Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore once again suspeneded

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Congress and the President do not have that power. Constitution lays out Congresses power over the courts, what you want is not one of those places. Three branches separate and equal.
    And, which part of amendment did you miss? It could be done and it makes more sense than many other amendments proposed in the last 75 years.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      And, which part of amendment did you miss? It could be done and it makes more sense than many other amendments proposed in the last 75 years.
      You did not use the word "amendment", you wrote codified into law. Not the same thing at all.
      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
      “To talk of many things:
      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
      Of cabbages—and kings—
      And why the sea is boiling hot—
      And whether pigs have wings.”
      ― Lewis Carroll

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
        You did not use the word "amendment", you wrote codified into law. Not the same thing at all.
        Yes it does!
        Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Savez View Post
          I'm for him too. But I know him personally. He's a man of his convictions. In his first trial the line of questioning basically amounted to asking him to deny the existence of God. He refused and was removed. I don't always agree with him. I don't think government should be involved in marriage, but he stands for state's rights. That's good enough for me. Couple that with the SPLC against him and I'm with Moore.
          SPLC is all I need to hear, I am with him!
          Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
            You did not use the word "amendment", you wrote codified into law. Not the same thing at all.
            Amendments are law. Duh...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              Amendments are law. Duh...
              Sorry, you're making stuff up now. Laws are in acted by Congress and signed by the President. They can be changed in the same manner. Codified into law does not equate to Amend the Constitution.
              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
              “To talk of many things:
              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
              Of cabbages—and kings—
              And why the sea is boiling hot—
              And whether pigs have wings.”
              ― Lewis Carroll

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                Sorry, you're making stuff up now. Laws are in acted by Congress and signed by the President. They can be changed in the same manner. Codified into law does not equate to Amend the Constitution.
                Although Wilson's War Emergency Powers Act effectively suspended elements of the constitution in 1917 -18, for example allowing him to regulate what appeared in the press.
                Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                  SPLC is all I need to hear, I am with him!
                  I wonder if the SPLC realizes that their wrath is viewed as a compliment by so many.
                  A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                    I wonder if the SPLC realizes that their wrath is viewed as a compliment by so many.
                    I hope so. I may email them this thread link.
                    “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                    --Salmon P. Chase

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      What really needs to happen is we codify into law making it illegal for judges to make law. That is they can rule something unconstitutional, illegal, whatever, but they can't substitute something into law in its place.

                      For example, Roe v. Wade could reject in place abortion laws but without legislative action, it wouldn't make abortion legal either. It simply says the law as currently written won't stand.

                      Thus, in the case of gay marriage, the courts couldn't decide the issue. They could reject the various laws against it but that wouldn't make it legal either. A legislative action would still be required.

                      It would eliminate legislating from the bench entirely.


                      While Judges do "legislate from the bench", they cannot technically "make" law.
                      In Roe, the Court "found" a Constitutional right to privacy that made abortions a Right. While I disagree with their decision, I think we have to accept that this was within their authority.

                      I would submit that it was this same authority that allowed the SCOTUS to interpret the 2nd Amendment in the Heller and MacDonald decisions.
                      I agree that Judges shouldn't ever "legislate", but it remains essential that they retain their ability to interpret the law.

                      That doesn't mean judges can read the law anyway they want, it simply means that the law as written doesn't cover every situation that appears before the court. When that happens, the court must attempt to determine the intent of the legislation and apply it to the present situation.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Savez View Post
                        I hope so. I may email them this thread link.
                        Be careful. They might add you to their list of "hate groups".

                        Sadly, I'm not entirely kidding.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                          While Judges do "legislate from the bench", they cannot technically "make" law.
                          In Roe, the Court "found" a Constitutional right to privacy that made abortions a Right. While I disagree with their decision, I think we have to accept that this was within their authority.

                          I would submit that it was this same authority that allowed the SCOTUS to interpret the 2nd Amendment in the Heller and MacDonald decisions.
                          I agree that Judges shouldn't ever "legislate", but it remains essential that they retain their ability to interpret the law.

                          That doesn't mean judges can read the law anyway they want, it simply means that the law as written doesn't cover every situation that appears before the court. When that happens, the court must attempt to determine the intent of the legislation and apply it to the present situation.
                          Do you not have 'precedent' and common law in the USA?
                          Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                          Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by MarkV View Post
                            Do you not have 'precedent' and common law in the USA?
                            Yes. We have precedent, but if the law, as written, doesn't precisely deal with the matter at hand, the court must interpret the law.

                            For instance, we have a duty to maintain our property in a safe condition.
                            Nevertheless, if a visitor trips on a sidewalk with a height deviation of 1.5 inches, the courts have determined you can't be held liable in that instance. The Courts have determined that "safe" doesn't require "perfection". The law says nothing about height deviations, but the court created that standard in applying the law.

                            Yes, we have the common law, but it also doesn't deal with all situations.
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                              Be careful. They might add you to their list of "hate groups".

                              Sadly, I'm not entirely kidding.
                              That is a goal of mine. However, I wouldn't want to incriminate Armchair though.
                              “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                              --Salmon P. Chase

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Savez View Post
                                That is a goal of mine. However, I wouldn't want to incriminate Armchair though.
                                Ha! If the SPLC ever sees us they'd call us all Hitler. We're probably already on some kind of watch list.
                                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X