Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (228212)	4/8/2005 12:24:22 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578551

Ted, I find myself in complete agreement with you in your comments to Tim. The only thing that I would add is that it is deeply ironic for people like Tim to be so completely oblivious to the track record of activist judges like Priscilla Owen, who never met a corporation she wouldn't go into the raptures with in flagrante delicto while at the same time, she utterly disregards the rights, the needs and the desires of real human beings. Owen is perhaps the best example of a madwoman run amok and therefore being promoted by the madman in the White House to the detriment of America, democracy and future generations. And all for the sake of godless, soulless and amoral corporations.

To: tejek who wrote (228212)	4/8/2005 10:10:27 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578551

In the process of interpreting law, new law is created......inadvertently. Completely wrong. The role of the courts is simply to enforce the Constitution first and the laws second. Activist judges ignore both to get to the outcome of their preconceived desires. Because the courts don't interpret the laws the way the right wants, they are looking for ways to invalidate or limit the role of the courts Actually, our Constitution gave the three branches of government different roles. Each was to be a check on the other two. Under the weakened Nixon, the legislative branch seized significant control from the administrative branch. Now the judicial branch is attempting to seize control from both. interpretation of the law may well lead to new laws. That is the province of the courts. "No it is not." Yes, it is! Deal with it! Wrong, it is simply to enforce the Constitution and the laws on the books. If a constitutional amendment is written unconstitutionally, its unconstitutional no matter how many states approve it. If a Constitutional Amendment is ratified it becomes part of the Constitution, and thus takes precedence over other laws and the desires of activist judges. If it is poorly written it may be open to interpretation, but it is still take precedence.

To: tejek who wrote (228212)	4/8/2005 4:04:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578551

Tim, you are not listening. In the process of interpreting law, new law is created......inadvertently. Apparently are disagreement is not just a disagreement over what the courts should do but also about the meaning of creating new law. It could mean actual new legislation, but that meaning isn't relevant. The court doesn't literally pass legislation, and no one that I can think of says it does or that it should. On the other extreme. the term could be used to mean any change in the legally imposed requirement or limitations, or any change in the legal system. I would not use terms like "legislate from the bench", or "create new law", this way. If you would use the term "create new law" this way than I can see how you say its the courts role to create new law. I would only say the court is trying to legislate from the bench, or create new law, if it makes a decision that is not supported by the law itself (including the constitution). they are looking for ways to invalidate or limit the role of the courts........you included. When the constitution calls for it I would like the courts to be active. The only limit I would put on the courts is to base their decision on the constitution itself and not any "emanations and penumbras", or "evolving opinion", or decisions of courts overseas. And really the only good way I can see for this to happen is the courts themselves to change how they act. I can't see how the legislature or the executive could effectively impose such discipline on the courts. If the city of Seattle votes into law an ordinance that discriminates against Jews, then that ordinance is undemocratic. No, it would be unfair, unjust, unconstitutional, and all around bad. You could even say that it is "not good for our democracy", but the law itself would not be undemocratic, and would only have undemocratic results if the law including taking away or limiting their legal right to vote, or their ability to exercise that right. Your simply not applying the correct definition to the word "undemocratic". Tim

To: tejek who wrote (228212)	4/8/2005 4:39:48 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1578551

If a constitutional amendment is written unconstitutionally, its unconstitutional no matter how many states approve it. If the process through which an intended amendment is enacted is faulty then it might not be considered an amendment at all. A properly enacted amendment is part of the constitution. Such an amendment could remove the 1st amendment, make congress in to a unicameral legislature, get rid of the supreme court, even get rid of states and make the US a country with a unitary centralized government. An amendment could reintroduce slavery, change the US system into a parliamentary one rather then one with a directly elected executive, or change just about any other legal structure in the US. A properly enacted amendment is as much a part of the constitution as any other clause, amendment, or article. There is no superior law or constitution to override it. Tim