spanish Catholic if illegal immigration and amnesty are not reversed.
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, neither of the major parties will reverse these so if the lady is correct then I guess we know where the nation is headed culturally.
     
  14. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I regularly write to my federal and state representatives. It requires a lot of time and effort. Most of the time I get a "form letter" response in about three to six months that doesn't address a single point expressed and it has a rather patronizing tone to it. Sometimes I get a more specfic and clearly customized response especially if it's close to time for re-election!

    In general, I find they are mostly out of touch and unable or unwilling to take a firm stand on most anything. They - as in most of the rest of our society including the church - are interested in compromise, getting along, looking good and important, regulating those that will comply, collecting more taxes to fund more public works, and taking credit for what they consider significant accomplishments.

    The most recent example comes from on of my senators who cites, in a lengthy response, all the things "accomplished" on the matter of illegal aliens. My counter is that it means nothing in the face of an ever worsening situation and that real solutions require immediate, drastic, and forceful action. This senator may mean well - I'm not sure even of that - but has lost touch with reality. The other senator dosen't even respond. My respresentative is on target in words but not nearly forceful enough on the floor.

    We need to literally clean out the entire membership of the United States Congress and replace them with people who've never served a day in political office of any kind. As a lot the present bunch is worthless!
     
  15. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    It would be a real but welcome suprise for the Court to release it's new found legislative power back to Congress that is suppose to have it. I believe it will require the other two branches thumb the Court to make it happen.
     
  16. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Perhaps you misunderstand. The Constitution is the legal framework of our society. There are constitutional issues which the founders/framers could not possibly foresee, yet they are no less important constitutionally or legislatively. Prime example would be www commerce. Marshall, in a sense, foresaw the need of distinctly defining the scope of SCOTUS powers, hence the importance of Marbury. Marshall certainly would not consider it pulling junk out of the air, nor would the framers. They may not agree with the direction of some decisions, but the SCOTUS was designed precisely for maintaining the supreme law of the land. The ONLY way to accomplish said function is through case law.
     
  17. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    I disagree.

    Your solution leaves potentially every issue in the hands of the judiciary, making them the most powerful of what was meant to be three "equal" branches of government.

    "Case law" can and should be changed by legislation when the need arises.

    The Framers never intended to place all issues eventually in the hands of the only unelected branch of government.
     
  18. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Not according to me, according to Chief Justice Marshall in 1803. Being that the majority of the framers were alive at that point in time, I'm sure if they had real issues with the court they would have amended the Constitution. Besides it is not leaving every issue in the hands of the judiciary, only those brought before the court, which is the original intent for the scope of SCOTUS powers, as outlined in Article III, sec.2.

     
  19. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    My point, exactly.

    SCOTUS is just the end of the line. Federal judges all across the land legislate from the bench and create the hallowed judicial means of ruling society, case law and precedent.

    The 14th Amendent, as one sterling example, has been perverted beyond all recognition.

    That perversion is what the framers did not foresee in Marshall's high sounding words.
     
    #19 carpro, May 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 20, 2007
  20. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Which is what the founders intended. The legislature constructs the law and the judiciary interprets it.

    Yes, heaven forbid the SCOTUS, through the interpretation of the 14th amendment, affords all US citizens equal protection under the law, as well as due process under the law. My goodness, why would we actually want the terms of the 14th amendment to be met? BTW, Congress drafted and ratified the 14th amendment, including sec. 5 which gives Congress the power to enforce said laws. The SCOTUS can only interpret the law for those cases brought before them. Congress can make pretty much any law, even those contrary to the Constitution, and the SCOTUS can do nothing until the case is brought before them.

    Marshall's high sounding words? You've got to be kidding me. There are quite a few things in this country that the framers could not have foreseen, but the SCOTUS interpreting the law, and basing said decisions on precedent, is NOT one of them.
     

Share This Page

Loading...