Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Retires

[acludem]

How about clause 10 of Article 1 section 8: Clause 18: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This is pretty darn vague.


acludem

 

[Bonnie]

I honestly find it hard to believe that most "strict constructionists" have ever actually read the Constitution. Frankly, it is very vague in many areas. It was written that way for a reason. The reason quite simply is that the founders wanted a document that could adapt to changing times, and the fact that over 200 years later, there have been only twenty seven amendments to the document and most of those occured within the first 75 years of our government shows that they were extremely successful.

acludem

Well then you should have no problem with Roe Vs Wade being overturned someday if two more justices deem it bad law??? Proved my earlier point!

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

How about clause 10 of Article 1 section 8: Clause 18: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This is pretty darn vague.


acludem

What's so vague about it? It's talking about Congress and the laws they can make. In section 9 there are very specific things Congress cannot do. You have to look at the entire document, it all goes together, not one piece at a time.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Bush should nominate Ann Coulter. She is constitutional scholar with a J.D. from a respectable law school. That's more than most of our Justices have had, historically.

An excellent idea

...but would she (or we) find it as much fun?

 

[manu1959]

why do the winners have to apease the loser......this is such a tree hugger philosophy......don't keep score the kids will feel bad if they lose......no grades as bad grades will hurt their self image......everyone is special so no one is....no wonder the rest of the world laughs at us and doen't repsect us....

 

[acludem]

That cluase is extremely vague! What does "necessary and proper" mean? How about another famous line in the Constitution - "High crimes and misdemeanors"..what did the founders intend this to mean? It was left vague so that it could be molded to the times.

acludem

 

[Gunny]

I actually think Alberto Gonzalez would have an easier time being confirmed than Garza because of three words: Roe versus Wade. Garza has publically stated his disagreement with this decision, Gonzalez has come down on the side of abortion rights in his time as a Texas judge.

As for Ann Coulter, I think not. My big name choice that would likely have no problem getting confirmed would be former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming. Simpson is a common sense conservative, he's well liked and respected by people in both parties, and would have an easy time getting confirmed.

acludem

I'm for anyone striking down Roe v Wade. It's federal interference in state matters.

 

[dilloduck]

That cluase is extremely vague! What does "necessary and proper" mean? How about another famous line in the Constitution - "High crimes and misdemeanors"..what did the founders intend this to mean? It was left vague so that it could be molded to the times.

acludem

Doesn't matter---liberal judges even screw up the one's that are VERY clear in what they mean. Time for the pendulem to swing the other way for awhile---as in "checks and balances".

 

[Gunny]

Doesn't matter---liberal judges even screw up the one's that are VERY clear in what they mean. Time for the pendulem to swing the other way for awhile---as in "checks and balances".

Well, THAT's the problem, but if the pendulum MUST swing -- and it must -- might as well swing my way for awhile as opposed to some of the knuckleheaded crap I've seen legislated/misinterpreted from the bench over the last decade.

 

[acludem]

That's not checks and balances. Checks and balances is the part of the Constitution where the President can veto and act of Congress, but a supermajority of congress can override this veto. Another example is that the Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress Unconstitutional, but Congress can then pass a Constitutional amendment, which upon ratification by the states can overturn that SCOTUS decision. That's checks and balances.

As for so-called "activist liberal judges", I would say that there are far more activist conservative judges who seek to use the bench to undo Constitutional protections to add to the police power of the federal and state governments. Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas all fit into this. Want an example of conservative judicial activism? Read Bush v. Gore. Another example of this was the decision that police can arrest you whenever they so please, with or without reason, that was a vote of the Conservative bloc, plus a very naive David Souter.

acludem

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

That cluase is extremely vague! What does "necessary and proper" mean? How about another famous line in the Constitution - "High crimes and misdemeanors"..what did the founders intend this to mean? It was left vague so that it could be molded to the times.

acludem

In a sense you're right, but it should be molded through laws passed by Congress. High crimes and misdemeanors or necessary and proper are whatever have been deemed these things by the laws that are passed. Things get screwed up when the Supreme Court decides to add words to the Constitution, or base a decision on a very loose interpretation of what the Constitution "means" instead of what it actually says. You're making it more difficult than it is.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That's not checks and balances. Checks and balances is the part of the Constitution where the President can veto and act of Congress, but a supermajority of congress can override this veto. Another example is that the Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress Unconstitutional, but Congress can then pass a Constitutional amendment, which upon ratification by the states can overturn that SCOTUS decision. That's checks and balances.

As for so-called "activist liberal judges", I would say that there are far more activist conservative judges who seek to use the bench to undo Constitutional protections to add to the police power of the federal and state governments. Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas all fit into this. Want an example of conservative judicial activism? Read Bush v. Gore. Another example of this was the decision that police can arrest you whenever they so please, with or without reason, that was a vote of the Conservative bloc, plus a very naive David Souter.

acludem

Bush v Gore is your definition of "conservative judicial activism"?

Are you saying it's "judicial activism" to protect the votes of several million people who were able to cast their votes correctly on election day?

Are you saying it's "judicial activism" to prevent manual recounts with different standards being applied from county to county?

SCOTUS did not select Bush as President. Although it probably would have been better had it stayed out of the fray, its hand was forced by the actions of a liberal court. It stopped a state supreme court from violating the rule of law. This whole issue was forced by a liberal Democrat (Al Gore) so selfishly intent upon becoming President that he ignored our constitutional system.