The US Constitution should be read, understood and interpreted by all voters, they should then only elect government officials who will preotect and defend the US Constitution in it's original language and intent.
Anytime a government official or judge tries to interpret the US Constitution as a "living document" or acts in a way that goes against the US Constitution the people should demand that they be removed from their office.
The proper order of government is the people, then the states, then the federal government!
Peroutka Pro-Life Ad
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by JGrubbs, Sep 14, 2004.
Page 2 of 4
-
Try answering my question.
-
I can't help it if you don't comprehend my answer.
-
Who has the AUTHORITATIVE interpretation Netpub? Hint: it is in the constitution.
-
Oh you want the textbook answer...
The Supreme Court
But as we have seen throughout history, the Supreme Court has been wrong, and when any court is wrong, it should be challanged by the people and the other branches of government. -
Fine, our system allows for change. However, their interpretation is the only one that matters until it is changed. You don't have to like it. I dislike a lot of their decisions. They still are the only ones with the authoritative interpretation.
-
I think, according to NP, the original authors have the authoritative interpretation of it. Of course, if you agree that it should be defended in it's "...original language and intent...", then I am guessing that we should also reinstate Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1, to it's original language and intent as well? Or, shoudl we go with the later ammendment (change from the original language and intent) XIII, Section 1, which was ratified in 1865 after a big war, I believe? What about ammmendment XIV, Section 1, which was also different from the original language and intent, ratified in 1868? Or, Ammendment XV, Section 1, which was also different from the original language and intent, ratified in 1870? Or, how about Ammendment XIX, which was also different from the original language and intent, ratified in 1920?
Just curious if you would really be willing to take it that far.
Joseph Botwinick -
Joseph, welcome back, we've missed you (in my best Agent Smith voice).
The constitution party is just an embittered, ragtag group of parachurch wannabes. If they would just put the theonomy kool-aide down for a minute, they might be able to find a clue. -
I think you already know the answer to your question. In the "...original language and intent..." of the Constitution there is a system for changing through Amendments. I think there are some Amendments that had no business being added, like the prohibition amendment, but I think your quesition is a silly question, which you asked with the sole intention of starting an argument or stiring up strife.
-
Joseph Botwinick -
pinoybaptist Active MemberSite Supporter
Hey, Joseph, where you been, man ?
'less my eyesights are failing me, I haven't seen you posting much lately.
Anyway, glad to hear from you again. -
The rulings of the Supreme Court actually apply to only the case at hand.
Sometimes other courts refer back to a previous ruling in an attempt to maintain consistency, and also sometimes to avoid earning their pay by having to work out their own ruling.
But, we have drifted into a muddle of "case law" that has falsely elevated the courts to the status of lawmakers. This is not proper, and not really lawful, for that matter.
But, the important thing in this case is that Roe vs. Wade was the ruling in ONE CASE, and SHOULD BE IGNORED for all others. 3800 innocent lives will be lost TODAY because nobody has the backbone to do so. -
While you are right that case law rules on only one case, the general legal procedure is to appeal to precedents as the basis for a ruling. In such an appeal, the judge or judges believe that the principles of one case are transcendant. A higher court then decides if the precedent was valid. Such is the case in Roe.
I find the charge that they are trying to avoid earning their own pay as unfounded. Case law is notoriously difficult and judges who ignore it create an even worse situation, where there is no rule except the whims of the judge. Judges do not have to follow case law, and routinely do not, which is where many legal challenges come from. In addition, there is often case law on both sides of a ruling. I have a judge in my church and he and i have talked about these things. I would hate to have his job.
FTR, I ignore Roe all the time. Many of us do. It has been challenged and will be again. If Bush is not reelected, Kerry will appoint pro abortion judges who will not overturn Roe. Bush might appoint judges who will. This issue alone, if no other, renders a vote for anyone but Bush a vote to ensure the continuation of abortion. Kerry will do absolutely nothing to stop. Bush might not ... but he has shown through some of his appointments already that he is willing to appoint pro life judges.
Give life the best chance we are able. -
Larry, don't you see that Bush has appointed pro-abortion judges while Governor of Texas, what makes you think he will be any different in dealing with Supreme Court nominations?
-
Joseph Botwinick -
Joseph Botwinick -
Joseph Botwinick -
Assuming for the sake of argument that Bush and Kerry are identical on everything else (something far from true), this issue alone is a reason to vote for Bush over Kerry or Peroutka. There is at least a chance for pro life judges. There is no chance with the other two. -
Welcome back to the board, Joseph. I'm looking forward to having some well-thought out discussions with you in the future as we search for answers for solving the federal budget deficit, the trade deficit, the impending Social Security disaster, the impending Medicare disaster, the health care cost crisis, our border crisis, and the out-sourcing of American jobs problem.
-
Page 2 of 4