The U.N. worthless?

[Annie]

Have to agree with Pale Rider, when there becomes an institutional problem, it usually resides in the judicial branch.

You can tell when it gets 'really bad' cause then people start talking amendment time. Luckily that usually makes the other branches active enough to set the courts aright.

ACLU early wrote that the Civil War decided the end of state's rights. Wrong, it merely reiterated the supremacy of the federal constitution over the states, preventing succession. The states will have to decide if they will surrender all power to the fed, which they have been willing to do in most cases for a long time. Now again, people are funny, they might decide to make the state pols decide another way. One never knows.

 

[Trademark 36]

the money just bought the people who could manipulate the words in the written laws.I know plenty of people with a good amount of money and that didnt make them bad people.Just as well there are unwealthy a-hole who got away with things because of simple manipulation of the written law

 

[Trademark 36]

look I hate money and how it makes some people,but a common misnomer is that if you have money your a greedy stingy person of low morals and that couldnt be darther from the truth.I'm not rich at all but I know a lot of people who are quite wealthy and 90 percent of those I know are some of the kindest most giving you've ever met,and they dont just give for a tax write off,but because of the kindness of their heart.

 

[Annie]

I think his point would be that a very small % of those 10% can afford the Johnny Cochran's of the world. Notice how the UN has turned to lawyering up-that takes bucks. But heh, they seemed to have stolen enough to share with the lawyers.

On the other point, sure there are some poor criminals who do get out on a 'technicality', but that is the way the system works. Not perfect, just better than anything else so far.

 

[Trademark 36]

oops forgive my misspellings: :

 

[Trademark 36]

there are certainly bad and good people in every race, color ,creed, financial status, employment status, and etc...

 

[NewGuy]

The Constitution is the highest authority, and by that status, anyone passing a law or amendment counter to it is going AGAINST it.

The Constitution clearly states that the law is then to be ignored, and if the person is a judge and showing bad behavior, impeached.

Anyone who thinks it needs to be changed ought to reread it.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't there is anything wrong with ammending the Constitution. Issues arise that the writers couldn't immagine in a million years. Ignoring these isssues for the sake of keeping the Constitution "pure" is going a bit overboard. It definately an amazing framework and becuase of this any amendment proposed should reflect it's integrity and importance. An amendment such as prohibition was fortunately overturned as petty when compared to the intent of the main body of law. The judicial branch becomes the bone of contention because their duty is to interpret and interpretatioon is has become flexible as
as social opinion. Lawyers, who are a majority of those who make the law, have made it almost impossible for a LOT of people to access unless they can afford the astronomical fees.

 

[dilloduck]

OOOOPS--got a little carried away--The UN has proven that it merely provides a place for diplomats the scheme and skim. It's also a good place for spies to hang out.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I don't there is anything wrong with ammending the Constitution.

There is if it doesn't fit the framework of it. When the document is designed to balance powers, any amendment to it doing otherwise subverts and corrupts the document.

The Constitution allows for amending, yes, but does not allow for repeal nor review of potentially "unconstitutional" amendments which is why it has to be done right the FIRST TIME.

In this case there IS something wrong with amending the Constitution: It is the highest law of the land and you cannot afford to make a mistake. Any body or individual in government saying otherwise clearly goes AGAINST the Constitution's text.

An amendment such as prohibition was fortunately overturned as petty when compared to the intent of the main body of law.

My point exactly, but no Constitutional reference allows a repeal.

The judicial branch becomes the bone of contention because their duty is to interpret and interpretatioon is has become flexible as
as social opinion.

No, their job is NOT to interpret a Constitution. Point to ONE place IN the Constitution where it says such a thing. They are to interpret lower level law.

Lawyers, who are a majority of those who make the law, have made it almost impossible for a LOT of people to access unless they can afford the astronomical fees.

1. Lawyers do NOT make law.
2. Juries are not told of their proper job so lawyers get away with it.

It is the job of a jury of PEERS (which is no longer done) that holds the final law making power.

 

[Comrade]

I don't like the choices offered.

It's an ineffective, corrupt, and anti-semitic joke, but it's still a "good thing" as long as it doesn't try to exceed it's authority, which should be essentially nil.

Originally the UN security council was representative of world power, and served as tool for world stability. Since the countries of the world have realigned themselves into a different order of power and influence over the years, it's grown less applicable to today's leaders.

Nonetheless, with the UN and all the diplomats in one forum, it serves it's purpose. The votes themselves serve as reminder to each and every country where each stands on the issues at hand. Without it, there would be more confusion over each countries position on global issues at hand.

Unclear signals are dangerous, so at the very least, the UN serves as a sounding board for foreign policy and could very well warn a country in advance of each and every one's position on where they stand with respect to it's action.

As far as any morally legitimacy is concerned, it's a joke. But it does serve to clarify international relations.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I don't there is anything wrong with ammending the Constitution.

LOL, Jerry, you aren't alone. There are many ammendments to the Constitution...check it out sometime.

 

[Annie]

Hmm, 218 years. 27 amendments, the first 10 included upon ratification. Of the other 17, 3 are concerned with post civil war and 2 with passage and repeal of prohibition. Doesn't sound like a lot to me.

 

[Annie]

Hmm, 218 years. 27 amendments, the first 10 included upon ratification. Of the other 17, 3 are concerned with post civil war and 2 with passage and repeal of prohibition. Doesn't sound like a lot to me.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by NewGuy
There is if it doesn't fit the framework of it. When the document is designed to balance powers, any amendment to it doing otherwise subverts and corrupts the document.

The Constitution allows for amending, yes, but does not allow for repeal nor review of potentially "unconstitutional" amendments which is why it has to be done right the FIRST TIME.

In this case there IS something wrong with amending the Constitution: It is the highest law of the land and you cannot afford to make a mistake. Any body or individual in government saying otherwise clearly goes AGAINST the Constitution's text.



My point exactly, but no Constitutional reference allows a repeal.



No, their job is NOT to interpret a Constitution. Point to ONE place IN the Constitution where it says such a thing. They are to interpret lower level law.



1. Lawyers do NOT make law.
2. Juries are not told of their proper job so lawyers get away with it.

It is the job of a jury of PEERS (which is no longer done) that holds the final law making power.

Let's talk about how things are actually practiced.

Would you agree that most bills are written by someone who is either a lawyer or educated in law?

Juries are not told of their proper job is the fault of a judge who is most likely a lawyer himself.

A jury may decice case law but it still within the rights of a judge to throw out the decision

The supreme court interprets "lower level laws" to determine thier constitutionality.