US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why Lawyers Don’t Understand Law Part I

This is a discussion on Why Lawyers Don’t Understand Law Part I within the Law and Justice System forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza "In Marbury v. Madison, (1803) the Supreme Court ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Law and Justice System

Law and Justice System For those who want to speak about legal issues

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2012, 04:21 PM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 30,945
Thanks: 3,715
Thanked 10,758 Times in 6,285 Posts
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 22158
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza View Post
"In Marbury v. Madison, (1803) the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Constitution gave the Court the authority of judicial review - that is, it empowered the Court to review acts of the Legislative, and, by extension, Executive, branches to evaluate whether legislation was constitutional. If found unconstitutional, the Court could overrule the law."



What is Marbury v. Madison and why is it a landmark case in the history of the US Supreme Court

You may not like it, Chunky, but that's the way it is.

One would think that basic vocabulary is not beyond you.
Yet...it seems not to be the case.


re·view
/riˈvyo͞o/
Noun
A formal assessment or examination of something.


al·ter
/ˈôltər/
Verb
Change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way.
Make structural changes to (a building).
If you had to sum up IN ONE SENTENCE, using YOUR OWN WORDS what you are trying to say in this thread, what would it be?

Let me try it. "The only legal way to change the Constitution is by the will of the people, not by judicial decision." Would you agree that this is your position?

If not, would you please state IN ONE SENTENCE, using YOUR OWN WORDS, what you are trying to say in this thread. Please set aside the smart-ass, cute responses just for once and provide a rational answer.

Thank you.
You know, Georgie....the amendment process.


Actually....every one of my posts is rational.

Do you need me to define that, too?
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter

Last edited by PoliticalChic; 12-27-2012 at 04:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2012, 04:25 PM
Registered User
Member #29519
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,069
Thanks: 407
Thanked 547 Times in 426 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 185
Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator
George Costanza
Quote:
You may not like it, Chunky, but that's the way it is.
George Costanza
Quote:
Please set aside the smart-ass, cute responses just for once and provide a rational answer.
I would tell you to fuck off, but I don't think PC will.

Last edited by Too Tall; 12-27-2012 at 04:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2012, 04:26 PM
del del is offline
Banned
Member #11827
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 45,058
Thanks: 5,314
Thanked 15,644 Times in 9,589 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow
del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow del is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Quote: Originally Posted by Too Tall View Post
George Costanza
Quote:
You may not like it, Chunky, but that's the way it is.
George Costanza

Quote:
Please set aside the smart-ass, cute responses just for once and provide a rational answer.
I would tell you to fuck off, but I don't think PC will.
fuck off
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2012, 04:33 PM
C_Clayton_Jones's Avatar
Lex dabit remedium
Member #29614
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: In a Republic, actually
Posts: 17,179
Thanks: 887
Thanked 7,116 Times in 4,959 Posts
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4117
C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute
C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post
1. “Chief Justice John Marshall offered [this] in Marbury v. Madison, the case often credited with establishing judicial review. Marshall wrote that we have a written Constitution so that the limits on government power “may not be mistaken, or forgotten” and that the Constitution is “a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.” Judges are part of the government…Marshall wrote that the Constitution represents “the intention of the people.” Intention is expressed through the meaning, not merely the form, of words. …The Constitution could not continue to be the intention of the people if its meaning could be changed by anyone but the people. Quoting George Washington, the Rhode Island Constitution declares that “the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
What Is the Constitution? - By Orrin Hatch - The Corner - National Review Online





2. So….how to understand what was meant when the Constitution was written? As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Randy Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning in which the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

a. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’





3. Everything changed when Progressives took over law schools. They taught law students a) that there was no natural law, nor unalienable rights, and b) that the Constitution is altered by case law. This meant American lawyers interpreting the Constitution via caselaw rather than through studying the Constitution itself.

a. Roscoe Pound (1870-1964), Dean of Harvard Law School, instituted the "taught legal tradition." Pound firmly believed that the implementation of the principles of the taught legal tradition by wise common-law judges resulted in substantive change, which reflected changes in society. As the interpreters of the common law, judges had a special duty to consider the practical effects of their decisions and to strive to ensure that judging facilitated rather than hindered societal growth.” Roscoe Pound - definition of Roscoe Pound by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
What was evident in his first published book in law, common with Progressives, was his deep indebtedness to German modes of thinking.

b. Pound sought to adjust principles and doctrines of law to the realities of the human condition…. wanted to extract wisdom from German social science to apply to American law.: law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”… the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”
roscoe pound and jurisprudence and 1903 and nebraska and harvard law school

c. He was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roscoe Pound: Biography from Answers.com





Again....the premise is that judges are wiser than the Founders.....

...and that their decisions for social justice surpass the guidance of the Constitution. All current lawyers have been taught this.
Some rise above it.


At the Senate hearings for Judge Robert's Supreme Court nomination, Senator Schumer asked Roberts if the 'little guy' would get special consideration in the court.

"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."
Read more: Roberts Sworn In as Chief Justice | Fox News


Of course, that is not the view of Progressives.
Most lawyers are Progressives.
Such a sad, confused, and ignorant post.

One assumes that due to the comprehensive failure of this thread, there won’t be a ‘Part II.’

There is common law and statutory law, the former based on case law, and the latter created by Congress and other legislative entities. Statutory law ‘trumps’ common law, and indeed the great bulk of our laws are now statutory.

So much for the OP’s common law/’code’ law nonsense.

The OP also makes the mistake of perceiving the Constitution as the ‘beginning’ of something, when it is not.

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, the zenith of Anglo-American jurisprudence; and at the core of the Constitution’s judicial genius is the doctrine of judicial review and the judiciary’s authority to interpret the law pursuant to that doctrine.

Judicial review predates the Constitution, was practiced by the Colonial courts, and both the Founding Generation and the Framers expected laws passed by Congress to be subject to judicial review in the context of the Constitution’s case law.

Judicial review is authorized by the First Amendment, where the Constitution guarantees the people the right ‘to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

And the venue for the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is the Federal courts, where the people may seek relief from government excess resulting in laws that excessively restrict or preempt the exercising of a civil right.

As to stare decisis, as Justice Kennedy observed in Lawrence:

Quote:
The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991) (“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it ‘is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ ”) (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940))). In Casey we noted that when a Court is asked to overrule a precedent recognizing a constitutional liberty interest, individual or societal reliance on the existence of that liberty cautions with particular strength against reversing course. 505 U.S., at 855—856; see also id., at 844 (“Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt”).

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
Consequently, there is nothing capricious or ‘activist’ when a previous ruling is overturned by a judge or court; decisions such as Plessey clearly manifested ‘jurisprudence of doubt,’ and are struck down appropriately.

As to the fallacy of ‘originalism,’ George Costanza has already correctly noted the case law, Marbury v. Madison (1803), acknowledging the accepted and settled doctrine of judicial review and the Court’s interpretive authority accordingly.

See also McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where the Court recognized that the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, where the ‘argument’ that something ‘isn’t in the Constitution’ is completely irrelevant, and further reinforces the fact that the Supreme Court does indeed determine what the Constitution means.

Last, as seems now mandatory in this and similar failed threads on the topic, we’ll close with Justice Kennedy’s brilliant summation from Lawrence as to how the Framers intended the Constitution to function:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
__________________
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2012, 04:35 PM
Registered User
Member #29519
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,069
Thanks: 407
Thanked 547 Times in 426 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 185
Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator Too Tall could be State Senator
Quote: Originally Posted by del View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Too Tall View Post
George Costanza
Quote:
You may not like it, Chunky, but that's the way it is.
George Costanza

Quote:
Please set aside the smart-ass, cute responses just for once and provide a rational answer.
I would tell you to fuck off, but I don't think PC will.
fuck off
That makes two dipshits that make smart-ass, cute and insulting responses and don't like one thrown back at them.
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2012, 04:36 PM
George Costanza's Avatar
A Friendly Liberal
Member #18703
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles area.
Posts: 5,007
Thanks: 914
Thanked 1,348 Times in 944 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 960
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post


One would think that basic vocabulary is not beyond you.
Yet...it seems not to be the case.


re·view
/riˈvyo͞o/
Noun
A formal assessment or examination of something.


al·ter
/ˈôltər/
Verb
Change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way.
Make structural changes to (a building).
If you had to sum up IN ONE SENTENCE, using YOUR OWN WORDS what you are trying to say in this thread, what would it be?

Let me try it. "The only legal way to change the Constitution is by the will of the people, not by judicial decision." Would you agree that this is your position?

If not, would you please state IN ONE SENTENCE, using YOUR OWN WORDS, what you are trying to say in this thread. Please set aside the smart-ass, cute responses just for once and provide a rational answer.

Thank you.
You know, Georgie....the amendment process.


Actually....every one of my posts is rational.

Do you need me to define that, too?
I knew it. What you are trying to say in this thread is: "The amendment process"? I see. And you couldn't resist the cute stuff either, could you?

When you want to enter into a serious discussion about something, come look me up.
__________________
"I was in the pool! I was in the pool!"
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2012, 04:42 PM
George Costanza's Avatar
A Friendly Liberal
Member #18703
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles area.
Posts: 5,007
Thanks: 914
Thanked 1,348 Times in 944 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 960
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve George Costanza could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by C_Clayton_Jones View Post
Such a sad, confused, and ignorant post.
She's being intentionally obtuse. Don't waste your time on her.
__________________
"I was in the pool! I was in the pool!"
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2012, 04:49 PM
C_Clayton_Jones's Avatar
Lex dabit remedium
Member #29614
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: In a Republic, actually
Posts: 17,179
Thanks: 887
Thanked 7,116 Times in 4,959 Posts
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4117
C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute
C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute C_Clayton_Jones has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by C_Clayton_Jones View Post
Such a sad, confused, and ignorant post.
She's being intentionally obtuse. Don't waste your time on her.
Unfortunately she’s not alone.
__________________
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2012, 04:59 PM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 30,945
Thanks: 3,715
Thanked 10,758 Times in 6,285 Posts
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 22158
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
Quote: Originally Posted by C_Clayton_Jones View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post
1. “Chief Justice John Marshall offered [this] in Marbury v. Madison, the case often credited with establishing judicial review. Marshall wrote that we have a written Constitution so that the limits on government power “may not be mistaken, or forgotten” and that the Constitution is “a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.” Judges are part of the government…Marshall wrote that the Constitution represents “the intention of the people.” Intention is expressed through the meaning, not merely the form, of words. …The Constitution could not continue to be the intention of the people if its meaning could be changed by anyone but the people. Quoting George Washington, the Rhode Island Constitution declares that “the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
What Is the Constitution? - By Orrin Hatch - The Corner - National Review Online





2. So….how to understand what was meant when the Constitution was written? As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Randy Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning in which the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

a. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’





3. Everything changed when Progressives took over law schools. They taught law students a) that there was no natural law, nor unalienable rights, and b) that the Constitution is altered by case law. This meant American lawyers interpreting the Constitution via caselaw rather than through studying the Constitution itself.

a. Roscoe Pound (1870-1964), Dean of Harvard Law School, instituted the "taught legal tradition." Pound firmly believed that the implementation of the principles of the taught legal tradition by wise common-law judges resulted in substantive change, which reflected changes in society. As the interpreters of the common law, judges had a special duty to consider the practical effects of their decisions and to strive to ensure that judging facilitated rather than hindered societal growth.” Roscoe Pound - definition of Roscoe Pound by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
What was evident in his first published book in law, common with Progressives, was his deep indebtedness to German modes of thinking.

b. Pound sought to adjust principles and doctrines of law to the realities of the human condition…. wanted to extract wisdom from German social science to apply to American law.: law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”… the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”
roscoe pound and jurisprudence and 1903 and nebraska and harvard law school

c. He was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roscoe Pound: Biography from Answers.com





Again....the premise is that judges are wiser than the Founders.....

...and that their decisions for social justice surpass the guidance of the Constitution. All current lawyers have been taught this.
Some rise above it.


At the Senate hearings for Judge Robert's Supreme Court nomination, Senator Schumer asked Roberts if the 'little guy' would get special consideration in the court.

"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."
Read more: Roberts Sworn In as Chief Justice | Fox News


Of course, that is not the view of Progressives.
Most lawyers are Progressives.
Such a sad, confused, and ignorant post.

One assumes that due to the comprehensive failure of this thread, there won’t be a ‘Part II.’

There is common law and statutory law, the former based on case law, and the latter created by Congress and other legislative entities. Statutory law ‘trumps’ common law, and indeed the great bulk of our laws are now statutory.

So much for the OP’s common law/’code’ law nonsense.

The OP also makes the mistake of perceiving the Constitution as the ‘beginning’ of something, when it is not.

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, the zenith of Anglo-American jurisprudence; and at the core of the Constitution’s judicial genius is the doctrine of judicial review and the judiciary’s authority to interpret the law pursuant to that doctrine.

Judicial review predates the Constitution, was practiced by the Colonial courts, and both the Founding Generation and the Framers expected laws passed by Congress to be subject to judicial review in the context of the Constitution’s case law.

Judicial review is authorized by the First Amendment, where the Constitution guarantees the people the right ‘to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

And the venue for the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is the Federal courts, where the people may seek relief from government excess resulting in laws that excessively restrict or preempt the exercising of a civil right.

As to stare decisis, as Justice Kennedy observed in Lawrence:

Quote:
The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991) (“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it ‘is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ ”) (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940))). In Casey we noted that when a Court is asked to overrule a precedent recognizing a constitutional liberty interest, individual or societal reliance on the existence of that liberty cautions with particular strength against reversing course. 505 U.S., at 855—856; see also id., at 844 (“Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt”).

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
Consequently, there is nothing capricious or ‘activist’ when a previous ruling is overturned by a judge or court; decisions such as Plessey clearly manifested ‘jurisprudence of doubt,’ and are struck down appropriately.

As to the fallacy of ‘originalism,’ George Costanza has already correctly noted the case law, Marbury v. Madison (1803), acknowledging the accepted and settled doctrine of judicial review and the Court’s interpretive authority accordingly.

See also McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where the Court recognized that the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, where the ‘argument’ that something ‘isn’t in the Constitution’ is completely irrelevant, and further reinforces the fact that the Supreme Court does indeed determine what the Constitution means.

Last, as seems now mandatory in this and similar failed threads on the topic, we’ll close with Justice Kennedy’s brilliant summation from Lawrence as to how the Framers intended the Constitution to function:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
1. "Such a sad, confused, and ignorant post."
Now, now, C_Chamber_Pot....I know that the OP is none of those adjectives....nor do I believe you found it so.

Rather, you are annoyed that this layperson saw through the obfuscations and fog thrown up in order to provide the legal profession with aggrandizement and power.
Isn't that the case?


2. In fact...you knew nothing of the grand designs of Progressives Langdell and Pound until I revealed same to you.
True?




3. And, I'll bet that it is just now dawning on you that the one and only legal way to change the direct and evident meaning of the Constitution is the amendment process.
True?



4. As for the bulk of your post....Dr. Phyllis Chesler, writes in her book, "The Death of Feminism," about folks who attempt to obfuscate, to cloud the issue....and why they do so:

Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear.




5. And...speaking of avoiding....I've asked you for your opinion of Obama and Justice Kagan being in favor of curtailing the freedom of speech, an unalienable right.....

Of course, Progressives don't believe that there are any rights that government cannot take away.
True?



6. And....don't miss part II:

Why Lawyers Don’t Understand Law part II

You'll love the William Rehnquist part.
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2012, 05:07 PM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 30,945
Thanks: 3,715
Thanked 10,758 Times in 6,285 Posts
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 22158
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
Quote: Originally Posted by George Costanza View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by C_Clayton_Jones View Post
Such a sad, confused, and ignorant post.
She's being intentionally obtuse. Don't waste your time on her.

Georgie....this is getting to be a habit.

ob·tuse
/əbˈt(y)o͞os/
Adjective
Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
Difficult to understand.


Try to stick to words that you can define.
Clearly I'm not slow in any way.....
....and if there is a difficulty in comprehension, it is yours....
but I am annoying you, by supporting my perspective...something you seem incapable of doing.



It's really simple, and I cannot say it any better than Rehnquist did:

"Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.
Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country. "
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/..._Rehnquist.pdf


You were saying?
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Law and Justice System
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:44 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.