Judicial Tyranny

E

extrasense

Registered Senior Member
The Juducial Tyranny is upon us.

The Judiciary has USURPED power to decide whether a law is constitutional of unconstitutional. A Power that is not in the Constitution,

This has put the judges and courts ABOVE the law, in direct violation of the Constitution.

The SYSTEM going in the wrong direction,and simply changing people will not fix that.

Until this scourge is addressed, the Judicial Tyranny will grow.

Let us take power to judge (un)constitutionality of the law away from the Judiciary, before it is too late to save the democracy!

ES

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050308.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050309.shtml
 
Well, if we take that responsibility from the Supreme Court justices, then who will determine if a law is Constitutional or not? I mean, I agree that there's a problem, but what can we do about it?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Well, if we take that responsibility from the Supreme Court justices, then who will determine if a law is Constitutional or not? I mean, I agree that there's a problem, but what can we do about it?
Click to expand...
Nobody is needed, to "determine if a law is Constitutional or not".

The law IS "constitutional", if it is enacted through Constitutionally prescribed process.

If there is contradiction in some respect between the law and the Constitution, the Constitution tramps at the actual lower court proceedings.

e :) s
 
In many countries there are special constitutional courts which employ only the judges of the most high caliber to solve constitutional cases.
In Latvia (for example) a constitutional court judge is elected just like the president.
 
extrasense said:
Nobody is needed, to "determine if a law is Constitutional or not".

The law IS "constitutional", if it is enacted through Constitutionally prescribed process.

e :) s
Click to expand...
That is wrong. Not always the lawgiver is competent enough to know.
 
Avatar said:
That is wrong. Not always the lawgiver is competent enough to know.
Click to expand...
I have said, that if there is a contradiction with the constitution, the Constitution tramps in the courts.
You must to show the contradiction in each case.
If Judiciary thinks that the law must be changed, it has a right of legislative initiative.

e :) s
 
Last edited:
The Judiciary has USURPED power to decide whether a law is constitutional of unconstitutional. A Power that is not in the Constitution,
Click to expand...

In US, that is part of the job of the Supreme Court judges.
 
whitewolf said:
In US, that is part of the job of the Supreme Court judges.
Click to expand...
This is the problem, it is the system deficiency.

It breaks the proper separation of powers.
It is not in the Constitution.
It is not needed.

It is something, that should be eliminated to save the democracy.


e :cool: s
 
No. It is done so that the states comply to the Constitution (recall civil rights). And another purpose, it appears, was so that in case the uneducated ever get to write laws the society does not degenerate too quickly. Like today :) The separation of powers is not as important in our government as the system of checks and ballances.
 
extrasense said:
I have said, that if there is a contradiction with the constitution, the Constitution tramps in the courts.
Click to expand...

What if there is a disagreement on whether it's a contradiction or not? At some point, that question must be resolved in a court of law.

So we're still back to one court of law being the deciding authority. I don't see how else it can be decided in the case of disagreement like the above ...unless it's with armies and bombs and missiles, perhaps.

Baron Max
 
whitewolf said:
The separation of powers is not as important in our government as the system of checks and ballances.
Click to expand...
What a weird thing to say.
The separation of powers IS the system of checks and ballances.

ES
 
Because power needs to be checked somehow, the powers are separated; one power checks another. There is no other reason to separate the powers.
 
Baron Max said:
At some point, that question must be resolved in a court of law.
Click to expand...
Not at all.
If you are talking about particular case - yes.
The "constitutionality of a law, as such" would be never considered by any court.

e :cool: s
 
whitewolf said:
Because power needs to be checked somehow, the powers are separated; one power checks another. There is no other reason to separate the powers.
Click to expand...
I agree.
So, if the separation is damaged, the checks and balances are damaged by it.
This is why for judges to rule on consttutionality or unconstitutionality of a law is unconstitutional!

e :cool: s
 
extrasense said:
If you are talking about particular case - yes.
The "constitutionality of a law, as such" would be never considered by any court.
Click to expand...

Every single day, every hour of the day, "constitutionality" of laws are considered ......and often disputed. Who settles those disputes?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Every single day, every hour of the day, "constitutionality" of laws are considered ......and often disputed. Who settles those disputes?
Click to expand...

This will no more be the case. Nobody would ever think about such nonsense.

e :cool: s
 
So, if the separation is damaged, the checks and balances are damaged by it.
This is why for judges to rule on consttutionality or unconstitutionality of a law is unconstitutional!
Click to expand...

Your first statement is very good. Your second statement completely destroys it. If you take away judges who rule on un/constitutionality of laws, the powers are no longer separated and the power of law givers can no longer be checked. Furthermore, the right to check constitutionality of a law is given to judges by the constitution of US. Your second statement is simply incorrect.

If what you say in the second statement is carried out, we have nobody to defend our personal liberties today and we shall be stuck with the Patriot Act and Bush till death does us apart. Remember that a law needs to be written in such a way that it is aplicable in most cases, not just a single issue.

Pardon, may I ask a personal question? Have you slept through all of your US history courses in Junior High, High School, and college?
 
extrasense said:
The Juducial Tyranny is upon us.

The Judiciary has USURPED power to decide whether a law is constitutional of unconstitutional. A Power that is not in the Constitution,
Click to expand...


extrasense said:
Nobody is needed, to "determine if a law is Constitutional or not".

The law IS "constitutional", if it is enacted through Constitutionally prescribed process.
Click to expand...


Uh oh! Time for someone to head back to American Government 101. Don't worry I'm sure some high-school kid will be happy to tutor you if you can't quite get the hang of the idea of checks and balances.
 
Last edited:
Mystech said:
Uh oh! Time for someone to head back to American Government 101. Don't worry I'm sure some high-school kid will be happy to tutor you if you can't quite get the hang of the idea of checks and balances.
Click to expand...
I think, minds like yours are cemented at what you get at school.
We need such people too, as a ballast for the ship.

e :D s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top