Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
August 29, 2014, 08:13:30 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: 24/7 Ventrilo Voice chat -click for instructions and free software here
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Global Warming and the SCOTUS  (Read 3715 times)
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« on: April 02, 2007, 06:44:25 PM »

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

Pay careful attention here. Those leftist tree hugging hippies in the state of Massachusetts won a 5-4 decision today in the supreme court. In a nutshell the ruling says that there is credence to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. While it doesn't directly force the Bush adminstration to enact changes it was strongly worded enough that they don't get to just blow it off without upsetting congress.

The link goes directly to the pdf ruling from the supreme court. Warning it is 66 pages long.

Sincerely,
Brendhan
Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15099


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2007, 09:21:51 PM »

isn't it super when people use the courts to get their way when they can't do it properly through legislation.  maybe we ought to teach government and civics in school again? 
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2007, 09:26:08 PM »

In Florida. People have used the fact they can bypass the courts and the legislation by having the amendments put on the ballots at election time.
However that is the people voting.

In regards to using the courts. That is what the courts are there for.

Sincerely,
Brendhan
Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5437


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2007, 09:37:16 PM »

Ah Brendhan,
You don't believe in legislation from the court do you?
The courts are to determine if a law is constitutional or not. The congress shall create all laws!
And I think that we have a representative government,not a true democracy, where we elect people to create the laws we want,not going to a judge to say this is what I want.
Hopefully I misinterpret your statement of "thats what the courts are for" tongue

Logged
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2007, 09:55:12 PM »

Ah Brendhan,
You don't believe in legislation from the court do you?
The courts are to determine if a law is constitutional or not. The congress shall create all laws!
And I think that we have a representative government,not a true democracy, where we elect people to create the laws we want,not going to a judge to say this is what I want.
Hopefully I misinterpret your statement of "thats what the courts are for" tongue
Sorry, the courts can create law. The same way a president can issue an executive order. The courts do far more than just declare a whether a law is constitutional or not.

The courts interpret law and it's applications. They decide when a law is clear or not. They decide when a law applies or doesn't. They decide levels or authority.
The Limtiaco v. Camacho decision is a prime example of that over a dispute between the Governor of Guam and the State Attorney for Guam.

The courts are there for people to settle disputes. Between other individuals , buisnesses and, the government. You can go to court on behalf of the government and sue someone without ever talking to the government. And you can even sue your government if you feel something is wrong. Yes that is what the courts are there for. So that people can go and have a fair chance at having their argument given weight and credence. The same goes in reverse. You can be brought to court by all of those. It is not perfect and I can cite just as much that will make my blood boil by reading some of their rulings.

Yes, that is what the courts are there for and more.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5437


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2007, 10:22:03 PM »

Not enough time to read this all tonight but isn't that a case of interpreting what tax valuation is in a law passed by the guam legislature?"Clarify the law?"Oddly enough this got started in the Ninth circuit court on the left coast it seems.How can you read this stuff all the time?I guess everyone really should.
Anyhow,I'll let the subject get back to the Global Warming and the SCOTUS.
Didn't mean to detract from it! Wink
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15099


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2007, 10:23:06 PM »

Quote
In regards to using the courts. That is what the courts are there for.

you need a refresher course in government.  it is not the job of the courts to legislate.  yes, courts settle disputes.  yes, they rule (often badly) on the constitutional merits of lower court cases.  it is NOT within their purview to create law.  there are a number of good examples of the SCOTUS overstepping it's bounds.  one of the best is roe v. wade.  this was an issue that should have been left to the legislatures and peoples of individual states.  instead SCOTUS created out of thin air a new precedent.

it is constitutional for the president to issue executive orders.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2007, 11:25:13 PM »

Quote
In regards to using the courts. That is what the courts are there for.

you need a refresher course in government.  it is not the job of the courts to legislate.  yes, courts settle disputes.  yes, they rule (often badly) on the constitutional merits of lower court cases.  it is NOT within their purview to create law.  there are a number of good examples of the SCOTUS overstepping it's bounds.  one of the best is roe v. wade.  this was an issue that should have been left to the legislatures and peoples of individual states.  instead SCOTUS created out of thin air a new precedent.

it is constitutional for the president to issue executive orders.


Boy you know how to stroke a fire. Roe V Wade. darn nice can of gas to pour on a fire.

Congress holds hearings that operate like courts and create agencies that enforce laws. The president issues executive orders and has agencies that act as judge and jury. The courts legislate and enforce their decisions. Don't just pick on the courts. It is all questionable if you want to look at it from a constitutional point of view.

The 10 amendment was all but tossed in the garbage with the civil war.
With that point of view I could argue why did the SCOTUS rule on the bush v gore issue which should have ended with the Florida supreme court.

And since I have actually taken some law courses I will not take a refresher course but I will be more than happy to show you something that will enlighten you.
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)

Now just for some more enlightenment the Roe v. Wade issue was the supreme court saying that 14 amendment doesn't apply to the unborn.Brown v. Board of Education was also an example 14 amendment issues.

And just for some real fun:
Wait v. Pierce 191 Wis. 202 (1926)



Sincerely,
Brendhan
Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2007, 07:33:09 AM »

Buzzbee:
While the Limtiaco v. Camacho is about taxes. The background is what is important to note. The governor wanted the bonds, the state attorney refused to authorize the bonds.

So what the SCOTUS was basically asked was to interpret tax law in guam and decide who had authority in the matter reguarding the bonds. It wasn't a matter of declaring law unconstitutional or not. It was a matter of interpreting tax law and deciding who had authority in regards to issing certain bonds.

Now there were also a lot of other fun issues that dealt with this. You mentioned the Ninth Circuit court. That touches on issues between the Guam supreme court and the Ninth circuit. There is also the 90 day window thrown in there.

The recent ruling of Massachusetts v. EPA was also a clarification of authority.
So when people say the courts shouldn't legislate from the bench. They really don't tend to understand the courts. Kathyp mentioned the president ablity to issue executive orders as constitutional. However there is no United States Constitution provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3.

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer basically forced presidents to cite the law they were acting under when issing executive orders.

The constitution sometimes doesn't spell out things word for word but the SCOTUS has made it very clear what the law means. The below is from an article describing one's right to privacy even though it isn't spelled out word for word in the constitutuion.
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."* We recently referred

Page 381 U.S. 479, 485

in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw. U. L. Rev. 216 (1960).

More:

The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice - whether public or private or parochial - is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights.

By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143) and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195) - indeed the freedom of the entire university community.


Sincerely,
Brendhan
Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
reinbeau
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2502


Location: Hanson, MA and Lebanon, ME


« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2007, 09:16:52 AM »

So it's OK for the Supreme Court to go by a mockumentary made by an admitted non-scientist to make decisions affecting everyone in the United States.  Hmmmm.  I don't care how many law courses you've taken, Brendhan, and I really don't mean this disrespectfully, but you've hung your hat on the wrong thing here.  The Supreme Court interprets law, it does not make it, and if it's interpreting it with bad advice, then we are truly screwed in this country.  As I said in another forum, Hollywood has won, and we are all in big trouble.
Logged


- Ann, A Gardening Beek -  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Click for Hanson, Massachusetts Forecast" border="0" height="150" width="256
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2007, 09:22:43 AM »

So it's OK for the Supreme Court to go by a mockumentary made by an admitted non-scientist to make decisions affecting everyone in the United States.  Hmmmm.  I don't care how many law courses you've taken, Brendhan, and I really don't mean this disrespectfully, but you've hung your hat on the wrong thing here.  The Supreme Court interprets law, it does not make it, and if it's interpreting it with bad advice, then we are truly screwed in this country.  As I said in another forum, Hollywood has won, and we are all in big trouble.
If you really believe the supreme court made it's decision based on a movie you have hung your hat in the wrong place.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15099


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2007, 10:33:38 AM »

i chose roe v. wade not because of the subject matter, but because it is a case that all know about, even if they do not understand.  that case was decided on the "right to privacy".  the supreme court had invented the right to privacy in an earlier case Griswold v. Connecticut.  in both the 1st case where they created law, and the second where they reaffirmed that creation, the supreme court made a decision that they had no right to make.  it was a states issue.

very often the SCOTUS makes law.  just because they do it, does not make it right.  this is the reason that many of us want constructionists in the courts.  we do not want the courts to decide law based on what they think the constitution says. we want them to make decision based on what it actually says.

this was a political decision.  you can bet the liberal judges, who think that we should all be following international law and rewriting our constitution to fit the EU's idea of society, were the ones that voted for this. 

you miss the point with the cases you cite.  you are correct that not everything is spelled out in the constitution.  the founders never intended that we have a big central government.  that's why our constitution is so short.  almost everything was intended to be dealt with at the state level.  whenever the courts interpret the constitution and create a new law or "right", they have created more governemnt...usually more federal government.  the job of the supremes was to be pretty narrow.  all but a very few things were not to go beyond state level.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2007, 11:28:39 AM »

i chose roe v. wade not because of the subject matter, but because it is a case that all know about, even if they do not understand.  that case was decided on the "right to privacy".  the supreme court had invented the right to privacy in an earlier case Griswold v. Connecticut.  in both the 1st case where they created law, and the second where they reaffirmed that creation, the supreme court made a decision that they had no right to make.  it was a states issue.
From the header of Griswold v. Connecticut:
Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment
They also appliled ninth amendmant issues to G v.C
The dissenting opinion on G v. C goes with your argument. However the vote on G v. C was 7-2. In the dissent though they called the orginal Connecticut law "an uncommonly silly law."
The Roe v. Wade as a states right argument was what is brought to court for. At issue the right to an individual citizens right to privacy and the right of the state to regulate abortion. The courts said state could not inhibit the right of the citizen as pertains to the 14 amendment.
The Roe v. Wade decision was also release on the same day as the Doe v. Bolton decision. Which overturned Georgia's abortion law. For the same reason. So while everyone cites Roe v. Wade. They need to remember that there was more than one case that forge the decision on state's rights.

Again the court did not make law it made an interpretation of the law that was already on the books.

Part of the text of the 14 amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That is what helped decide Roe v. Wade and Brown v. The Board of Education. It didn't make a law. It interprutted one. The 14 amendment was passed shortly after the civil war. Due Process and Equal protection are part of it. So when I say the 10 amendment took a dive after the civil war I am correct. You may not like it but that is what was done and for good reason. The civil war changed states rights and the 14 amendment was the victory statement of the civil war. By the way the 14 amendment wasn't made by the courts. It was made by Congress.

Quote
very often the SCOTUS makes law.  just because they do it, does not make it right.  this is the reason that many of us want constructionists in the courts.  we do not want the courts to decide law based on what they think the constitution says. we want them to make decision based on what it actually says.
Show me a law on the books in writing that was done by the SCOTUS. What very often happens is when SCOTUS rules on a case. The Congress will pass a law to help make things clearer or try to get around a SCOTUS ruling.  When a judge legislates from the bench he is often issue a restraining order or a judgement. When a judge sends federal marshalls into someplace it is because they are trying to enforce a ruling.

But what does the constitution say? Does it say how to handle an internet information age. And if we went just by what the constitution said literally how is the president issuing executive oders that violate the 6 amendment(right to a speedy trial).  The law is not rigid item. Neither is it's interpretation.

Quote
this was a political decision.  you can bet the liberal judges, who think that we should all be following international law and rewriting our constitution to fit the EU's idea of society, were the ones that voted for this. 
I would take that bet. Treaties which circumvent the constitution and other protections should be addressed but that might be bad for buisness. You mention the EU but look at the WTO which has far more influence in business.

Quote

you miss the point with the cases you cite.  you are correct that not everything is spelled out in the constitution.  the founders never intended that we have a big central government.  that's why our constitution is so short.  almost everything was intended to be dealt with at the state level.  whenever the courts interpret the constitution and create a new law or "right", they have created more governemnt...usually more federal government.  the job of the supremes was to be pretty narrow.  all but a very few things were not to go beyond state level.
You can't have "constructionists" and then say not everything is spelled out in the constitution. You either want it by the letter of the law or you understand that not everything is there and sometimes the courts have to issue rulings.

You miss the point of who won the civil war and what was at stake. I agree states rights took a beating. And it would be nice if the states had more say so in certain decisions however Massachusetts v. EPA is not one of them. The decision was a matter of whether or not the EPA had power to regulate greenhouse gases. The SCOTUS said they do based on laws already on the books.

Sincerely,
Brendhan
Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
KONASDAD
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2011


Location: Cherry Hill, N.J.


« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2007, 11:55:20 AM »

Courts do exist for just such issues. People believe they want strict constructionist courts, but have no idea what that is anymore. People on  both sides of this argumeny can point to different cases on diff issues for support.

The use of ROE to GRiswald as an example is a poor choice to illuminate an argument.  With that type of logic, Plessy v Ferguson would still be law(seperate but equal is legal) based on a theory of stare decisis. Times change and so must our interpretation at times. People have no problem dispensing w/ strict constructionsit thinking when it come to elimeinating our 4TH and 14th Amendments rights , when fighting drugs or terrosim for example. Our constitiuion doesn't allow warrantless searches or secret courts approving them. Our founding fathers were very conscerned about excressive federal authority, particularly in the areas of search and seizure. No where are enemy combatants stated, holding people w/o charging them for years and denying them trials. Our founders would never have tolerated this conduct as its extra- constitutional.

We have administartive laws regarding emissions, and it is alleged that the Bush admisnistartion ignores and doesn't enforce its own regs and this is why courts will be used to fight global warming issue and the like. This is not judicial legislation, but classic court room issues. We, as a country, even had a trial to prove evolution for example. Was that jusdicial legislating.
Both conservatives and liberals and everyone in between has a different vision of what the constitituion does and does not provide. No one "side" can claim innocense on this issue. Both sides abandon strcit constructionism when it suiots them. We all have a different view of how the world should be run and how government should incorporate itself to these means and ends.

SOOOOO, I jus get tired of this railing over our courts. Both sides are guilty of political expediency and convenient iterpretations.

I live in a world where every day I fight 4, 5, 6 and 14th Amenment issues. I take this very seriously. Both sides are destroying my constitution. People are losing individual liberties and were more worried about environmental legislation and the courts interpretation of such? The government can spy on you and that is somehow legal now. W/o probable cause, w/o court orders, w/o public review. How is this constitutional?

Lastly, How many of you have ever read the constituion in its entirety? Start to finish? in order? Taken any classes or read any seminal books on the constitition? Its important to interpret as a body of intent and history. There wasn't even agreement when it was ratified.
Just my daily cents worth!
Logged

"The more complex the Mind, the Greater the need for the simplicity of Play".
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15099


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2007, 03:38:51 PM »

we have this big old stress thing going on at my house.  didn't want you to think i'd broken the point off my sharp stick, but i have another hornets nest to poke at here.  sad

i may come cry in my tea with you later, but for the moment.....i have to pass on the internet arguments for a real world mess.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5437


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2007, 04:40:50 PM »

Konasdad,
And that is what it all boils down to. The constitution was created to protect our personal liberties and let the people be free of a tyrannical government.
So many people go to the court for rulings on this and that and want congress to legislate our freedoms away that it almost makes you afraid for the future of our children.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15099


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2007, 06:19:26 PM »

this mess is more fun than my mess.

the point of have supremes that actually uphold rather than interpret the constitution is that most of these cases should not have been heard at all.

we all like civil rights and equal rights and abortions and clean air....and all of the lettered agencies that enforce all of those laws that we have to live under.  none of those things should have been federal issues and none of those federal agencies should exist.  every time the supremes hold forth on one of these issues, they empower the federal government.  every time the federal government is empowered beyond those very few things that it was tasked with in the constitution, we lose more rights to central government.

and...btw...congress has been taking on an awful lot of stuff that it has no business wasting our money on.  they need to go back to meeting a couple of times a year and then home to working the farm.  maybe then we'd get people who actually want to serve the country and not make a career of spending money that does not belong to them.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5437


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2007, 07:02:48 PM »

What ever happened to the powers left to the states except those designated to the federal governmet?
Logged
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2007, 09:50:20 PM »

this mess is more fun than my mess.

the point of have supremes that actually uphold rather than interpret the constitution is that most of these cases should not have been heard at all.
From whitehouse.gov:
The judicial branch hears cases that challenge or require interpretation of the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. It consists of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. Appointees to the federal bench serve for life or until they voluntarily resign or retire.

Quote
we all like civil rights and equal rights and abortions and clean air....and all of the lettered agencies that enforce all of those laws that we have to live under.  none of those things should have been federal issues and none of those federal agencies should exist.  every time the supremes hold forth on one of these issues, they empower the federal government.  every time the federal government is empowered beyond those very few things that it was tasked with in the constitution, we lose more rights to central government.
So organizations like the following shouldn't exist?
BEP (Bureau of Engraving and Printing) formed 1861
CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) formed 1947
DARPA (formerly ARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ) formed 1958
FTC (Federal Trade Commission) formed 1914
GAO (General Accounting Office) formed 1921
FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Agency) has been around in some form or fashion for 200+ years.
USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) formed 1791
SS (Social Security) formed 1935
FDA(Food and Drug Administration) formed 1907 has history further back under differnt names.
USFS (United States Forest Service) formed 1905
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service) formed 1939
USMS (United States Marshals Service) formed 1789
and many departments that have a 100 year + history that are under the different departments (DOD, USDA, DVA, DOTreasury, DOJ, and many more).
So if all of those should be state issue, we can go back to each state issuing it's own money with it's own value. Enviromental regulations can be made by the states and they can in Iowa dump all they want into the Mississippi river regardless of what effect that has down river on other states. These are just a few examples of why the SCOTUS has interpruted laws passed by an elected federal congress to be overseen by a federal agency. They have effect on more than one state.

The Massachusetts v. EPA is an example of that. The EPA wasn't doing it's job the SCOTUS said they need to enforce the clean air standards.

Quote
and...btw...congress has been taking on an awful lot of stuff that it has no business wasting our money on.  they need to go back to meeting a couple of times a year and then home to working the farm.  maybe then we'd get people who actually want to serve the country and not make a career of spending money that does not belong to them.
Sure and maybe we can return to all of the old ways, slavery, repression of women, wage slaves, child labor, etc. The good old days weren't so good. Don't try to create a fantasy age that didn't exist.

Sincerely,
Brendhan


Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
Understudy
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4640


Location: West Palm Beach, Fl


WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2007, 09:51:52 PM »

What ever happened to the powers left to the states except those designated to the federal governmet?
The civil war and the 14 amendment happened. The rights of the citizens became important.

Sincerely,
Brendhan
Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.782 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page August 20, 2014, 05:55:37 AM