A troubling statement from my bank...

[TonerGuy]

Robert & John

 

Do you realize what a Judge and hence the court is actually doing when they are interpreting the law -- they are in essence making new law. While they might not be "passing" new laws, their decisions and interpretations will be as binding as though it were passed by the legislative branch. Everyone should know Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose. This is considered case law and though it has not been codified as a Constitutional amendment, and not passed by Congress, woman are granted the right to abortions through case law.

 

When a judge interprets a badly designed and worded statute, the judge's interpretation is what will be the "new law" -- that is what is considered case law. Case law is what lawyers and judges deal with on a daily basis.

It's what fills all those dusty books in a law library. That case law will remain the law until another judge higher up has his or her opportunity to interpret the law or IF the legislative branch re-writes the law and clarifies it. A judge of course can interpret the law as written, but he is under no duty to do so. While a judge and/or lawyers might look to the intent of the legislative branch for clarification, they are not required to do so. This is one of the reasons the Congressional Record as well as records of all legislative meetings exist. Judges want to know what was debated and discussed in regards to the passage of a particular law.

 

And when a judge rejects a law based upon the unconstitutionality of it, he/she is once again creating new law by refusing to allow the executive branch to efforce it.

 

Remember it is checks and balances.

 

Michael

 

 

[Wihlborg]

Michael,

 

Yes, I am aware of all the points you have made, but you seem to have missed the point I was making, and that is that just because a judge rules on something that does not mean he is right! If judges never made mistakes they would never be overturned would they? Just look at the record of the 9th circuit court!

 

John

 

[TonerGuy]

you seem to have missed the point I was making, and that is that just because a judge rules on something that does not mean he is right! If judges never made mistakes they would never be overturned would they

 

First of all, I never saw in any of your posts where you were talking about judge's being right or wrong and secondly, there is no right or wrong answer.

 

The law is merely shades of gray. This is want frustrates most people in regards to dealing with lawyers and the courts. We don't have answers, because there are none. We can tell you what is likely to happen in any particular situation, but the law gives no absolutes. It is all merely interpretation. Judge's are overturned not usually based upon mistakes, but upon interpretation. One judge, a more senior judge feels that the lower court judge interpreted the law incorrectly and thus overturns the prior decision and returns the case back to that judge and court for a new hearing in line with their decision. But that again is just an opinion and a even more senior judge might agree with the first judge and not the second.

 

While I am not saying that all judges never makes a mistake, judge's are granted great discretion and are not usually overturned based upon mistake. Decisions are overturned based upon the interpretation of a statute and or law. And remember the only person not bound by the law in a courtroom is the judge.

 

This is why we have law school. It can get very confusing.

 

Michael

[Wihlborg]

First of all, I never saw in any of your posts where you were talking about judge's being right or wrong

 

Michael,

 

This is the statement I made that you responded to;

 

‘I am far more worried about the far left and some of the judges that try to make law, instead of interpreting and following it.’

 

The part about judges trying to make law instead of interpreting and following it was meant as sarcasm about how some judges interpret the law and rule based upon their political leaning.

 

Your response was to ask me if I ever read the constitution and that Judges are supposed to make law, which anyone who has read the constitution will tell you is not so. You than began to spin away from your statement where you implied that the constitution says that judges are supposed to make law after Robert and I called you on it. I will agree with you on one thing, most people are frustrated dealing with lawyers and the courts, but I believe it is because of the way the facts seem to always get twisted whenever dealing with lawyer.

 

John

 

[RobertB]

Robert & John

 

Do you realize what a Judge and hence the court is actually doing when they are interpreting the law -- they are in essence making new law. While they might not be "passing" new laws, their decisions and interpretations will be as binding as though it were passed by the legislative branch. Everyone should know Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose. This is considered case law and though it has not been codified as a Constitutional amendment, and not passed by Congress, woman are granted the right to abortions through case law.

 

When a judge interprets a badly designed and worded statute, the judge's interpretation is what will be the "new law" -- that is what is considered case law. Case law is what lawyers and judges deal with on a daily basis.

It's what fills all those dusty books in a law library. That case law will remain the law until another judge higher up has his or her opportunity to interpret the law or IF the legislative branch re-writes the law and clarifies it. A judge of course can interpret the law as written, but he is under no duty to do so. While a judge and/or lawyers might look to the intent of the legislative branch for clarification, they are not required to do so. This is one of the reasons the Congressional Record as well as records of all legislative meetings exist. Judges want to know what was debated and discussed in regards to the passage of a particular law.

 

And when a judge rejects a law based upon the unconstitutionality of it, he/she is once again creating new law by refusing to allow the executive branch to efforce it.

 

Remember it is checks and balances.

 

Michael

 

 

 

This I agree with to a point. 'Case law' being of it's particular nature is not consistent with codes and statutes. I think this is where alot of confusion originates. In my constitutionalist view, the judiciary is to interpret laws brought before it to determine their relevance and adhereance to the constitution and previously enacted and acceptable statutes and codes. If the court deems a new law inappropriate it 'should' be sent back to it's origins where it's creator's and writer's should determine if it should be modified or just plain forgotten. Unfortunately, our judiciary now looks at a law, decides if it likes it, and often modifies it. From the legislature there is little complaint if ever. Then other judges begin to accept these precedents and they literally become the new law. How does this happen? it's beyond me.

I still think that judges are for the most point just interpreting the law and not creatng it as if a statute or new law is "changed" to be viewed in another way by a judge I do not believe the actual new law or statute is re-written is it? Instead, it takes on this 'case law' status where it basically goes, 'ok this is what the statute as written, but, this is what it means.' This, although is kind of making law, is truly interpreting law. I feel if they are 'making law' then the statutes would have to literally changed in print text to reflect these changes. **OK, is anyone following me here because I'm starting to confuse myself?**

I know this is really just symantics in a way, it's just my view. I'm not a lawyer, just ayoung guy with a [!@#%^&^] community college associates degree inpolitical science whose only involvement in government is my [!@#%^&^] job for county animal control. Not trying to argue with anyone here . Infact, I enjoy these discussions. thanks.

[Wihlborg]

In my constitutionalist view, the judiciary is to interpret laws brought before it to determine their relevance and adhereance to the constitution and previously enacted and acceptable statutes and codes. If the court deems a new law inappropriate it 'should' be sent back to it's origins where it's creator's and writer's should determine if it should be modified or just plain forgotten. Unfortunately, our judiciary now looks at a law, decides if it likes it, and often modifies it. From the legislature there is little complaint if ever. Then other judges begin to accept these precedents and they literally become the new law. How does this happen? it's beyond me.

 

Robert,

 

Just for the record, I happen to agree with your view on this matter. What can I say, I guess I must have a constitutionalist view also.

 

John

 

[RobertB]

In my constitutionalist view, the judiciary is to interpret laws brought before it to determine their relevance and adhereance to the constitution and previously enacted and acceptable statutes and codes. If the court deems a new law inappropriate it 'should' be sent back to it's origins where it's creator's and writer's should determine if it should be modified or just plain forgotten. Unfortunately, our judiciary now looks at a law, decides if it likes it, and often modifies it. From the legislature there is little complaint if ever. Then other judges begin to accept these precedents and they literally become the new law. How does this happen? it's beyond me.

 

Robert,

 

Just for the record, I happen to agree with your view on this matter. What can I say, I guess I must have a constitutionalist view also.

 

John

 

I think all Americans should be constitutionalists. I notice you also have an early commem. set going. So we share two things. I've actually heard them referred to as "numismatic trash." Boy, what those people are missing.

[Wihlborg]

Numismatic trash!

 

 

John

[TonerGuy]

Unfortunately, you cannot understand everything from just reading the Constitution without any other references or study. And anyone who has ever been to law school knows of Marbury vs. Madison. Marbury was and still is the seminal case in regards to judicial review. Here's an excerpt from a horn book on Constitutional law copied from http://www.findlaw.com.

 

"Judicial review is one of the distinctive features of United States constitutional law. It is no small wonder, then, to find that the power of the federal courts to test federal and state legislative enactments and other actions by the standards of what the Constitution grants and withholds is nowhere expressly conveyed. But it is hardly noteworthy that its legitimacy has been challenged from the first, and, while now accepted generally, it still has detractors and its supporters disagree about its doctrinal basis and its application. Although it was first asserted in Marbury v. Madison to strike down an act of Congress as inconsistent with the Constitution, judicial review did not spring full-blown from the brain of Chief Justice Marshall. The concept had been long known, having been utilized in a much more limited form by Privy Council review of colonial legislation and its validity under the colonial charters, and there were several instances known to the Framers of state court invalidation of state legislation as inconsistent with state constitutions. "

 

"Marbury v. Madison .--Chief Justice Marshall's argument for judicial review of congressional acts in Marbury v. Madison had been largely anticipated by Hamilton. For example, he had written: ''The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.''

 

''The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States;'' Marshall began his discussion of this final phase of the case, ''but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.'' First, certain fundamental principles warranting judicial review were noticed. The people had come together to establish a government. They provided for its organization and assigned to its various departments their powers and established certain limits not to be transgressed by those departments. The limits were expressed in a written constitution, which would serve no purpose ''if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained.'' Because the Constitution is ''a superior paramount law,'' it is unchangeable by ordinary legislative means and ''a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law.'' ''If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect?'' The answer, thought the Chief Justice, was obvious. ''It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. . . . If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

 

"The decision in Marbury v. Madison has never been disturbed, although it has been criticized and has had opponents throughout our history. It not only carried the day in the federal courts, but from its announcement judicial review by state courts of local legislation under local constitutions made rapid progress and was securely established in all States by 1850.

 

Emphasis added by me.

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

 

[RobertB]

Unfortunately, you cannot understand everything from just reading the Constitution without any other references or study. And anyone who has ever been to law school knows of Marbury vs. Madison. Marbury was and still is the seminal case in regards to judicial review. Here's an excerpt from a horn book on Constitutional law copied from http://www.findlaw.com.

 

"Judicial review is one of the distinctive features of United States constitutional law. It is no small wonder, then, to find that the power of the federal courts to test federal and state legislative enactments and other actions by the standards of what the Constitution grants and withholds is nowhere expressly conveyed. But it is hardly noteworthy that its legitimacy has been challenged from the first, and, while now accepted generally, it still has detractors and its supporters disagree about its doctrinal basis and its application. Although it was first asserted in Marbury v. Madison to strike down an act of Congress as inconsistent with the Constitution, judicial review did not spring full-blown from the brain of Chief Justice Marshall. The concept had been long known, having been utilized in a much more limited form by Privy Council review of colonial legislation and its validity under the colonial charters, and there were several instances known to the Framers of state court invalidation of state legislation as inconsistent with state constitutions. "

 

"Marbury v. Madison .--Chief Justice Marshall's argument for judicial review of congressional acts in Marbury v. Madison had been largely anticipated by Hamilton. For example, he had written: ''The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.''

 

''The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States;'' Marshall began his discussion of this final phase of the case, ''but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.'' First, certain fundamental principles warranting judicial review were noticed. The people had come together to establish a government. They provided for its organization and assigned to its various departments their powers and established certain limits not to be transgressed by those departments. The limits were expressed in a written constitution, which would serve no purpose ''if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained.'' Because the Constitution is ''a superior paramount law,'' it is unchangeable by ordinary legislative means and ''a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law.'' ''If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect?'' The answer, thought the Chief Justice, was obvious. ''It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. . . . If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

 

"The decision in Marbury v. Madison has never been disturbed, although it has been criticized and has had opponents throughout our history. It not only carried the day in the federal courts, but from its announcement judicial review by state courts of local legislation under local constitutions made rapid progress and was securely established in all States by 1850.

 

Emphasis added by me.

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

 

Wow Michael, that's some voluminous reading there. I thank you for your contributions to this discussion. If it has been anything it's been educating. I guess I'm just a dissenter? However, we can always agree to disagree . I'm going to definitely give this all some further thought.

 

Rob

[jtryka]

Well this thread has certainly ventured into some interesting directions. I think the real problem that most of us common folk have (and last I checked, the constitution wasn't the exclusive realm of lawyers and judges) is the recent propensity of the third rail, I mean third branch of government to take it upon themselves to invent whole new laws out of their "interpretation." For instance, the recent sodomy decisions was somehow based on the 4th Amendment which states:

 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

So somehow we have moved from the text above to the courts establishing a right to engage in sodomy that is protected by the Constitution.

 

And then, the Massachusetts Imperial (I mean supreme judicial) court used that decision to strike down that state's marriage laws and then had the audacity to INSTRUCT the legislature to change the law within 6 months or THEY WOULD CHANGE IT FOR THEM!!!

 

The "interpretations" of laws by the courts in this land make utterly no sense to the people to whom these laws apply (hence the need for an entire industry of scoundrels we call lawyers). For instance, prayer in school, or the words "under God" in the pledge have somehow come to be the same as the establishment of a state religion expressly prohibited by the First Amendment, while at the same time, laws prohibiting the exercise of free speech within a month of an election are deemed not to violate that same Amendment, which plainly states, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."

 

Indeed, Jefferson's ominous words have finally come to pass, and the judiciary has become the tyranical branch of government. The Supreme Court, as the head of this cauldron of tyranny, has become the enemy of freedom, hellbent on destroying the rights of individuals and imposing their will in defiance of the will of the people. Indeed, they are the King George III of our generation, I only wonder when the people of this nation will finally rise up and declare their independence from this evil. It is time for a second American Revolution, one without bloodshed which will rein in the tyrants in our courts, for without such a revolution, I fear the possibility of a far more bloody revolt may become inevitable.

 

[jom]

For instance, the recent sodomy decisions was somehow based on the 4th Amendment which states:

 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

So somehow we have moved from the text above to the courts establishing a right to engage in sodomy that is protected by the Constitution.

 

I actually see nothing wrong with this at all...at least up the Mass. decision. I can see where people have the right to do whatever they want in their own home. What this had to do with Marriage laws is beyond me.

 

Frankly, I find this thread also now quite beyond me. My head hurts....

 

Now what was that about a safe deposit box I remember reading a LONG time ago?

 

 

jom

[jtryka]

I can see where people have the right to do whatever they want in their own home.

 

What about smoking pot? Or taking heroine? Or how about having a meth lab? Do people have a right to do these things in their own home?

 

As for the original intent of the post, that was lost about 859 posts ago! Funny how these things have a life of their own. Start with something coin related like safe deposit boxes and move to the Patriot Act to the Constitution. At least it's remained fairly civil.

[jom]

What about smoking pot? Or taking heroine? Or how about having a meth lab? Do people have a right to do these things in their own home?

 

Well, not at this time since they are illegal. Is sodomy illegal? If so, why? Who cares? Many of these cases/issues they, IMO, should NOT be illegal. But I'm sure you'd agree that is another debate.

 

At least it's remained fairly civil.

 

I don't think you appreciate this as much as you should! This debate has remained civil which is a minor miracle considering some of the other political threads I've seen around here.

 

jom

[jtryka]

Jom, believe me, I do appreciate the civility!!! And by the way, I don't disagree with the law being stupid, but I side with Justice Thomas, in that if there is a stupid law on the books, the people through their legislature should change or repeal it. It's not the court's job to eliminate all the stupid laws on the books. Using the Constitution as an excuse to eliminate stupid laws, or laws the justices do not agree with politically is an abuse of power in my opinion.

[jom]

Using the Constitution as an excuse to eliminate stupid laws, or laws the justices do not agree with politically is an abuse of power in my opinion.

 

I agree with the latter completely. As to the former...it depends. Is it done too much? Yes! But sometimes it's necessary...other time, not.

 

That is just the way of things in a democracy...nothing is perfect but it's a nice way to live.

 

jom

[TonerGuy]

hence the need for an entire industry of scoundrels we call lawyers

 

Well, now, isn't that special. And now we can see your bias showing.

 

So somehow we have moved from the text above to the courts establishing a right to engage in sodomy that is protected by the Constitution.

 

Ah, a little more bias there. Wow, you must REALLY hate gay lawyers.

 

For instance, prayer in school, or the words "under God" in the pledge have somehow come to be the same as the establishment of a state religion

 

Hmmm...religion, now we have it all -- politics, sex and religion -- all in the same thread.

 

Now I can fully understand your support of the Patriot Act. Sometimes a thread when it goes off course can be steered right back around to it's original path.

 

We see the world much differently. I don't want your religion or anyone else's religion being taught to my children in public school or on my money. And as for privacy, well I guess you can figure out how I feel about that one. No one, except those I invite, belong in my house. My privacy as well as my rights are sacred.

 

Remember the fundamentals this country was founded upon. It is my feeling that the Patriot Act contradicts each of those fundamentals. It is UN-American and not very patriotic. Thank god we have judges that are willing to strike down such unconstitutional laws without fear of repercussion. That's what makes the judiciary fair and unbiased. The fact that they can't be controlled by the right-wing-conservative religious zealots with agendas or any other special interest group for that matter. They should get in line and buy a politician like every other specialist interest group that throws money around to get their agenda passed into laws.

 

That's exactly why we need judges that are untouchable. It is an America's last protection against special interest and money legislation.

 

Michael

 

 

[jom]

Hmmm...religion, now we have it all -- politics, sex and religion -- all in the same thread.

 

OK, let's not head that direction....please.

 

We see the world much differently. I don't want your religion or anyone else's religion being taught to my children in public school or on my money. And as for privacy, well I guess you can figure out how I feel about that one. No one, except those I invite, belong in my house. My privacy as well as my rights are sacred.

 

My liberal side has a tendency to agree with you on these things. But...it's funny, I remember my more conservative sister telling my during Clinton's admin that "they" were taking my rights away...on a daily basis. Now it's the liberals who are saying this. I also here conservatives tell me how "liberal" the media is at the same time liberals say the opposite. Too funny....maybe the answer, like I've always said, is somewhere in the middle.

 

It is my feeling that the Patriot Act contradicts each of those fundamentals

 

I've been skeptical of this new law ever since they decided to call it the "Patriot" act. Hence, making it seem that ANY congressman to voted against is a non-"Patriot". I've also had my reservations about it since it just seemed like a "deferral" tactic to move the blame of 9/11 away from the Gov't entities, including the Administration.

 

The fact that they can't be controlled by the right-wing-conservative religious zealots with agendas or any other special interest group for that matter.

 

They are there not just for RW nuts but the LW nuts too. As much as the ACLU is despised by some they serve a purpose. Who else will defend the "undefendable". It is in our Constitution EVERYONE deserves a defense. At the same time, religious freedoms must be maintained. Again, hopefully, the answer lies somewhere in the middle...

 

BTW, everyone has a bias about something. EVERYONE. So don't go saying jtryka does when you know full well you do, and me and everyone who posts here. That's the nature of us all. No one can be without an idea or opinion that hasn't already been decided on personally....what some call bias is just what we all think about certain issues that may have been ingrained in us for a long time. We are human...not perfect.

 

jom

[TonerGuy]

So don't go saying jtryka does when you know full well you do, and me and everyone who posts here. That's the nature of us all. No one can be without an idea or opinion that hasn't already been decided on personally....what some call bias is just what we all think about certain issues that may have been ingrained in us for a long time. We are human...not perfect.

 

I do not base any bias I have on any particular religious or political belief system. I am a conservative by nature. However, I would defend the ACLU to my dieing last breath. And I never said it was inherently wrong to be biased. It is a by-product of human nature. It is also a by-product to be egocentric and racist. But in this country, you have the right to do just about anything you chose. And that's exactly the way I like it.

 

Where I disagree is in your statement that answer lies in the middle. It doesn't -- it lies in the extreme fringes. I can defend a right wing neo-nazi as well as a left wing bleeding heart liberal. The fact that both can co-exist is this country and have the freedoms that they do is what makes this the "most perfect of unions."

 

Never before has a political experiment turned out so well. And, in my humble opinion, we can thank the care taken by the founding fathers to craft the greatest living breathing document ever authored -- the Consititution and the Bill of Rights. And to end my posts to this thread, I will always feel that any legislation that even infringes on the utmost corner of that document must be stricken and declared unconsititutional. My rights, your rights, everyone's rights should never and can never be abridged for any political purpose or even national threat. I would rather die then live with out freedom in all its depths and glory.

 

Michael

[SteveAZ]

 

Never before has a political experiment turned out so well. And, in my humble opinion, we can thank the care taken by the founding fathers to craft the greatest living breathing document ever authored -- the Consititution and the Bill of Rights. And to end my posts to this thread, I will always feel that any legislation that even infringes on the utmost corner of that document must be stricken and declared unconsititutional. My rights, your rights, everyone's rights should never and can never be abridged for any political purpose or even national threat. I would rather die then live with out freedom in all its depths and glory.

 

Michael

[jtryka]

Well, now, isn't that special. And now we can see your bias showing.

 

I never said I wasn't biased, and in fact my personal opinions and biases are what shape who I am, and to deny such, would be to deny the very essence of my being. Can I put aside my biases to form a rational argument? Yes, and rather well at that. Clearly it is you that cannot put aside your biases against people like me and form a rational argument. I countered every one of your initial points on the Patriot Act, and you counter with an ad hominem argument pointing out my bias and implying that I am merely a right-wing religious zealot, with the additional, and far more subtle implication that as such, my opinion should be ignored. That's fine, it's your feeble minded opinion, and it's your right to express it, at least until people like you finally succeed in a de facto repeal of the First Amendment.

 

Ah, a little more bias there. Wow, you must REALLY hate gay lawyers.

Hmmm...religion, now we have it all -- politics, sex and religion -- all in the same thread.

 

Funny how lawyers such as you purport to be, are trained so well to focus on the most minute details, thus losing sight of the forest through the trees so to speak. You immediately imply that my ire is religiously motivated against gays, but you conveniently ignore my ire at the Supreme Court's decision on Campaign Finance reform, so which did that one fall into? Religion? Sex? oh, it must have been politics, since after all, free speech is only politically motivated right? Or what about my point that in some cases the courts should leave it to the people and their legislators to repeal or amend stupid laws? (And what was I thinking when I said that? A right wing religious zealot calling sodomy laws stupid? Perish the thought!) So by implication, it's your position that the people of this nation should not be left to self rule, but instead have policy dictated to them by 9 unelected insulated lawyers in the nation's capitol. Sure, that's the Patriotic American Way right? I suppose, in your twisted view, but in the view of Jefferson, this exact situation is what lead him to call it the "despotic" branch of our government. But hey, you can't complain about that, can't bite the hand that feeds you right? Whoops! Your bias is showing...

 

I don't want your religion or anyone else's religion being taught to my children in public school or on my money.

 

When did I mention using public funds to teach my religion or anyone's religion in public schools? I am absolutely against it! But I am also against prohibiting the free exercise of religion in schools even more! There are cases every day in this nation where young students are prohibited from praying before meals, disciplined for the vile offense of bringing a Bible into a school building, but hey, that's the American Way right? The founders did include the phrase, "as long as it's done in your own home and outside of public view" after the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" right? And you might raise the point that these acts haven't been expressly prohibited by specific court decisions, but people like you and your patriotic heroes at the ACLU have struck such fear of lawsuits in school administrators that the effect is the same as if the Supreme Court merely banned religion outright. Oh, and speaking of the ACLU, where were they with their team of lawyers when the California School districts implemented their Islamic awareness program shortly after 9/11??? You know, the program that REQUIRED public school students to dress like muslims, adopt muslim names, PRAY to mecca and plan a jihad??? No establishment problem there huh? No violation of the principle of separation of church and state there huh? I guess that's the problem, there is a separation of church and state, not a separation of mosque and state right?

 

It is my feeling that the Patriot Act contradicts each of those fundamentals. It is UN-American and not very patriotic.

 

So we are back the this argument again, the Patriot Act is Un-American because you feel it is. Again, I countered your points, and you respond with this drivel.

 

Thank god we have judges that are willing to strike down such unconstitutional laws without fear of repercussion.

 

The fact is, this law will not be struck down. It is not unconstitutional. As I stated before, much of the Patriot Act is based on FISA, and no court has ever found FISA to be unconstitutional. Last year, a panel of federal appeals court judges reviewed the Patriot Act's main midification of FISA, and unanimously found it to be constitutional. So I guess unless you get appointed supreme judge of the universe, the law will not be struck down anytime soon.

 

That's what makes the judiciary fair and unbiased.

 

Ok, put down the crack pipe! You really don't believe that statement do you? All humans are biased, you said it yourself:

 

And I never said it was inherently wrong to be biased. It is a by-product of human nature.

 

Judges are humans, and therefore biased. You make the mistake of ignoring the things that influence judges, and make a flawed comparison of the judiciary to politicians. The fact is, judges aren't influenced as much by the items that push politicians in election cycles, but they are influenced, by interest groups like the ACLU, by the prospect of professorships, by charitable causes, academic acolades and many other things. And let's not even get into the politics of nomination and confirmation of judges, which by itself is the biggest source of bias and influence in the judiciary. To even suppose they are in no way influenced or biased, is idiotic on its face.

 

That's exactly why we need judges that are untouchable. It is an America's last protection against special interest and money legislation.

 

You see them as protectors from special interests, while I, like Jefferson, see them as the despotic branch of our government, accountable to no one, not even the people who they rule.

 

Never before has a political experiment turned out so well. And, in my humble opinion, we can thank the care taken by the founding fathers to craft the greatest living breathing document ever authored -- the Consititution and the Bill of Rights. And to end my posts to this thread, I will always feel that any legislation that even infringes on the utmost corner of that document must be stricken and declared unconsititutional. I would rather die then live with out freedom in all its depths and glory.

 

I must agree with your accolade of our grand experiment in democratic ideals on which the republic was founded. And the Constitution is an amazing document, I just wish more judges and lawyers would read it, and not read their wills into it. And given your position on stiking down any law that infringes on the utmost corner of that founding document, I can only assume that you must disagree with majority of court opinions rendered in this country, though by your posts I see you do not. That leads me to conclude that you are either ill-informed, or lying in your statement above, I'll choose the former as not to disparage your character.

 

My rights, your rights, everyone's rights should never and can never be abridged for any political purpose or even national threat.

 

Fortunately, our founders realized the flawed logic in this sort of thinking, which is precisely why they worded the Constitution the way they did. They knew that it's never the case that people's rights can never be violated, but rather that individual rights are a very complex balancing act. An example would be conscription in the military, clearly, forcing someone to fight in an army would be a violation of their individual rights, however the founders relized that the individual's rights in such cases must be supplanted by the broader more important collective right of the nation to defend itself. They also realized that being endowed with such rights also entailed much responsibility, which is the other half of the equation that people like you too often ignore. It's become cliche, but freedom indeed is not free, and each of us must be willing to let go of our personal rights and freedoms for the good of the nation as a whole. The constitution was not written for a single individual, nor is its purpose to protect only the majority at the expense of the minority, but it's true purpose lies somewhere in between. But folks such as yourself tend to focus exclusively on the individual to the detriment of the majority, and that by itself is dangerous.

 

I would rather die then live with out freedom in all its depths and glory.

 

So to be clear, first you want to die, and then you want to live without freedom in all its depths and glory? Sorry, I couldn't resist, and I know its nitpicky, but the rampant improper use of "then" instead of "than" really annoys me.

 

And to end my posts to this thread,

 

I am truly sorry to hear this, as I was enjoying our debate.

[jom]

where were they with their team of lawyers when the California School districts implemented their Islamic awareness program shortly after 9/11??? You know, the program that REQUIRED public school students to dress like muslims, adopt muslim names, PRAY to mecca and plan a jihad???

 

Curious. I live in CA and have never heard of this. Elaborate? Link?

 

jom

[Wihlborg]

where were they with their team of lawyers when the California School districts implemented their Islamic awareness program shortly after 9/11??? You know, the program that REQUIRED public school students to dress like muslims, adopt muslim names, PRAY to mecca and plan a jihad???

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Curious. I live in CA and have never heard of this. Elaborate? Link?

 

Jom

 

Jom,

 

I don't have a link, but I remember this when it happened. It was all over the nightly news programs.

 

John

[jtryka]

Here's a link to the story I read on it: Islam in CA Public Schools

 

Keep in mind, this is on World Net Daily which many believe has a conservative bias.

[jom]

Keep in mind, this is on World Net Daily which many believe has a conservative bias.

 

The conservative bias is irrelevant if you take the time to wade through the "option" vs. the fact. No? Many times, however, many of us do not have the time.

 

Thanks for the link...

 

EDIT: Read it. I think this is overblown...it's clearly a class that is taught to teach different cultures. Islam is NOT part of every day life in America. That non-sense about it "recruiting" is laughable. This reminds me of the times Christian symbols get ALCU attention such as harmless Nativity scenes in public places and the like. People need to get a life or pay attention to more important things.

 

I took a religion course in College and we talked about all the religions. It was a public Junior College. Should have that been allowed? C'mon!

 

jom

[EZ_E]

Actually, our country was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy. A Republic has set laws which must be adhered to vs. a democratic majority decision which can even override the Constitution. Liberty vs. equality was not even a consideration back then.

 

I wish that the Articles of Confederation in its entirety was incorporated into the Constitution. These articles go on to define in detail the various ammendments of the Constitution. Without the clarification contained within these articles, then the Constitution can and has been redefined in its scope. For instance, the term "separation of church and state" was never even uttered until the early 1800's in a letter by a vice president.

 

And, with a republic, I doubt that the judicial branch could make rulings based upon precidence alone.

 

Anyway, this is my 1864 with motto two-cents worth.

[jtryka]

jom,

 

you're right, it may be overblown, but as you say yourself, it's just as overblown as the other items the ACLU goes after, so my question remains, why was there a deafening silence by that "defender" or our rights?

[jom]

why was there a deafening silence by that "defender" of our rights?

 

Selective deafness? heh.

 

That being said I agree. In fact, I don't think anyone should have been involved at all...in either this case or the "example" I gave. Although I'm not a chruch goes by any means if my kid was taking a class in "culture" or "religion" and was expected to wear garb from the times of Jesus or Mohammad I certainly wouldn't complain. It's no different than having him do "word problems" in Math class. People that "defend" our rights need to implement a little more common sense..at least sometimes...

 

jom