The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:What I'm not finding is that 5/9 Supreme Politburo justices can decide "things change" and the Constitution needs to be modified by them in the way that they chose. I'm hoping Pulp can find that part for us...

Why? That's your strawman, not mine.

If you want to argue with Marbury v. Madison be my guest. I don't have the power to travel back to 1803, though.

My strawman? You argued the supreme court can change the Constitution by simple majority vote because "things change." How is it "my" strawman?

Because that's not what I've said. At all. Where have I said that "the supreme court can change the Constitution by simple majority vote"?

Please find that statement.

Actually, if you read the quotes in this post your response to my point of 5/9 was in it. What else were you looking for? Clearly times change, which is why the Supreme Court gave us 2/3 of each Chamber and 3/4 the legislature, not 5/9 decree by the Supreme Court that "times changed." Your gun example was an excellent one. If "times changed" then a Constitutional Amendment should be introduced. Until then...

Skinsfan55 wrote:After 8 years of dismantling domestic security, of needlessly stirring up the situation in the middle east, of trampling on the constitution, of absolutely running this country in the ground...

Every once in a while, as new stories break, I remember that this thread happened. LOL

New administration, same people really in charge.

and despite the promise of "change" - nothing really changed and we're really not any better off - IMHO

I could be wrong but I think "Judicial Review" is a power the court simply assumed and it's now an entrenched tradition. I do not believe the power of "Judicial Review" is spelled out anywhere in the constitution. Anyone know more about this?

PulpExposure wrote:Thankfully, Bush's idea of executive power isn't the one that has won out.

I think it was more Cheney's idea. He thought the presidency should have more power and he worked hard to make it so. It's unlikely future presidents will surrender the extra power Cheney finagled.

Perhaps the most loaded issue in history:

CounterTrey wrote:I am not anti abortion (which is not the same thing as being "pro-abortion"... I find the practice reprehensible -snip-

Same here.

CounterTrey wrote:and the ultimate liberal hypocracy)...

Plenty of hypocrisy on both sides here.

Even a libertarian can go either way on this one. One can say human rights do not accrue at conception whence a woman has a right to do what she wants. Another can say human rights do accrue at conception whence abortion is tantamount to murder - the ultimate stripping away of rights.

If one does believe human rights accrue at conception then there is no reason to make exceptions for rape or incest. That is very hypocritical. If the fetus obtains human rights at the moment of conception then who supplied the semen is irrelevant. I have yet to hear this last point addressed in high level "debates."

DarthMonk wrote:I could be wrong but I think "Judicial Review" is a power the court simply assumed and it's now an entrenched tradition. I do not believe the power of "Judicial Review" is spelled out anywhere in the constitution. Anyone know more about this?

Not in the Constitution. As mentioned above, asserted by John Marshall, a Federalist leading the Supreme Court after the Jeffersonians won the election of 1800, and all the following elections until the Federalists faded away.

I found -- history major that I was before becoming a computer programmer -- that the Court usually follows public opinion. When large majority of Americans think one way, the court rules that way.

Example: Plessy / Ferguson contradicted the three Civil War amendments. Didn't matter: Jim Crow was popular, so the Court backed it. (One contrary example: the Court blocked most of Hoover's attempts to plan a recovery from the Great Depression, and did the same to FDR). The 1954 Brown decision agreed with most people: time to end segregation.

I think the same thing has happened with gay rights: the country has become more tolerant (younger people, especially); surverys show that between 5% and 10% of people are "homosexual"; children even of important Republan officials are gay (Liz Cheney) and advisors and donors to both parties. Campaign manager for George W. Bush, for instance.

The decision on the Voting Rights Act was a surprising back-track, but if a couple of the Bush I or II appointees die or retire, a new court will probably reinstate the law.

Irn-Bru wrote:Serious question for you, Skinsfan55: do you think Obama will respect constitutional limits to presidential power? If yes, what makes you think so?

Do you think Obama will decrease U.S. military presence abroad? (I don't mean reshuffle, I mean a net decrease.)

Just curious. . .Obama somehow got a reputation as a peace candidate, or at any rate many "anti-war" people are now going silent since he's going to be the president, but I'm not sure why. As for domestic/constitutional issues, maybe it's just because Bush was so bad that anyone looks better in comparison, but from what I understand Obama hasn't expressed any interest in removing illegal wiretaps, de-escalating constitutional violations in the name of 'security', etc. How is he supposed to be different?

I said at the time if I believed Obama would do this then I'd have voted for him. All the liberals were running around saying he will, he will. I said he won't, he won't.

Now five years later, they were wrong. Once again he's considering military action in Syria, yet another country we don't belong in. But they were not as wrong as this guy....

PulpExposure wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Serious question for you, Skinsfan55: do you think Obama will respect constitutional limits to presidential power? If yes, what makes you think so?

I'd tend to think so. He taught constitutional law at UChicago, after all. So he probably knows the limits on executive power (such as signing statements) that Bush never did (or just conveniently ignored). The most serious Constitutional scholars are actually those who believe in a limited executive branch (see Antonin Scalia, especially regarding domestic executive power).

In fact, Obama has explicitly said he will reverse quite a lot of the expansion of the exec office that occured under Bush (but has not given any particulars).

And the leader of his transition team, John Podesta, recently (Sept 2008) gave testimony to Congress regarding the Bush administration's policy regarding secrecy of records.

We'll see, though.

Why would anyone expect government to give power back once they've gotten it?

DarthMonk wrote:I could be wrong but I think "Judicial Review" is a power the court simply assumed and it's now an entrenched tradition. I do not believe the power of "Judicial Review" is spelled out anywhere in the constitution. Anyone know more about this?

It was Marbury v. Madison that Congress gave itself the power. The judicial branch was considered by the founders to be the weakest branch. When they declared the right to judicial review, it kind of made sense to the Founding Fathers as the weakest branch would be the one keeping the other two branches in check.

They never dreamed that Judicial Review would be used to turn the judiciary into a despotic dictatorship that would change the Constitution at whim. Live and learn. Maybe the next greatest country will learn from that like we learned from a lot of the mistakes that preceded us.