Comments on: Separation of powers

By: jonathan

jonathan — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:44:19 +0000

yes, its totally an insult to your freedom. right.

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:32:20 +0000

As an American Patriot and active duty marine I object to absurd anti-American commandment “Thou Shall Not Kill”. We don’t need this liberal socialist communist crap in our courthouses.

By: worldcitizen

worldcitizen — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:26:12 +0000

I seemed to have miss this issue in the news, but why would someone be offended by the ten commandements?

“1. I am YHWH your god. You shall have no other god before me.”

Fuck that. We can have any god we want (or none) in this country.

By: jonathan

jonathan — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:03:50 +0000

I seemed to have miss this issue in the news, but why would someone be offended by the ten commandements? they are central in all the religions that consider them central, and irrelevant in those who dont bother. I just don’t get the motivation of one person to feel abused or mistreated.

I understand there is 1st amendement on this issue from the late 18th century. Why would an amendement agreed upon then be valid now?
Prof. Jaques from the University of Indiana held a lecture in Oxford this last yesterday and he explained to us that the 1st amendement is like it is because the people that made it loved religion, but did not want to talk about it, pay for it and critisize it.
At the same series prof. Buskens from Leiden explained to us how religion is a part of culture, it must be studied and critisized etc.

But somehow I understand it is not an easy topic for americans.

By: engels

engels — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:34:00 +0000

billings – What are you talking about?

By: Billings

Billings — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:58:05 +0000

Liberal judges subverted constitutional government a long time ago. If you didn’t complain then, you shouldn’t now.

By: urizon

urizon — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:40:08 +0000

“I really don’t believe that 91% of the House Republican caucus didn’t know better.”

Come on, Ted, let’s call a spade a spade. These idiots do know better, but it doesn’t matter. The house is no longer a deliberative body; it is a rubber-stamp apparatus for a crypto-fascist agenda. These idiots have been hand-picked for they’re personal disdain for due process, dissent, and democracy.

This isn’t ignorance, this a is willful attempt to subvert constitutional government.

By: Billings

Billings — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 17:38:04 +0000

Bi-guy: The Land o’ the North and one-party state, Oh Canada.

By: melior

melior — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:03:12 +0000

Posting the 10 Commandments is the first step to bringing miracles like the one the Romanian woman Maricica Irina Cornici was just blessed with to America!

“God has performed a miracle for her, finally Irina is delivered from evil,” AFP quoted the priest as saying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4107524.stm

By: bi

bi — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 05:07:58 +0000

Billings: Finland?

By: Billings

Billings — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 03:01:04 +0000

#10: It already exists north of the border.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:53:08 +0000

Federal courts have litle to do with the constitution; constitution is just a set of fairly broad guidelines.

The function of high courts (and especially the US supreme court) is to be an entity, comprised of un-elected and un-accountable wise-men of the elite, having the power to block any dangerous foolishness initiated by unruly representatives of unwashed masses. They adjudicate, they use constitution as a fig leaf.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:46:57 +0000

EKR, that may or may not solve the problem. The court has repeatedly shown itself willing to invent interpretations of the current constitution that have nothing to do with its plain text, and even some that appear, to the insufficiently legally subtle mind, to be in direct contradiction to its plain text. It’s therefore not clear that passing a constitutional amendment would necessarily deter the courts from sticking with a constitutional interpretation that appears to directly contradict it.

For example, the court could rule the amended version of the constitution to be self-contradictory, since part of it (the new amendment) contradicts the rest of it (as previously interpreted by the court). They might then “resolve” the contradiction by interpreting the new amendment as applying only to cases which are not already “determined” according to the rest of the constitution, as previously interpreted. What then?

By: EKR

EKR — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:34:51 +0000

In the American system, there’s actually a very straightforward answer to your question: pass a constitutional amendment. Indeed, a number of amendments (at least the 16th and IIRC the 18th) are th result of exactly this process. So, in the face of a truly overwhelming consensus it’s easy to override the court.

By: bi

bi — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:05:32 +0000

Dan Simon, stop smoking crack already.