Court decisions are not law of the land

[SuperDemocrat]

Laws are created by the legislative branch by something called democracy. The people elect other people to establish the laws. Usually these laws reflect what the people already think which means these laws as well as the lawmakers exist within the people's consent. The courts main job is to implement those laws but depending on how those laws are interpreted the law can be implemented in different ways by how they are interpreted. In some ways "case law" is just a history of court decisions on how a law or some part of the constitution is interpreted and those cases become the effective implementation of the law because the courts use that as a blueprint on how to implement them. A higher court decided that this law means this so the lower court does that because they know their case can be appealed to that court.

Since the courts are relatively free to decide thei meaning they can decide how they are implemented without the people's consent. It just seems kind of undemocratic if a court can decide how a law is to be executed if that court executes the law in a way the legislative branch never wanted it to be executed. Where is the people's input on whether or not the courts were enforcing the law in a way they agreed with and in a way they consented to originally?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Marbury v Madison (1803) reaffirmed the power of judicial review for the Court in such a way as to give the Court greater than equal power over the other supposedly co-equal branches of government, essentially giving the SCOTUS the final say over any legislation and its implementation.

 

[occupied]

Laws are created by the legislative branch by something called democracy. The people elect other people to establish the laws. Usually these laws reflect what the people already think which means these laws as well as the lawmakers exist within the people's consent. The courts main job is to implement those laws but depending on how those laws are interpreted the law can be implemented in different ways by how they are interpreted. In some ways "case law" is just a history of court decisions on how a law or some part of the constitution is interpreted and those cases become the effective implementation of the law because the courts use that as a blueprint on how to implement them. A higher court decided that this law means this so the lower court does that because they know their case can be appealed to that court.

Since the courts are relatively free to decide thei meaning they can decide how they are implemented without the people's consent. It just seems kind of undemocratic if a court can decide how a law is to be executed if that court executes the law in a way the legislative branch never wanted it to be executed. Where is the people's input on whether or not the courts were enforcing the law in a way they agreed with and in a way they consented to originally?

When it comes to civil rights the people and the legislative process do not have the ultimate say since the majority can never be trusted to protect the rights of a minority.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Court decisions are not law of the land

Utter nonsense.

Law of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

When it comes to civil rights the people and the legislative process do not have the ultimate say since the majority can never be trusted to protect the rights of a minority.

We see recently that the reverse is true as well.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

BTW, we are a democratic republic, not a democracy, which the Founders both feared and hated. That is Mob Rule.

 

[RodISHI]

Laws are created by the legislative branch by something called democracy. The people elect other people to establish the laws. Usually these laws reflect what the people already think which means these laws as well as the lawmakers exist within the people's consent. The courts main job is to implement those laws but depending on how those laws are interpreted the law can be implemented in different ways by how they are interpreted. In some ways "case law" is just a history of court decisions on how a law or some part of the constitution is interpreted and those cases become the effective implementation of the law because the courts use that as a blueprint on how to implement them. A higher court decided that this law means this so the lower court does that because they know their case can be appealed to that court.

Since the courts are relatively free to decide thei meaning they can decide how they are implemented without the people's consent. It just seems kind of undemocratic if a court can decide how a law is to be executed if that court executes the law in a way the legislative branch never wanted it to be executed. Where is the people's input on whether or not the courts were enforcing the law in a way they agreed with and in a way they consented to originally?

You are correct and when out of control judges desire to f' someone over they can get extremely wishy washy on who gets justice and who gets away with fraud, murder, etc.

 

[occupied]

When it comes to civil rights the people and the legislative process do not have the ultimate say since the majority can never be trusted to protect the rights of a minority.

We see recently that the reverse is true as well.

The marriage equality debate is a classic case of the majority trying to vote an unpopular minority into a permanent second-class status. Conservatives have always been on the losing end of these debates because it is in their nature to enshrine their treasured class, race and social divisions into law.

 

[Blackrook]

Laws are created by the legislative branch by something called democracy. The people elect other people to establish the laws. Usually these laws reflect what the people already think which means these laws as well as the lawmakers exist within the people's consent. The courts main job is to implement those laws but depending on how those laws are interpreted the law can be implemented in different ways by how they are interpreted. In some ways "case law" is just a history of court decisions on how a law or some part of the constitution is interpreted and those cases become the effective implementation of the law because the courts use that as a blueprint on how to implement them. A higher court decided that this law means this so the lower court does that because they know their case can be appealed to that court.

Since the courts are relatively free to decide thei meaning they can decide how they are implemented without the people's consent. It just seems kind of undemocratic if a court can decide how a law is to be executed if that court executes the law in a way the legislative branch never wanted it to be executed. Where is the people's input on whether or not the courts were enforcing the law in a way they agreed with and in a way they consented to originally?

You have your terms all mixed up.

The Congress creates the law.

The President enforces the law.

The Supreme Court interprets law, and the Constitution.

The problem we have now is a President who thinks he can single-handedly exercise the powers of all three branches of government through the use of Executive Orders.

He is setting a bad precedent that may be followed by future Presidents.

Just as the Roman Republican transitioned to the Roman Empire, the same thing is now happening to us.

And Democrats are cheering the destruction of the co-equal branches of government.

They will have no legal recourse if a right-wing President uses all the powers Obama has assumed for himself.

 

[cnm]

BTW, we are a democratic republic, not a democracy, which the Founders both feared and hated. That is Mob Rule.

What dictionary do you use?

democracy​

1. government by the people or their elected representatives
2. a political or social unit governed ultimately by all its members
3. the practice or spirit of social equality
4. a social condition of classlessness and equality
5. the common people, esp as a political force

 

[Pogo]

Laws are created by the legislative branch by something called democracy.

Oh sweet cheeses.
That's not "democracy" -- that's called "legislation".

I stopped reading there considering the thought that obviously went into this...

 

[occupied]

Laws are created by the legislative branch by something called democracy. The people elect other people to establish the laws. Usually these laws reflect what the people already think which means these laws as well as the lawmakers exist within the people's consent. The courts main job is to implement those laws but depending on how those laws are interpreted the law can be implemented in different ways by how they are interpreted. In some ways "case law" is just a history of court decisions on how a law or some part of the constitution is interpreted and those cases become the effective implementation of the law because the courts use that as a blueprint on how to implement them. A higher court decided that this law means this so the lower court does that because they know their case can be appealed to that court.

Since the courts are relatively free to decide thei meaning they can decide how they are implemented without the people's consent. It just seems kind of undemocratic if a court can decide how a law is to be executed if that court executes the law in a way the legislative branch never wanted it to be executed. Where is the people's input on whether or not the courts were enforcing the law in a way they agreed with and in a way they consented to originally?

You have your terms all mixed up.

The Congress creates the law.

The President enforces the law.

The Supreme Court interprets law, and the Constitution.

The problem we have now is a President who thinks he can single-handedly exercise the powers of all three branches of government through the use of Executive Orders.

He is setting a bad precedent that may be followed by future Presidents.

Just as the Roman Republican transitioned to the Roman Empire, the same thing is now happening to us.

And Democrats are cheering the destruction of the co-equal branches of government.

They will have no legal recourse if a right-wing President uses all the powers Obama has assumed for himself.

President Obama is using all the powers of his office very effectively whereas congress is hardly using theirs at all. Congress still has vast powers at their disposal but it has been hijacked by politicians who get more personal mileage out of partisanship and obstruction.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

BTW, we are a democratic republic, not a democracy, which the Founders both feared and hated. That is Mob Rule.

What dictionary do you use?

democracy​

1. government by the people or their elected representatives
2. a political or social unit governed ultimately by all its members
3. the practice or spirit of social equality
4. a social condition of classlessness and equality
5. the common people, esp as a political force

I don't need a dictionary in this case. It's American history.

Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

 

[SuperDemocrat]

When it comes to civil rights the people and the legislative process do not have the ultimate say since the majority can never be trusted to protect the rights of a minority.

We see recently that the reverse is true as well.

The marriage equality debate is a classic case of the majority trying to vote an unpopular minority into a permanent second-class status. Conservatives have always been on the losing end of these debates because it is in their nature to enshrine their treasured class, race and social divisions into law.

Are you referring to our capitalist rulers--whitey?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

When it comes to civil rights the people and the legislative process do not have the ultimate say since the majority can never be trusted to protect the rights of a minority.

We see recently that the reverse is true as well.

The marriage equality debate is a classic case of the majority trying to vote an unpopular minority into a permanent second-class status. Conservatives have always been on the losing end of these debates because it is in their nature to enshrine their treasured class, race and social divisions into law.

Equal opportunity can't enshrine anyone by law. The only people getting enshrined are those getting bailouts because they can't fail.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

BTW, we are a democratic republic, not a democracy, which the Founders both feared and hated. That is Mob Rule.

What dictionary do you use?

democracy​

1. government by the people or their elected representatives
2. a political or social unit governed ultimately by all its members
3. the practice or spirit of social equality
4. a social condition of classlessness and equality
5. the common people, esp as a political force

I don't need a dictionary in this case. It's American history.

Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

I suppose in your view they supported the opposite which is a dictator dictating things or is that just your preferred government that you want to live under?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Laws are created by the legislative branch by something called democracy. The people elect other people to establish the laws. Usually these laws reflect what the people already think which means these laws as well as the lawmakers exist within the people's consent. The courts main job is to implement those laws but depending on how those laws are interpreted the law can be implemented in different ways by how they are interpreted. In some ways "case law" is just a history of court decisions on how a law or some part of the constitution is interpreted and those cases become the effective implementation of the law because the courts use that as a blueprint on how to implement them. A higher court decided that this law means this so the lower court does that because they know their case can be appealed to that court.

Since the courts are relatively free to decide thei meaning they can decide how they are implemented without the people's consent. It just seems kind of undemocratic if a court can decide how a law is to be executed if that court executes the law in a way the legislative branch never wanted it to be executed. Where is the people's input on whether or not the courts were enforcing the law in a way they agreed with and in a way they consented to originally?

You have your terms all mixed up.

The Congress creates the law.

The President enforces the law.

The Supreme Court interprets law, and the Constitution.

The problem we have now is a President who thinks he can single-handedly exercise the powers of all three branches of government through the use of Executive Orders.

He is setting a bad precedent that may be followed by future Presidents.

Just as the Roman Republican transitioned to the Roman Empire, the same thing is now happening to us.

And Democrats are cheering the destruction of the co-equal branches of government.

They will have no legal recourse if a right-wing President uses all the powers Obama has assumed for himself.

President Obama is using all the powers of his office very effectively whereas congress is hardly using theirs at all. Congress still has vast powers at their disposal but it has been hijacked by politicians who get more personal mileage out of partisanship and obstruction.

I do t think he is because he refuses to enforce immigration laws.

 

[Nosmo King]

Laws are created by the legislative branch by something called democracy. The people elect other people to establish the laws. Usually these laws reflect what the people already think which means these laws as well as the lawmakers exist within the people's consent. The courts main job is to implement those laws but depending on how those laws are interpreted the law can be implemented in different ways by how they are interpreted. In some ways "case law" is just a history of court decisions on how a law or some part of the constitution is interpreted and those cases become the effective implementation of the law because the courts use that as a blueprint on how to implement them. A higher court decided that this law means this so the lower court does that because they know their case can be appealed to that court.

Since the courts are relatively free to decide thei meaning they can decide how they are implemented without the people's consent. It just seems kind of undemocratic if a court can decide how a law is to be executed if that court executes the law in a way the legislative branch never wanted it to be executed. Where is the people's input on whether or not the courts were enforcing the law in a way they agreed with and in a way they consented to originally?

You have your terms all mixed up.

The Congress creates the law.

The President enforces the law.

The Supreme Court interprets law, and the Constitution.

The problem we have now is a President who thinks he can single-handedly exercise the powers of all three branches of government through the use of Executive Orders.

He is setting a bad precedent that may be followed by future Presidents.

Just as the Roman Republican transitioned to the Roman Empire, the same thing is now happening to us.

And Democrats are cheering the destruction of the co-equal branches of government.

They will have no legal recourse if a right-wing President uses all the powers Obama has assumed for himself.

Learn something.


Executive Orders

 

[cnm]

I don't need a dictionary in this case. It's American history.

Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

I guess one can say anything one wants if no one uses a dictionary.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't need a dictionary in this case. It's American history.

Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

I guess one can say anything one wants if no one uses a dictionary.

The meaning of a word is one thing, the meaning of history is another. I doubt you'd call this a democracy eh, but they do...