|
|
| What are you willing to do? |
| Something |
|
58% |
[ 7 ] |
| Anything |
|
41% |
[ 5 ] |
| Nothing |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:41 pm
Arcadian So, how does the Judicial System gain the power it was suppost to have all along? That is a very good question... however, ultimately, not the way our nation was designed... When the constitution was written, the states had much more authority than now. The ability to over turn a state ruling was enough... however, as we have federalized, the balance of power has shifted, and the Supreme Court hasn't caught up with the times... In other words, I don't know yet... however, it would require them to have some actually disciplinary authority over the other branches.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:59 pm
*stumbles in holding a bottle of whisky* Oh. Most humble apologies, ladies and gents. I was looking for a bottle of something on the top shelf when the wall swung out of the way. Quite surprising. The Judicial branch of the government was never designed to have any actual enforceable power over the other branches. Actually, the only institution specifically created by the Constitution is the Supreme Court itself; every lesser court was created by acts of Congress. The Constitution provides for this, of course, but it doesn't exactly state how many such lesser courts should or could be created. Additionally, the Court's powers are fairly explicitly laid out in Article III., Section II. of the Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall greatly expanded on those powers in the ruling on Marbury v. Madison - a case that has been and still is cited as precedent in nearly every judicial opinion since. The Supreme Court thus carved out it's own powers - wide-ranging, yet completely unenforceable. The other branches of government are not strictly required to abide by the rulings of the Judiciary; however, to ignore such rulings would completely undermine one of the lynchpins of the Republic. So, when Secretary General Ashcroft refused to hand over memorandums when specifically ordered to do so by the Supreme Court without citing so much as a "Writ of Douchebaggery"... well. I assume that you can perceive how much I am endeared to this administration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:28 am
I used 'supposed' in a liberal sense I guess - what I meant was that I doubt those who wrote the constitution would have wanted the Supreme Court to really just be an advisory board.
Thank you for the insight though, Weston, and welcome.
Hmm. I'm curious now, however, about something. If the Supreme Court is in such a powerless state, why is there so much fuss over who gets nominated onto it? Wouldn't it not matter much?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:19 am
*Westonian pours out a glass of whisky
Ah, but the Supreme Court isn't powerless. It's rulings are unenforceable, yes, but it still has the power to declare actions illegal. If a case comes before the Court challenging an act of Congress, the Court has the power to uphold it or strike it down; either reinforcing it and adding to it's legitimacy, or sapping it and making it unenforceable. Illegal laws may not be legally acted upon, and the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional legality. That's the power that the Judiciary holds over the Legislature and the Executive. The other two branches of government have, in turn, the power to nominate and elect the judges that make up the courts.
So, when a president nominates judges that he believes will rubber-stamp laws passed by Congress, it threatens to bring down the balance of powers system. Case in point: FDR in 1937. Each branch of the government must have strong checks on it's powers to prevent any one from becoming tyrranical. Supreme Court nominations are for life, but the other branches take those nominations very seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 3:47 pm
*Sips some port*
Now, the problem is, the Supreme Court needs some teeth, to keep up with the power influx that the other two branches have seen since the penning of the Constitution. The simple fact is, our nation doesn't run the way it used to, and the federal governemnt, especially the legislature, and now the Executive office as well, hold much more power than the originally did...
I'm not arguing the virtues and failings of federalization, that is a matter of history... I am merely arguing that the Judiciary branch is getting left far behind the other branches, in terms of real power.
*Eats some chocolates*
This throws the whole system off... the three part, balance of power has greatly shifted... and I see this as a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:13 pm
I wonder if the Supreme Court can rule that it's unconstitutional to not give the judicial system more power when the scales become unbalanced. Otherwise I really doubt Congress will do it for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:33 pm
Problem with that is that the Supreme court has no authority to institute change, furthermore, they have no way of enforcing their rulings, yes they can over turn the rulings of any other courts, thus blocking the convictions for unconstitutional laws, but have proven incapable of actually holding the Congress, and President up for anything.
Without a drastic restructuring of the actually priveleges of the Court, they will remain impotent...
*stuffs his pie with some tobacco, strikes a match, inhales, and exhales a mildly cherry smelling cloud.*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:10 pm
*sips from his glass, swirls it around a bit, waits for the alcohol to soak into his mouth*
I'll argue that the Court is not impotent. It may not have any way of enforcing it's rulings, but if the other branches want to have any form of legitimacy they must treat the Court as an equal. That means that when a law gets struck down, it's either dumped or retooled.
Courts can only interpret law and generate Common Law. They can't grant themselves (too many) new powers. The powers that they have given themselves deal largely with jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:31 am
*pours a glass of port... swirls it a bit*
I was just thinking that for the third estate to keep current, it would have to have it's powers of judicial review bumped up a notch.
Mayhaps a more active role in impeachment... of executive or legislative civil servants...
*sips the port*
Most importantly, do you agree that the Judiciary is in need of new checks to balance the pwoer of the other two branches, or do you think the other two need to be taken down a notch... or am I just chasing phantoms?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:41 pm
I would say that you're chasing phantoms. The Supreme Court has sufficient power to restrain the other two branches when it proves necessary. The only real problem with the system is that in order to exercise those powers someone has to bring a case before the Court. If relevant cases aren't argued in front of the Justices, they can't rule on the constitutionality of a law or action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:47 pm
Touche'
It is a matter of getting the matter brought before them... not an easy task, finacialy, or legally....
*Sips some port*
But if it is too easy, in our legal action happy society, they will be hideously swamped with trivialities...
Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:35 pm
Stupid sue-happy nation. stare
Anyway, I'm reading this book about a Utopia called Brave New World. Instead of changing circumstances to make people happy, they genetically alter everyone to love their circumstances! Interesting concept, although it essentially abolishes the social freedoms and customs we are so used to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:24 pm
Katane, that's growing in exactly the opposite dirrection I want to go in... I want a nation of conscience, accountability, and righteousness... not a nation of brainwashed zombies, held in thrall by a corruption ridden gang of hooligans. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:25 am
I concur. In my ideal world, libertarian values are supreme. Every person is responsible for themselves, and they are competent at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:44 am
In my best moods, I'm all for the Libertarian ideal, and infact, am a member of the local party... especially for our nation, people should be allowed to do as they please, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
*packs his pipe*
In my worst moods, I'm in favour of Enlightened Despotism, for I have seen the wreckage of giving the majority free reign, and it worries me... bascially, it's Libertarianism, with no political control by the masses.
*Takes a long pull, and then blows some smoke rings*
My chief concern is how to transform what is currently existant into a viable and sustaining entity that promotes indivdual liberty, and protects the people from outside interference (aka foreign invasion). Also, I would seek to standardize certain matters far more, such as education, and labour laws (something which I feel private parties, on both sides of the labour-managemen line have bulloxed).
As far as accountability, I think if politicians were paid by the body they represent (rather than the assembly they are a part of) it would go a good distance to ensuring that they served their precincts best interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
