Conference back40::soapbox

In 33.385, Steve Leech writes -

    
    SCOTUS is despotic...it has always tried to be the "law of the land",
    even as early as the 1790's (see Marbury v. Madison).  Somehow it has
    succeeded in being the end all of modern law.  It strikes laws down,
    creates new laws- all by a small group of unelected, unaccountable
    men.  It happens so much today, it seems normal.  All anyone need do to
    promote social change/agenda is to buy off the SCOTUS.  Nine men can
    strike down any law of the land, redefine the Constitution, or stop
    laws from the Legislature from being implemented (laws passed by
    men/women directly accountable to the people, by design).
    
    I'm not sure how to reign the Judiciary in.  I'm not sure how things
    got the way they are...I'm still doing a bit of study on the matter.  I
    do know that by giving the SCOTUS this kind of power (to unaccountable
    men) is not the way things were set up originally, nor are is it in our
    best interest as a nation.
    
    A quip from Jefferson's letter to  Mrs. John Adams regarding Marbury v.
    Madison...
    
    "Nothing in the Constitution has given to them (SCOTUS) a right to
    decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for
    them.  The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what
    laws are Constitutional, and what not...for the legislature and teh
    executive...would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
    
    James Madison (the defendant in this case) went on to say...
    
    "[Some contend] that wherever [the Constitution's] meaning is doubtful,
    you must leave it to take its course, until the judiciary is called
    upon to declare its meaning...But I beg to know uon what principle it
    can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution
    greater powers than another...I do not see that any one of these
    independent departments has more right than another to declare their
    sentiments on that point."
    
    On the floor of the Senate, William Giles of Virginia stated...
    
    "If  the Judges of the Supreme Court should dare  to declare the acts
    of Congress unconstitutional  it was the undoubted right of the House
    to impeach them, and of the Senate to remove them."
    
    
    Lincoln declared in the Lincold/Douglas debates...
    
    "A [Supreme Court] decision...has always needed confirmation before the
    lawyers regarded it as settled law."
    
    
    In the Cherokee Indian cases (1831-1832), President Jackson was told by
    the Court (through the Chief Justice) to take certain actions, Jackson
    responded...
    
    "[The Chief Justice] has made his decision:  now let him enforce it!"
    
    
    We've let SCOTUS rule for too long...I'm not sure there is a way to
    reign them in, especially considering we have allowed them to rule for
    a long time.  I guess we can HOPE that they make good constitutional
    rulings.  
    
    
    (the above posted so that the nay-sayers won't poo-poo me to death...no
    one seems to believe that SCOTUS is somewhat despotic these days)
    
I happen to largely agree with Steve on this. What _IS_ the proper function
of the SCotUS? Is a Constitutional Convetion in order that they be more
appropriately curtailed?

    get it right, spadeface.
    
    scotus is seven men and two women.

>>    get it right, spadeface.

	wasn't he just quoting leech?

	jack prolly knows the difference between "reign" and "rein" too. ;>

    okay, i'll do it now since this topic hasn't drifted into a
    newt conversation yet! 

    .3
    
    yeah, he was just quoting steve "i'm not a bug" leech.  but just think
    of the political hay he coulda made with a [sic] after "nine men."

    Everyone's a critic...

    and i even get paid for it.  {smirk}

    re: Note 228.1 by MOLAR::DELBALSO
    
    The supreme Court's "check" is the people themselves.  If they bitch
    loud enough, they'll be heard.  The justices are accountable to the
    people.

     Nonsense. They are in there for life or until they get bored or tired.
    They are not accountable to the people, except by threat of or actual
    violence. Not the sort of check and balance originally envisioned.

    > Nonsense. They are in there for life or until they get bored or
    > tired.  They are not accountable to the people, except by threat of
    > or actual violence.
    
    ... or impeachment.

     The grounds of which are not unpopular decisions.

How common is impeachment of a SC justice?

    
    Never successfully impeached a Supreme.  Other fed judges, yes.
    
    Constitution says "during good behavior".  Bad decisions are NOT
    grounds for impeachment, as long as you behave.
    
    So Doc is right, they are not answerable to the people.  But he's
    wrong - that's exactly how it was envisioned.  But then, the
    constitution doesn't give them all the powers they have asserted.
    The founders never would have agreed to Marbury v. Madison.
    
    See for example the Congressional power to determine their
    jurisdiction.  Fact is, the court has little constitutional basis
    for it's behavior in recent generations.
    
      bb

    True, but decisions which unravel the Constitution they're supposed to
    be supporting borders upon treason.  
    
    (IMO, this may be far-fetched, or even wrong but I'll give it a go)
    Let's assume, for example, they made a ruling which blatantly violates
    the 2nd Amendment.  They issued a ruling which essentially struck down
    the 2nd Amendment.  This wouldn't fly.  Something of this nature would
    reguire an Amendment itself which would need to be ratified by 3/4ths
    of the states which said "The 2nd Amendment (in the Bill of Rights even)
    is hereby repealed and is null and void."  The sC could dance around
    the 2nd and maybe infringe upon it here and there, but they'd be playing
    with fire.  Maybe that's why they haven't been so quick to debate much
    of anything which pertains to it.
    
    I think armed revolution would occur if people/states ever gave this 
    serious consideration (junking the 2nd).  Therefore, IMO, it'll never 
    happen, but then again... Waco happened.
    
    Messing with other issues would probaly be safe.  That's why the sC has
    the appearance of being untouchable.  They make a ruling, and if you
    like it, no big deal.  If you don't like it, you bitch about it.  

    I don`t think there is anything that stops a Pesident from stacking the
    Court. I don`t think the Constitution calls for a specific number of
    judges.

    >But he's wrong - that's exactly how it was envisioned. 
    
     Miscommunication alert. What I meant was that "we the people"
    threatening to or committing violent acts is not the way that checks
    and balances were envisioned. I agree that the Supreme Court was
    intended to be without the sort of checks and balances that would have
    rendered them ineffective.

    
    
    That's why the confirmation hearings are supposed to be a checks and
    balances.  The problem is, the hearings have become a farce because the 
    politiskunks and questions about the persons personal views when they
    should be looking over the rulings that the judge has handed out.  
    
    
    Mike

    >    The founders never would have agreed to Marbury v. Madison.
    
    Most of the founders were still alive in 1803.  What writings extant of
    theirs lead you to believe they wouldn't have accepted it?  Post-1803
    writings would be particularly germane.
    
    DougO

    The founders did not agree to Marbury v. Madison...they ignored it.
    
    I posted some comments on this which are in the base note.
    
    
    -steve

    
    In fact, Marbury is an interesting case, particularly historically,
    but although the ruling was for Madison (and Jefferson), both were
    apalled at the GROUNDS for the ruling.  Jefferson, countless times
    in speech and in writing, warned against any sort of government by
    judges.  It was Jefferson who said, "The dead cannot bind the living."
    (And of course, it was Adams who argued they COULD.)  We forget the
    extreme radicalism of the founders today, because we are so less free
    than they were.  Jefferson, for example, advocated that the new
    Constitution should self-abrogate every 20 years, to force each new
    generation to rewrite it.  And he would have had no truck with any
    unelected officials getting between the people and their will.
    
      Hamilton would certainly have disagreed.  As the doctrinaire
    Federalist, whose most admired historical figure was Julius Caesar,
    Hamilton had little faith in "the people" as such.  He would have
    just loved the notion of aristocratic judges deciding in lofty
    isolation how the Republic should proceed.
    
      Adams, the only president who has left more writings than Jefferson,
    is now mostly unread.  But it is safe to suppose he would have taken
    a very pessimistic view in the middle :  that neither judges nor the
    people, nor anybody else, could be trusted in the long run, and that
    the only hope for the Republic's survival lay in institutions so
    designed that they would check all men's basically evil nature.
    
      When we (and I do this myself) say "the founders", we forget they
    were all different.  What held them together was the suicide pact
    called the Declaration, the document that forced them all to stand
    together or die.  The anti-federalists agreed with almost nothing
    in the constitution, and Patrick Henry lost when he urged the
    tumultuous Virginia assembly to defeat the proposed constitution,
    which he claimed would be the death of all freedom.
    
      bb

    re: .20
    
    
    I, for one, am guilty of lumping all the FF together.  It is very true
    that the Federalists would have arranged the Constitution a bit
    differently, if they had the power to do so.  I tend to forget the
    element of opposition (to the Constitution as it was ratified) when I
    go on my FF tirades.
    
    
    -steve

I like to think of it as the FF having their own little soapbox-style
discussion . . . . Rather fun to consider them calling each other
jerks and all . . . 

    	Wonder if they had a page 204 to scribble names on and such...

    RE: .15
    
    
    	The Constitution does not require a specific number of judges.  In
    fact, that number has varied during the country's history.  
    
    	The Constitution states that Congress decides the amount of judges
    on the Supreme Court.  One of the most famous attempts at changing the
    number of judges is when the SC deemed his New Deal unconstitional. 
    FDR tried to get even by getting Congress to increase the amount of
    judges (1 for every member over a certain age - which was almost all of
    them).  While Congress did not increase the number of judges, the SC
    was bullied into agreeing with FDR.
    
    ME  

    Hamilton -- now there's an interesting case.
    
    Founder, conservative, chief advocate of big government, champion of
    centralized, presidential power vs state and legislative power.
    
    (He wanted presidents-for-life, federal appointment of state governors,
    a national bank to control the economy, etc)
    
    He's a good antidote to the silly distortion that conservatives always
    want smaller and more locally-oriented government and liberals always
    want bigger and more centralized government.
    
    Throughout our history each side has supported more and bigger
    government when such government advanced its aims, and opposed more and
    bigger government when such government opposed its aims.
    
    Plus ca change...
    
    Kit

    
    Yeah, but he got the sawbuck, and old Tom just got the deuce.
    
      :-)  bb
    

    Yeah, but he also got the lead, and old Tom got to die in bed on the
    50th anniversary.
    
    :-)  Kit

    
      The latest DC scandal is an alleged conflict of interest involving
     Justics Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy involving accepting
     (I believe) speaking fees which ultimately came from a litigant
     who received a favorable ruling.  Don't know details, but they are
     on the hot seat.  Remember, "during Good Behavior" is the condition
     of the lifetime appointment.  Even the appearance of impropriety
     would be very damaging to the court.  See what comes out.
    
      bb

    .28  Hmmmm, who gets to investigate a SC justice?  If it's true,
    they should be toast!!
    
    And yes, I do know who appointed them.
    
    

     Which "ultimately" came from ...
    
     Here's the crux- did they know where the money was coming from or not?
    I suspect not. I sincerely doubt that whatever speaking fees they got
    were worth risking a spot on the SCOTUS.

    I think two-three were Reagan and one was Bush. Reagan, I think
    appointed O'Conner and Scilea (sp). i don`t know who appointed Kennedy
    and the man from N.H. Clinton appointed the last female< Ginsberg (sp)
    I think.

    
    <--------
    
    Well!!!! There ya go!!!
    
    It's all the Republicans fault!!!!

    
    Oh oh.... mz_deb's on one of her "editor" kicks again...
    
    Runs in cylces does it???
    
     :) :)
    

    
    Would you believe me if I told you I put that in incorrectly just for
    that purpose????
    

    
    Yes, I would, my love ;^).  But then again, I'm gullible 8^).

RE                       <<< Note 228.31 by MAIL2::CRANE >>>

>    I think two-three were Reagan and one was Bush. Reagan, I think
>    appointed O'Conner and Scilea (sp). i don`t know who appointed Kennedy
>    and the man from N.H. Clinton appointed the last female< Ginsberg (sp)
>    I think.

  Reagan appointed Kennedy. The way I remember it is as follows. I'm not sure
of the spellings.

  When Potter Stewert stepped down from the court Reagan fulfilled his promise
to appoint a women to the Supreme Court by appointing Sandra O'Conner. Then
when Chief Justice Warren Burger retired he appointed associate justice
Renquist to be Chief Justice and he appointed Scileia to take Renquist's place
as associate Justice. 

  When Lou Powell retired Reagan appointed Judge Robert Bork from the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals but he was rejected by the Senate. He then appointed
someone else but withdrew the name when the nominee admitted having smoked
marijuana. He then appointed Anthony Kennedy of California who was confirmed
by the Senate.

  Justice John Paul Stephens, the other justice mentioned, was appointed back
in the mid '70s by Gerald Ford when William Douglas retired. He is now the
senior Associate Justice. 

  George

    Scalia

 excerpts from:

Quiet justice has emerged as strong voice on Supreme Court

 William Freivogel
 St Louis Post-Dispatch

 "Clarence Thomas has emerged as a significant voice on the US Supreme Court,
where he is the strongest advocate for interpreting the Constitution the way
the Framers meant it.

 'His work goes a long way to refuting the notion that this is someone who 
does not have the breadth to be a Supreme Court justice,' says Richard Lazarus,
a law professor at Washington University.

 'One can disagree with him and think he is misguided, but you cannot read
these opinions and think this is someone who does not have the command of
legal argument.'

 Jesse Choper, law professor at UCAL Berkeley, agrees: 'He is not being given
sufficient recognition for what he is doing. I think his opinions are generally
good.'

 In four terms on the court, Thomas has developed a distinctive judicial voice:

 * He is the most conservative justice on a conservative court. Thomas'
constitutional views would reinvigorate states' rights and diminish
federal power.

 * He is the most consistent advocate of the 'originalist' approach that
limits the Constitution to its original meaning.

 * He is the second most prolific opinion writer this term, even though
he continues to be the quietest justice in oral argument.

 * He is passionate in his opinion writing, even though he remains passionless
on the bench.

 * He is a firm believer in 'textualism,' insisting, like soulmate Antonin
Scalia, that words should be given their plain, dictionary meanings."

After reading 14.6549, I become more convinced that we need a Constitutional
Convention.

    re: .42
    
    On one hand I agree with you, Jack.  On the other hand, I'm afraid that
    such a convention would lead to an un-civil war.  Perhaps we should
    just ctrl-alt-delete the government.
    
    Bob

As I mentioned elsewhere several weeks ago, leaving things open to 
constitutional interpretation by the SCotUS has certain advantages,
such as the fact that they can (and do) reverse specific decisions
on occasion which keeps a certain amount of dynamic equilibrium
in our system. I guess, like anyone, if they're making decisions which
I favor, that's fine, but if they're making ones that I oppose (such
as this one) that's not so fine. My concern is that by making too
many of the ones that are largely opposed by the citizenry, they're
going to end up inciting rebellion or civil strife of some sort anyway.
So, which way would we rather have it?

    If there is a constitutional convention, how much of the Bill of Rights
    do you think would survive?  

    -- Dave

Obviously that's a concern. However, a lamebrained SCotUS left unchecked
is not the most desireable alternative, either. And from the sounds of it,
this one would like nothing better than a police state, in its intents
to give the jackbooted thugs whatever they feel like taking.

Buchanan, FWIW, is in favor of making justices subject to recall.

Unfortunately, there's no easy answer. Life appointments, while intended to
allow justices some level of abstraction, also gives them freedom to indulge.

This one's easy.

How 'bout a constitutional amendment?

>How 'bout a constitutional amendment?

To do what, TTom? Limit the powers vested in the SCotUS by the same document?
Wouldn't any such amendment be easily shown to be "unconstitutional"?

    re: .46
    
    The SC has no authority to redefine the Constitution in their own
    image.  The SC *is* 'checked' by the Constitution.  However, no one
    really gives a poop about that document any longer.  Much of the social
    change we have experienced over the last 30-40 years is due to "rule
    from the bench", which created new meanings to the Constitution, rather
    than interpreting the Constitution based on historical precedent and
    common sense (as it it was meant to be).
    
    If you wonder why the Constitution, specifically the BoR is in jeapordy
    today, you need look no farther than this 'redefining' phenomina
    perpetrated by SCOTUS.  You have modern rulings that obviously go
    against intent, so how can you have any real basis in consitutional
    law?  Without any consistency, what is there to fall back on when our
    rights are attacked?  Are we to trust our future and our lives to nine
    *unelected*, *unaccountable* government officials?
    
    You correctly spot that there is a problem with the current power
    displayed by SCOTUS, and in pointing out the direction in which they
    are taking us.  Now, put two and two together.  Why do they have all
    this power?  Why do they seem unchecked?  How do they get away with
    completely bogus rulings that are obviously against all constitutional
    intent?   What happend to the checks and balances?
    
    
    -steve

Enlighten us then, Steve. Short of impeaching them, where are the checks
and balances? Short of making their approval of their appointments even more
political than it already is, where are the checks and balances? Short of
society actually producing practitioners of the legal profession who are
capable of carrying out their jobs with honest integrity, where are the
checks and balances?

It isn't exactly the case that ruling from the bench is forbidden by the
constitution, or we wouldn't be here, now, would we?

re: .49

>To do what, TTom? Limit the powers vested in the SCotUS by the same document?

Yep.

Hey, if'n we can limit what's clearly written about rights to speech and
private property, why not just change the whole danged thang.

I'm not advocating this but I'm a little surprised that the crowd that's
so attracted to amendments hasn't tried one with SCOTUS.

TTom

The check is supposed to be that the standing president (and the Senate by
their approval) choose poeple worthy of the position, i.e. those who will
support the metaphysical ideas in the Constitution.

Obviously, this isn't the case at present, where the president and senators
seek to push their personal agendas in this and many other ways...

re: Tom R.

Which obviously hasn't happened since the late eighteenth century, so where 
does that leave us if not in need of a CC?

    Re .47:
    
    > Buchanan, FWIW, is in favor of making justices subject to recall.
    >
    > Unfortunately, there's no easy answer. Life appointments, while
    > intended to allow justices some level of abstraction, also gives them
    > freedom to indulge.
    
    Given the idiotic decision we just saw, sure, there's an easy answer: 
    Making justices subject to recall is NOT inconsistent with life
    appointments.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

 I don't believe Buchanan is in favor of Supreme Court justices being subject
 to recall.  I could be wrong, but I thought I heard him respond differently 
 when asked the question.




 Jim

 They _are_ subject to impeachment!

    
      They are only subject to impeachment for BEHAVIOR, not for
     their decisions.
    
      bb

> They _are_ subject to impeachment!

Sure they are, but, as has been said in this topic before, not on the
basis of making unpopular decisions. They are impeachable only for 
misconduct or criminal involvement.

    
      Which, btw, goes to show what a phony issue the so-called "litmus
     tests" on abortion, or any other issue, have been.  A justice is
     not bound by any promise made to the president or senate.  In fact,
     they aren't bound by their own previous decisions, and numerous
     cases can be cited of judges simply changing their minds and
     reversing themselves in the next case.
    
      bb

  .60 are they supposed to be in that position for umpteen years and
      never change their minds?

    re: .61
    
    They are supposed to be CONSISTENT for their umpteen years of service,
    consistent with ruling on the intent of the Constitution.  They are not
    to create interpretations that suit their cause (i.e. change their mind
    when it suits their politics).
    
    
    -steve

    CONSISTENT?  like in bowling?  8^o

             <<< Note 228.62 by ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    They are supposed to be CONSISTENT for their umpteen years of service,
>    consistent with ruling on the intent of the Constitution.  They are not
>    to create interpretations that suit their cause (i.e. change their mind
>    when it suits their politics).

	Obviously.  Does that preclude their changing their minds?

    The problem with all the laws we got is that they have to be 
    interpreted by first by an army of lawyers (I wonder how many
    lawyers there are in the USA) then by the courts ... ending 
    it all at the SCotUS. The whole process consuming a significant
    part of GDP I am sure.

    And they sure can interpret, seems that every case gives laws
    news meanings that then to be interpreted over and over again.

    It would have been much easier and cheaper if the laws had
    been made simpler and understandable to all to begin with... 

    Still its not too late, instead of living with an ever increasing 
    number of laws and case precedents etc ... (by the way the USA 
    only has a couple centuries of this, you should see the law books
    of some of the older nations :-) Why not make it a mandatory part
    of the job for representative law makers and Supreme-Court judges
    to rationalize and simplify the laws of the land.

    One way to do this, would be for the Supreme-Court judges to
    review existing laws, then propose rationalizations and 
    simplifications that the law makers could then vote into law
    while abolishing the older laws being replaced.

    Gil

re: .51
    
>Enlighten us then, Steve. 
    
    I'm trying, I'm trying.  8^)
    
>    Short of impeaching them, where are the checks
>and balances? 
    
    I asked you first.  8^)  I haven't seen any lately.
    
    Historically, Congress and the President would ignore an obviously
    bogus ruling from SCOTUS.  See Marbury v. Madison.  Check out the
    Cherokee Indian cases (1831-2), Jackson ignored the SC, just as Lincoln
    ignored the Dred Scot decisions of 1857, when he declared freedom for
    slaves in his Emancipation Proclamation.   There are many other cases
    where SCOTUS is ignored.
    
    Andrew Jackson's statement sums it up quite well:
    
    "Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution
    swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is
    understood by others...The opinion of the judges has no more authority
    over the congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and
    on that point the President is independent of both.  The authority of
    the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the
    Congress or the Executive."
    
    But it does.  Today, it is given *final* constitutional authority,
    which is WRONG.  It is an imbalance of power, rather than a balance of
    powers.
    
>    Short of
>society actually producing practitioners of the legal profession who are
>capable of carrying out their jobs with honest integrity, where are the
>checks and balances?

    I think you've hit on one of the major problems with government today. 
    There simply is no integrity.  There are politics, political parties,
    agendas, etc., but integrity is as rare as hen's teeth.  This is why
    our Constitution is being circumvented in favor of whatever political
    agenda is popular.  This is why government is failing.  There is such a
    vacuum of integrity in DC that I'm surprised that all the federal
    buildings (including the White House) don't implode. 
    
    And if I were to rathole for just a second, this can even be connected
    with my dialogue in the gunnote.  All of these problems are related-
    they are all related to morality (or lack therof).  These problems were 
    warned against by the founders, as is nicely summed up by John Adams, below:
    
    "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with
    human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition,
    revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our
    Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  OUR CONSTITUTION WAS MADE
    ONLY FOR A MORAL AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.  IT IS WHOLLY INADEQUATE TO THE
    GOVERNMENT OF ANY OTHER."  (emphasis mine)
    
    I can fish up many, many more that say basically the same thing, from
    other founders and historical figures, but this one does a nice job on
    its own.  The Constitution is not holding strong because this nation is
    becoming more and more corrupt every day.  When this happens, leaders
    with integrity get harder and harder to find.  Those who allow
    corruption to overtake them (which seems to be a majority, IMO) will
    sell out this nation for their own gain, caring not a whit for
    constitutional intent.
    
    Of course, the people are also to blame.  We have not kept government
    in check, as is our duty.  We have allowed ourselves to be seduced by
    the ideals that look good at first glance, but are leading this nation
    to destruction. 
    
>It isn't exactly the case that ruling from the bench is forbidden by the
>constitution, or we wouldn't be here, now, would we?
    
    They can rule all they like.  It is the responsibility of the other
    branches of government to ignore bogus rulings.  It used to
    be that Court rulings on laws (petitioned for by the people), had to be
    confirmed by Congress.  It is Congress who is accountable to the
    people, and it is the people who ultimately hold the constitutional
    corrective (this is what is known as self government- a foreign concept
    these days, I'll admit).
    
    The Constitution is not an extremely complicated document, nor is the
    DoI.  You do not need a lawyer's credentials to understand it.  In
    fact, I'm willing to bet that modern study of law only obfuscates the
    obvious, placing modern SCOTUS rulings above the original intent of our
    founding document.
    
    
    -steve   

    re: .64
    
    Well, if they are wrong, then obviously changing their collective minds
    would be a good thing.  

    
      Proposed Constitutional Amendment XXVII.
    
       (1) The Supreme Court shall consist of 9 justices, who shall be
     appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, one per year,
     for terms of 9 years.  They shall hold office during good behavior,
     and may be reappointed.  In the event of a vacancy, a temporary
     appointment for the remainder of the term may be made.
       (2) At such time as this amendment be approved, the incumbent
     justices' terms shall expire one per year in inverse order of their
     seniority.  The justices shall then meet in each year and choose
     their own Chief Justice for that year.
       (3) The Supreme Court shall ultimately determine the meaning of
     all provisions of the constitution.
    

    Why inverse order in section 2?  Let the oldest ones expire first -
    that's the way your proposed system will work.

    
      Yeah, Binder, I think you're right.  This amendment business is
     tricky - you can see why there are so few.  The document has
     ossified.  The Founders would probably be surprised, and not very
     happy, with how little creativity we have displayed as a people.
     It was supposed to be an ever adapting document.  Now people are
     terrified of ever changing anything in it.
    
      bb

>                     <<< Note 228.65 by DEVLPR::ANDRADE >>>
>    It would have been much easier and cheaper if the laws had
>    been made simpler and understandable to all to begin with... 

They did that. The U.S. Constitution was written in plain language, and fills
up maybe 5 pages without amendments. Just because today's bills run for 1000+
pages with little exceptions for every "protected class" of person and every
author's pet pork project, doesn't mean it was always that way.

The Constitution, if it were written by today's Congress, would be easily
25,000 pages long.

>     It was supposed to be an ever adapting document.  Now people are
>     terrified of ever changing anything in it.

Evidently, no one told the Newties about this, what with the flag
amendment, the prayer amendment, the balanced budget amendment.

TTom

    > It was supposed to be an ever adapting document.  Now people are
    > terrified of ever changing anything in it.
    
    "Law must retain useful ways to break with traditional forms, because
    nothing is more certain than that the forms of Law remain when all
    justice is gone."
    
    				- Frank Herbert, _The Dosadi Experiment_

    
      SCOTUS granted cert in the Arizona "official English" amendment
     case, but first wants to decide if the appellant even has standing.
    
      It would be a shame if they cannot consider the constitutional
     question, because the appellant is disqualified by a technicality.
    
      It is so rare for the Court to take up ANY new question, rather
     than refinements in old ones, that I hope they issue an opinion
     on whether it is constitutional for a state to declare that it
     has an official language to be used in government.
    
      bb

    Oh man I hope they win.  Then maybe we will stop this bilingual
    education nonsense and equip all children with an equal chance at
    prosperity in America.
    
    

The case in question involved a state employee who speaks both English and
Spanish.  She spoke English to people who were more comfortable in English
and Spanish to people who were more comfortable in Spanish.  When English-only
became law, she stopped speaking Spanish to clients and sued the state.

    Well that's silly.  She should be able to still address them in
    Spanish.  She should win on the grounds of the 1st ammendment.
    
    Be the official language English or whatever, the ability to
    communicate should not be impeded.

    If the ammendment said that ALL state business is to be done in English
    then she had to stop speaking Spanish to the Spanish speaking clients
    when conducting state business.  
    
    

    Sounds to me like Arizona is putting up a wall in an economic sense. 
    One cannot receive a welfare check unless they learn how to apply for
    it in English.  

    Money talks, Jack.  If they really want that free ride, they'll have to
    learn how to beg for it same as them anglos they're elbowing out of the
    bread line.

    RE: .76
    
    Actually what I heard on the radio the other day was that she wanted to
    turn in all of her reports in spanish even though her manager spoke
    only english.  She felt that she had the right to have a manager tha
    spoke her own language.
    
    --Geoff

    Oh, well that sheds a different light on the matter.  

  In a ruling almost everybody else hates, SCOTUS upheld an IRS ruling
 the other day.  A mentally ill man overpaid his taxes some years ago,
 and after his death, the heirs discovered the error.  The IRS admitted
 the heirs were right, but refused to refund the tax because the statutory
 limit on corrections had passed.  Justice Breier writing for a unanimous
 court, ruled that Congress was clear when it wrote the statute that the
 intent was to deny even demonstrably fair claims once the clock runs out,
 and there is no Constitutional requirement that laws be fair.

  bb

> and there is no Constitutional requirement that laws be fair.

The bench must have consulted with Corporate Personnel.

/john

    the door swings both ways on this one.

me too

    Circumcised Philistine!!!
    
    THE IRS had every right to deny payment.  The three year Statute of
    Limitations takes precedence!

| <<< Note 228.87 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| THE IRS had every right to deny payment.  The three year Statute of
| Limitations takes precedence!

	Jack is saying a government agency has the right to hold someone elses
money??  Who is in Jack's account!!!???



Glen

Wish that were a double edged sword the IRS was swinging ....

    It is. It cuts the taxpayer both ways. /hth

Circumcised Philistine???

Oh Ya, I forget. The 'Pay US now and pay US later' folks ....