[redmenace]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
As far as actually amending the Constitution, it's a hard decision. There are some amendments people have been talking about that I don't think belong in the Constitution, and for every amendment to it, the easier future amendments will become.

The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is bad enough. I think the last thing I want is for the current administration to start changing the highest law of the country.

It is actually very difficult to add a new admendment to the constitution, not just a difficult dicision. And it is difficult for a very good reason. And that is stability. Now I don't want to get into a debate about the interpretation of the constitution, but a "independant judiciary" that is not very independant, can decide what the constitution means and thusly defeat the purpose of any sort of difficulty as it relates to passing admendments.

But let me make it even simpler, They are all political hacks

[WMCoolmon]

It would still require a 2/3 majority, but, hmm, I can't think of a good example, but as people get more used to something it tends to become easier to do, even if it requires a large proportion of people. For example, suppose one politician cuts a deal with another to gain their vote on an amendment that will really help them, in exchange for voting for an amendment the second guy proposes, that the first guy would either abstain from or vote against.

And also while the SC can "interpret" laws, it can't blatantly contradict them. It also has to decide when to back down, as it is totally dependant on the other two branches for enforcing/abiding by its judgements. If Congress passed a law in contradiction to the Constitution, and the Executive branch supported it, and it had popular support, there's not much the SC could do beyond punish individual violators. Especially since I don't think judicial review is legislated at the constitutional-level.

 I don't see it happening with the current political situation, but still, the SC is not all-powerful.

[redmenace]

Concerning their power, we have seen in madison vs. mulberry that the SC can in fact grant its self power such as in the case of judicial review.

But concerning the 2/3 majority of states, that is a positive thing. a simple majority could all seemingly smaller states to impose their power of the larger states. Just keep in my, when the constitution was enacted their were only 13 states IIRC. And I should point out that they all had their individual gov'ts and initially the gov't was very small.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by pyro-manic
Isn't the judiciary politically appointed anyway? Wasn't there a big stink about some of Bush's nominations for the Supreme Court last year? Something like that anyway...

As for this, it's disgusting. I mean, we have a compulsory purchase system here, but the govamint pays well over the odds for the land, and it only happens rarely...

I think the US supreme court judges are politically appointed (when one of the existing judges ides, retires, etc), but have to go through voting by congress; I think a minority can block this, and that's what Busch wanted to overturn/prevent.  There being an obvious counter-point that part of the role of the judiciary is to respect the minority as well as majority, i.e. be neutral and unbiased.  That's probably unlikely as judges are still human beings, so IMO the best situation is at least to have a balanced group of opinions.

Personally, I don't think any judges should be appointed by the government, but by their peers and possibly some politically-independent state organisation.

Incidentally, apparently only 2 of the current judges were appointed by a Democrat president (Clinton on both counts).

My parents first home was compulsarily purchased (it was in Airdrie, well before I was born); they paid (whoaff!) £450 to buy it, and got £300 from the council.  So it's a bit of a **** system.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by aldo_14


I think the US supreme court judges are politically appointed (when one of the existing judges ides, retires, etc), but have to go through voting by congress; I think a minority can block this, and that's what Busch wanted to overturn/prevent.  There being an obvious counter-point that part of the role of the judiciary is to respect the minority as well as majority, i.e. be neutral and unbiased.  That's probably unlikely as judges are still human beings, so IMO the best situation is at least to have a balanced group of opinions.

The Minority can "block this," but considering the fact that you can change the rules, this is not really such a block. Only a side note.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
The Minority can "block this," but considering the fact that you can change the rules, this is not really such a block. Only a side note.

They can block changing the rules as well, can't they?

[Ford Prefect]

Concerning their power, we have seen in madison vs. mulberry that the SC can in fact grant its self power such as in the case of judicial review.

Actually the case was Marbury v. Madison.

[redmenace]

Thankyou for the correction

[Kosh]

It's rediculous and horrific and it needs to stop.

You're right. Yeah, I'm pretty shocked too. I just agreed with you.


Seriously though, this could lead to a great deal of abuse. All a corperation needs to do is put a few politicians in its pocket and suddenly it can do whatever it wants.

[redmenace]

Why just corporations? I mean a local gov't could potentially sieze the property of an individual to prevent its development because there is an endangered snail stemming from the fact that a bunch of dogmatic enviromentalist decided to yell and scream and threaten politicians. You don't think that would ever happen? The point is that the coercive powers of gov't are often used to trump the property rights of the individual, each time seamingly stretching the meaning of public use further and further. In reality this is only the most recent event in a long series of events that point to the dangers of gov't planning and general abuse of its coercive powers.

[aldo_14]

http://watleyreview.com/2005/062105-2.html

[EtherShock]

Why would they ever want us? New Yorkers look down on us.

[redmenace]

Oh yeah not to mention that is where they store nuclear waste

[EtherShock]

Unless you're talking about the power plant, I have no idea what you're talking about, but we do have abandoned Cold War missile bases. ^_^

[redmenace]

umm New jersey is home to nuclear waste storage areas. Places like Oyster Creek story their waste on site IIRC.

[EtherShock]

Yes, like I said, power plants. All nuclear power plants store their waste on site...until a better method is devised. I am familiar with Oyster Creek. The entire state isn't a nuclear waste dump.

[redmenace]

no it is not, and actually I think it is awesome to have 50% of your power from nuclear sources. Very Clean. BUT, I just have an understanding that there are storage locations in NJ. I could be mistaken, though.

[EtherShock]

I only made that remark so others don't misinterpret it, since we have that "one big, giant oil refinery" image courtesy of The Sopranos. It's only because we're so small a state that we can be powered by so little. We're screwed when they have to retire the reactor(s). Oyster Creek is one of the oldest reactors in the country. I was there once on a scout trip. I'd be interested in more information on these supposed storage sites, if you have any. Nuclear power would be great if it wasn't for the hazardous waste and other risks.

[JoeLo]

Intresting at least in CT the goverment can only take the first five feet of your yard if your property exceeds some amount of acres, so they can build a sidewalk or something. That is some what fairer. Still though, nuke Bush.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by JoeLo
Still though, nuke Bush.

What does that have to to with anything.