Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Evajux]

• ??? ??????? ????? ???? ? ... by Evajux
  [Today at 11:49:49 AM]
• semaine de relache 2024 l... by Veronahqb
  [Today at 04:52:59 AM]
• Sticky stuff. by WllkeiJocky
  [May 13, 2024, 01:22:29 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by agrohimgfu
  [May 11, 2024, 01:50:21 AM]
• Professional Advice: Reco... by Davidfak
  [May 10, 2024, 11:59:18 AM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 10, 2024, 03:21:43 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 4962
• Latest: hvWeils

Stats

• Total Posts: 129633
• Total Topics: 7189
• Online Today: 168
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[Vespertine]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/pledge.undergod.ap/index.html

http://http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/23/hamilton.pledge/index.html
Before you lock the thread cat, I was kidding about this being a sequel of the previous thread.  

On a serious note, the first article is about the House passing the Pledge Protection Act.  In summary, the article says that, if passed, the act would remove challenges to the pledge from federal jurisdiction and put said challenges at the state level.  Theoretically, there could then be 50 different interpretations of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.  

The second article is an opinion about the House passing the act.  It indicates, among other things, that Congress passing this amounts to Congress attempting remove the checks and balances built into the Constitution by the framers.

Opinions?  Ideas?  Thoughts?

Edited: Forgot to include the second link.

[xolik]

This is not a good thing. It is my humble opinion that congress is trying to overstep it's authority. They should not be trying to dictate to the Supreme Court what they can and cannot decide on.

[hackess]

Before you lock the thread cat, I was kidding about this being a sequel of the previous thread.  

How trigger happy do you think I am?!?

[Law]

The irony will be when the Supreme Court strikes down this bill if it becomes law. Since they can't supposedly rules on the Pledge, they'll just be forced to rule on the restriction law.

Congress constantly seems to forget that they don't have carte blanche to restrict how the other two branches perform their Constitutional duties. Someone on Capitol Hill has an interesting sense of what "final arbiter of Constitutionality" means.

[Demosthenes]

Exactly.

For that reason, I'm not really even that concerned about this... not as much as one might think.

This is a good chunk of the House of Representatives collectively going "HUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR" to pander to one-issue voters in an election year.

And if it gets to the White House, it'll be the President going "HUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR" as he signs it into a law-that-will-swiftly-be-struck-down-as-not-even-remotely-constitutional for the same reasons.

[Vespertine]

Before you lock the thread cat, I was kidding about this being a sequel of the previous thread.  

How trigger happy do you think I am?!?

 :vader:
About as trigger happy as that guy.  

[Crystalmonkey]

I'm a bit split on this. Not happy that the congress is trying to limit the Supreme Court, yet upset that out of ALL the branches, the supreme court is far stronger than all of the others. If you don't believe me, consider this:

The Executive Branch enforces the laws, but for the most part they do not create the laws. The branch controls the Congress with Veto power.

The Congress makes the laws, yet cannot enforce them. They control the money allotted to different things, and can propose different ammendments to the constitution. The congress counters the Veto with a 2/3rds majority.

The Supreme court interprets the laws. They go directly to the constitution. There is no veto power, there is no 2/3rds majority. If they rule unconstitutional, the law dies. No buts.

Before you point out that congress can make ammenments,

"The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification."

The president has no control, but it still requires the states to be in 3/4th agreement about the amendments. That doesn't happen very often. While the second method can be used, because it hasn't been used since it was created, I tend to think the chances are unlikely.


I may be completely wrong, but I had to try.

[Law]

The President nominates the members of the Supreme Court and Congress approves them. That's a form of control.

[Crystalmonkey]

Ever have somebody you think you know really well, but it turns out you were wrong? Congressmen and Presidents are just people too, they simply get better toys to play with.


Edit: There till they die or decide to leave.

[xolik]

Ever have somebody you think you know really well, but it turns out you were wrong? Congressmen and Presidents are just people too, they simply get better toys to play with.


Edit: There till they die or decide to leave.

Huh? Both Congresspeople and the President have term limits. They're there as long as they are wanted or the term is up.

I don't think I'd make a good Congressman. I generally can't stand idiots and would probably start a brawl on the House floor.  

[Crystalmonkey]

The point was that they choose the supreme court, but they could just as easily be fooled as the next person.


Congressmen = Human, term based

Supreme Court = Human, life based

Humans sometimes fool Humans

[Law]

Well, that's kind of a foolish theory. Justices of the SC are not picked on a whim, their entire legal career and education are measured against exacting standards. Their decisions, opinions and rulings at every level of the judicial system are measured and studied in minute detail. Then, they're vetted by both sides of the aisle in the Senate. It would be rather surprising for the selected judge to suddenly become someone completely different than was chosen. And even if they did, they're one of 9 justices. No single justice rules the Supreme Court, it's a majority rule situation and often there is no majority.

Edit: for rushed grammar...

[Vespertine]

Law and Demo, I agree with you that the Supreme Court would just strike it down if it got passed.  And, from that perspective, I'm not really worried about it.  What bothers me is the fact that Congress is trying so damn hard to overstep their bounds.  AND, I firmly believe they realize that they're about to do it, saying, "screw it", and then going ahead and doing it anyway.

[Crystalmonkey]

That is certainly a big thing too yep.

[Law]

Law and Demo, I agree with you that the Supreme Court would just strike it down if it got passed.  And, from that perspective, I'm not really worried about it.  What bothers me is the fact that Congress is trying so damn hard to overstep their bounds.  AND, I firmly believe they realize that they're about to do it, saying, "screw it", and then going ahead and doing it anyway.

This Congress seems to have a sense of entitlement the likes of which God has never seen. There have been some quite alarming bills making their way around the hill. Luckily the crackpot factions is still a minority and few have seen the light of committee...