1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Should the flag protect those that are intent on destroying it?

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Craven Morehead, Sep 30, 2011.

  1. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    The impeachment process is for removing judges for malfeasance in office (not demonstrating "good behavior") NOT for a decision with which Paul (or others) does not agree.

    Absolutely, the constitution can be amended, which is quite different than giving Congress the right to veto a Supreme Court decision.

    Article III gives the federal judiciary the sole judicial power over the Constitution and the laws.

    He is wrong on all the above by putting his interpretation above all others, including those with a more scholarly understanding than the good doctor.

    Dust it off and read it again, dude, rather than just parroting Paul's interpretation and discounting all others.

    Where did the framers ever suggest impeachment or removing a judge based on an unpopular judicial decision? In fact, that is exactly what they wanted the Court protected from.

    Or want Congress to have the power to veto Court decisions rather than the clear separation of powers they proposed?
     
  2. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Therein lies the challenge of working with a flawed document.

    They should have spent more time writing it.
     
  3. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Paul's solution is just bat shit crazy.

    His "We the People Act" (introduced last session of Congress) would remove from the jurisdiction of the federal courts any cases involving religion, rights of privacy (including reproductive rights and sexual orientation), rights of marriage based on equal protection, any federal statutes that might impose a cost on the states.... Any federal judge who would hear and act on such cases would constitute a breach of "good behavior" and be subject to impeachment and any previous cases in these areas (Roe v Wade) would no longer have binding precedent on the states.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-539
     
  4. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    So basically he wants it so the greatest court in the land cannot field challenges regarding a person's rights if they live in a politically backwater state?

    That shit's fucked up.
     
  5. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Far more dangerous than the threat of Sharia law in the US.
     
  6. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Obviously.
     
  7. EventHorizon

    EventHorizon assuredly the cause of the angry Economy..

    Location:
    FREEDOM!
    good thing this thread is still about the OP
     
  8. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    you don't know what the common law tradition is, duane. think about it in comparison with the civil law tradition. what the backwater lawyers of the strict construction crowd are really proposing the replacing the common law tradition and the centrality of case law in establishing frameworks that enable meanings to change over time with some notion of civil law proceedings, which assumes, as do the backwater pseudo-attorneys, that law can be written in such a way as to minimize the need for interpretation and reduce judges to simple functionaries. that's a radical change in everything about the us legal system. that the backwater pseudo-attorneys who advocate doing it without seeming to understand the first thing about what they're actually advocating is just another indication that they are not worth taking seriously.
     
  9. Duane formerly DKSuddeth

    that is a really bad and stupid idea. because of that thinking currently, it's led to a lot of bad law and circumstance. are you comfortable with some of the law that has been made and decided upon over the last 50 years?
     
  10. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    Are my choices to either accept all laws written ever or completely reject the notion of a living constitution? Because that's a ridiculous premise.
     
  11. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    And for the record, I think that some of the worst decisions made in interpreting the constitution have been wholly endorsed by the strict constitutionalists on the supreme court.
     
  12. Duane formerly DKSuddeth

    people like to claim that the courts should interpret the constitution within todays times and places. the courts have been doing that for 100 years now with your right to jury nullification. do you believe that they should be able to do that?
    --- merged: Nov 4, 2011 5:57 PM ---
    which decisions would those be? never mind. i'll just make a new thread about the living constitution.
     
  13. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

  14. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
  15. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    it's about eric holder's speech yesterday floating a justification for the state murdering american citizens in wartime. the aclu's response gives more details:

    http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-eric-holder-speech-targeted-killing-program

    i have to say that the entire policy area concerning gwot and the repurposing of the national security state that the obama administration took over & continued from the bush people is one that i find to be entirely alienating. sometimes it seems like there was some odd intellectual coup d'etat at the point obama took office, one that happened in the midst of the eating of the economic shit sandwich the bush people also passed forward.
     
  16. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    I think the main take home is that due process is whatever secret lawyers at the Justice Department say it is, and that the notion that we should involve the judicial system in something as routine as executing our own citizens abroad is too weak-kneed for the administration of the Noted Constitutional Scholar Barack Obama.
     
  17. mixedmedia

    mixedmedia ...

    Location:
    Florida
    i don't know about an intellectual coup d'etat. i don't think any administration can stomach the idea of some of our uglier truths being submitted to the world for inspection.

    of course, for those who are paying attention, attempts to cover them up only make the obvious more glaringly apparent. kind of like trying to put concealer on a giant pimple.

    then there are the majority of people in the US who either support any sort of dubious US action abroad if it supports their image of a valiant America fighting the bad guys for the preservation of grandma and pony rides. and, worse perhaps, all of those who just don't give a shit.

    I think I've just stopped being surprised by the raging river of bullshit that flows across our cultural landscape. Anything can be made to sound like anything else if it has a little good copy to go along with it.