Judicial Tyranny

In most countrys the highest power goes to the judges, the limit of that power is only that they have to wait untill someone brings them a case for them to rule on. Judges get the most power because there limit is that they cant be proactive. Next level of power is the leglitive branch but if the judisury finds that a law contridicts another law or the consitution then it is revoked and the leglitive branch have to sit down and decide wether they can salvage whatever the law was.

If i was in the US my fear would be the power the EXQUITIVE branch has. I mean here any law MUST go through parliment but over there you seem to be inacting laws left right and center without any vote by the 2 houses. So the only checks and balances you HAVE are the judges. Rather than trying to take away there power you should be reinforcing it to protected it from being corupted into the exquitive branch too
 
I mean here any law MUST go through parliment but over there you seem to be inacting laws left right and center without any vote by the 2 houses.
Click to expand...

It only appears so, as people are used to blaming the president for everything. In reality, those things do get approved. [Insert implications about Americans and their true stance on issues.]
 
Asguard said:
. I mean here any law MUST go through parliment but over there you seem to be inacting laws left right and center without any vote by the 2 houses. So the only checks and balances you HAVE are the judges.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "without any vote" ?
It is so ridiculous. You are suggesting that Judiciary must balance Legislative and Executive. It is not balance, it is tyranny.
Any two of branches should be able to overcome the third one. This is what in normal language means separation of powers and balance of power and checks and balances.

e :cool: s
 
Im not trying to make this bush is the devil, all im saying is that here EVERYTHING must go through parliment. A system which alows one man to make laws by himself (executive orders) is just OPEN to abuse, wether you think whats currently happerning is abuse of the system or not is imaterial because the ABILITY for that abuse to occure is right there waiting
 
extrasense said:
I think, minds like yours are cemented at what you get at school.
Click to expand...

Well frankly, when it comes to such blandly academic subjects, yes, I'd have to agree. I was fairly certain that that was a virtue, actually.

Don't worry, I'm sure your new-age free form interpretation of the constitution and the workings of the US government will catch some support. . . at least among the mentally deranged and intellectually feeble.
 
extrasense said:
This will no more be the case. Nobody would ever think about such nonsense.
Click to expand...

So you feel that the constitutionality of laws doesn't need to be considered at all anymore? If you hate the constitution so much then why have you (falsely) appealed to it so many times in this thread?

You do realize that what you're proposing here would make the constitution a completely irrelevant document, don't you? I hope you also realize that the constitution does give the Judiciary the power and responsibility to determine the constitutionality of state and federal laws. That's why the constitution outlines the structure of the Supreme Court.
 
Asguard said:
If i was in the US my fear would be the power the EXQUITIVE branch has. I mean here any law MUST go through parliment but over there you seem to be inacting laws left right and center without any vote by the 2 houses.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ! Asguard, if this were the case, I'd be in Washington with all the weapons and ammo my available resources could buy me to start my own insurrection. It's true that Bush has really expanded and some would say exploited his executive authority, but laws aren't being passed without votes.

It's true that laws are being passed without legislators reading them, or under extremely harsh pressure, or on false pretences . . . but they're still going through both houses.
 
Mystech said:
I hope you also realize that the constitution does give the Judiciary the power and responsibility to determine the constitutionality of state and federal laws. .
Click to expand...
Not at all.
The Constitution does not have the word "constitutionality" in it.

e :D s
 
extrasense said:
Not at all.
The Constitution does not have the word "constitutionality" in it.
Click to expand...

Hur hur hur! Semantics are fun! Seriously, though, have any actual points to make?
 
Mystech what is an executive order and why is it any different from any other bill of parliment (or congress)?
 
Mystech said:
It's true that Bush has really expanded and some would say exploited his executive authority, but laws aren't being passed without votes.
Click to expand...

Executive orders are laws that are "passed" without the vote of congress. "A rule or order having the force of law, issued by the President."

Executive Orders Issued by President Bush

Check out order 13303 (Google for it), giving Bush Oil blanket immunity in Iraq. They can gun down a busload of children and spill all the oil they want; a case cannot even be brought against them. And all the "faith-based" b.s. Unfortunately the framers of the Constitution didn't anticipate that the majority would become so dumb as to elect someone like Bush. They gave the President too much power.
 
The reason for Judges needing to rule on constitutionality is that the constitution isn't perfect. It is made of words, which have many meanings. Those meanings also change over time. This was known and anticipated by the framers. Judicial tyranny is a right-wing myth, because the Republicans think of the Constitution as the Bible, perfect in conception and execution, when in actuality it is a living document, with new realities emerging all the time that challenge accepted meanings. If judges don't judge it, someone else would have to, and, since judges are appointed, they don't have to worry about the politics of reelection, just justice. If politicians judged constitutionality, then there would be room for tyranny to emerge.
 
spidergoat said:
The reason for Judges needing to rule on constitutionality is that the constitution isn't perfect..
Click to expand...
Where constitution is not perfect, it must be amended.
The back door tricks by judges are actually treasonous.

A public caning for that seems to be appropriate punishment, for starters.

e :D s
 
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.

If there is contradiction in some respect between the law and the Constitution, the Constitution tramps at the actual lower court proceedings.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it’s genuinely unclear whether or not a law violates the constitution.

For example, the constitution forbids “unreasonable searches”. A state passes a law allowing any public school to force students to take a drug test on demand, even if there’s no evidence that the student is abusing drugs. Would such a law constitute an unreasonable search? Some people would say yes, other people would say no. So who’s going to decided? You? Me? A panel of nine highly respected judges who were approved by the senate?
 
Nasor said:
Sometimes it’s genuinely unclear whether or not a law violates the constitution. For example, the constitution forbids “unreasonable searches”. A state passes a law allowing any public school to force students to take a drug test on demand, even if there’s no evidence that the student is abusing drugs. Would such a law constitute an unreasonable search? Some people would say yes, other people would say no. So who’s going to decided? You? Me? A panel of nine highly respected judges who were approved by the senate?
Click to expand...
If such law is enacted, it must be obeyed. There is no contradiction to the Constitution. As you say, reasonable people can disagree in some cases, which means that Constitution can not be used to oppose such law.
That must be it. What you want, is for judges still to be able to claim something what is not explicit in the Constitution, as being there. It is a back door to abuse and tyranny. Amend Constitution, if there is a good reason for something. Do not let anyone to lie that there is something there, which is not there.

e :cool: s
 
"Where constitution is not perfect, it must be amended."
-extrasense

"When we deal with questions relating to principles of law and their applications, we do not suddenly rise into a stratosphere of icy certainty"
-Charles Evans Hughes, American jurist and statesman. 1862-1948

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our property and our liberty and our property under the Constitution"
-Charles Evans Hughes

"It is the genius of our Constitution that under its shelter of enduring institutions and rooted principles there is ample room for the rich fertility of American political invention"
-Lyndon B. Johnson

"Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."
-Benjamin Franklin

"All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable."
-Henry David Thoreau
 
extrasense said:
If such law is enacted, it must be obeyed. There is no contradiction to the Constitution. As you say, reasonable people can disagree in some cases, which means that Constitution can not be used to oppose such law. That must be it. What you want, is for judges still to be able to claim something what is not explicit in the Constitution, as being there.
Click to expand...
The constitution does explicitly say that people can’t be subject to unreasonable searches. It just doesn’t define “unreasonable,” so we need someone to decide what is and is not reasonable.
It is a back door to abuse and tyranny. Amend Constitution, if there is a good reason for something. Do not let anyone to lie that there is something there, which is not there.

e :cool: s
Click to expand...
A law either is or is not constitutional. We can’t just “agree to disagree” because then we don’t know if the law should be followed or not. Someone has to decide.

What if the government makes a law allowing police to search your house at any time and for any reason, so long as they don’t damage your property in the process? What if someone thinks that it’s reasonable for the police to be able to damage your property during a search at any time and for any reason, so long as they don’t injure you?
 
Mystech: I wasnt talking about laws passed in congress but pushed through, if the goverment wants to push through laws without reading them thats there problem. What i was talking about are executive orders and i was using the same deffinition as zanket has given. If i have taken them wrongly please correct me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top