 |
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
#101
09-01-2010, 02:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
So it's OK for a group of appointees to have unlimited power over our 'free' government?
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.” 
|
|
#102
09-01-2010, 02:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
|
#104
09-01-2010, 03:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The supposed check on judical power is, ignoring them. (lack of enforcement authority = check, laughable which Jefferson saw)
But the Feds want expanded power too. The only way to rein them in after all these years of letting them go would be a mass uproar from folks which could possibly create a call for a Constitutional convention, which then theoretically could lead to such blatant strict crackdowns on the SCs authority that it wouldn't be a problem for a few years. Two problems. 1) Never happen. 2) See #1.  Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
|
#105
09-01-2010, 03:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
|
#106
09-01-2010, 03:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Simple deal if Congress does not like a decision they can introduce legislation to counter it. Like they treid to do with that corporations are people crap, but Dr. No and his gang blocked most of it.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt Last edited by merrylander; 09-02-2010 at 07:35 AM.
|
|
#107
09-01-2010, 04:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The executive checks the legislative branch with the power of the veto, and to a certain extent with the use of recess appointments and executive orders. The executive checks the judiciary with the power to appoint judges. The lifetime appointment of Article III judges serves as a check on undue pressure from the executive or legislative branch to take a particular position on a case before it. Other checks on the judiciary are the authority to impeach judges; the power to statutorily reverse a interpretation of statutory or common law by the courts; or to amend the constitution. Pete, unless you have a deep-seated distrust of American Citizens of your own, you would trust that when judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution and Laws of the united states, they will be faithful to that oath. Moreover, there is a very strong tradition in the law of following past precedents, sometimes even when the precedents aren't binding. That gives stability to the law and the way people order their dealings with one another. An aside regarding the value of precedent; I clerked for a federal judge on the district court. We would assist him in researching and drafting orders. Although district courts are not legally bound to follow decisions from other district courts, or even their own, my boss told us we could only recommend that he reach a different conclusion than another judge on our court if we could convince him that the other judge was off his rocker when he reached the other result. That was affectionately known as the "off his rocker" rule of jurisprudence. I have another example of how conscientiously he fulfilled his role, but I would prefer to give it off line if your are interested. Back to checks and balances: the legislative checks the executive and the judiciary by having advice and consent with respect to nominees; the legislative checks the executive by being able to override a veto with a two thirds majority; the legislature also has the power of the purse. The judiciary is not just a bunch of appointees doing what they want to do. They are bound by an oath, by law and by tradition. That they might take a different approach to the nature of our government than you do, or that they might interpret the Constitution differently does not make them unchecked rogues intent on destroying our liberty. Regards, D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray, We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
|
#108
09-02-2010, 09:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I trust the American people a lot more than a handful of appointed-for-life Judges D. In the US 'the people' are sovereign, at least, that's what someone said once long ago.
I'm afraid I've come off as a know it all in this thread, I'm sorry for that. People who know me would probably be surprised. But this stuff here is among my 1st loves, and I do know it So I'm saying one more thing and then going back to myself. I said 1) never happen. That's not entirely true, at least from a historical perspective vs a current one. Power centers tend to accumulate more power, property, and money. Once entrenched they tend to calcify, more or less quickly than others, but it's a certainty sooner or later. They try to keep things the same (which is always impossible) and harden, become brittle. They end up being smashed. It's always turbulent. The old Chinese curse 'may you live in interesting times' is wise. Recent examples include the USSR and GM (management and labor both). This will happen to us eventually too. The Founders knew it. In order to try to stave it off they tried to create a system that forced power centers to move, by not allowing any particular center to retain power for long, by trying to make it impossible for them to calcify - when they did they'd be thrown out you see. This is why Jefferson, and others, were adamently opposed to Federal takeover of everything, which they started to do immediately (as power centers do, if they can). Monopolies are tyrannical in government as well as business, they calcify as noted. So it comes to the smashing (which is an eventual certainty!). I'm not one of those who glibly talk about revolution, I've read too much war, it's a dreadful thought. But by not being able to express change within the bounds of government the walls the Feds have built to force things to stay the same (for their benefit!) will creak and groan and eventually break. My apologies if I'm less than clear or rambling or both. And to bring it back to Christianity, it says in the Bible that the serpent will come to a head. This certainly means government will continue its' consolidation in fits and starts into at least regions forming even bigger monopolies, becoming even more oppressive. The bright side for us is, he's being brought to a head so God can crush him under His heel. Then the true benevolent dictatorship can begin  Awful long 'one more thing' Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
|
#110
09-02-2010, 10:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
While I understand your antipathy towards the judiciary, I happen to be of the opinion that it is the one branch of government that is still acting closest to the intent of the founding fathers and the constitution.
As far as trusting the people, the video link that Boreas or Noone provided with the Wright State kids interviewing the Tea Partiers at the Beckapalooza should help cast some doubt as the amount of trust one should put in the American people (as should H.L. Mencken's most famous quote, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.") This link and the imbedded linked article are also enlightening. Even though there may be problems with appointed judges, elected ones are even worse.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:47 PM.