Fingers are crossed indeed. I myself am starting at a new shop on Monday morning, driven by the desire to actually appear in court more than once per quarter. The lawyerin’ business is definitely starting to pick up down here.
Well, I suppose as long as there’s at least 300 miles seperating the two of you, the Republic is not in immediate danger.
Minty
Din’t do that to me, and I’m stuck here with Coor-vozz-ee-ay and a leggy Nordic blonde, din’t make me mean or conservative! Just as sweet as I ever was.
Here, I’ll show you! It is my fondest wish for New Years Eve (well, fondest so far, we’ll have to see…)…that Comrade Mintya Greenovsky do splendidly and effortlessly in his new position. And that friend Dewey, running dog tool of the ruling class, find himself nestled deeply amongst the people who don’t have funny accents.
Hell, I’ll even drink to it! Can’t do no better’n that, now can you?
Umm, no. The problem is the Supreme Court overturning a Congressional statute simply by declaring it “unconstitutional”.
Here again you are wrong. Congress can not overturn a Supreme Court decision.
I’ll let you read the Constitution on your own time. You might want to check it out though. Its kinda neat read.
Feel free to check back in when you have a clue.
Might want to be a little careful there…I found the following information in the link you provided. I’m assuming that the process of ‘overturning a supreme court decision’ Polycarp refers to is the amendment process, which requires, as he states, 2/3 of of the House and of the Senate, and ratification by 3/4 of states (which works out to 37.5, rounded up to the 38 he provides, in our current union of 50 states). The four instances he provides would be Amendment XI, proposed 1794 and ratified 1798, which prohibits a state’s being sued without it’s consent and presumably overturns a Supreme Court decision in which somebody successfully sued a state without its consent (I have no clue what the case was, but that seems to be what I remember); Amendments XIII, proposed and ratified 1865, and XIV, proposed 1866 and ratified 1868 ‘under duress,’ which jointly ban slavery and define citizenship, and overturn, among others, the Dred Scott decision; Amendment XVI, proposed 1909 and ‘questionably ratified’ 1913, which was specifically passed to override the Supreme Court’s ruling that Income Taxes were unconstitutional (invoking, if I recall correctly, Article I, Section 8, first sentence: “…but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”); and Amendment XXVI, proposed and ratified 1971, which gives 18-year-olds the right to vote. I honestly have no clue what Supreme Court decision this overturns, but I assume that’s what Polycarp referred to.
The irony is so rich. That a nation, born improbably from revolution…should pretend to regard thier Constitution as Sacred Writ, as if all the answers are therein cunningly contained. Handed down, and finished.
Tom Paine probably would have tipped pretty well, if he would ever have ordered. Jury’s out on Jefferson. That snotty little bitch Hamilton, well…
The point that was being made was that if the Supreme Court rules something based on interpretation of current statute and does not believe a Constitutional question is involved, Congress can then simply change the law…again as long as the Supremes don’t see them as stepping on Constitutional issues.
It’s kinda bad form to say things like this when it is you who are out-to-lunch. The point that was being made here is that the Constitution can be modified by amendments. Polycarp was just stating the way one goes about passing such an amendment to the Constitution.
Are you confusing two threads, luci?
Been up partying too long?
Busted.
It was about the thread about not tipping Domino delivery drones, and somehow I found something really important to say.
Gracias, vato!
It’s cool. I’ve been following your posts in both threads. Those paragraphs definately count as good ones.
And you might want to read the very passage from Polycarp’s response that you quoted:
Polycarp never asserted that Congress by itself can amend the U.S. Constitution. He said that Congress can do so, with the concurrence of the required number of states.
And, to elaborate on Polycarp’s comment, here’s a list of the eight constitutional amendments which were enacted by Congress and the states to overturn specific Supreme Court decisions:
[ul][li]XIth Amendment (state immunity from federal court jurisdiction), overturning Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793);[/li]
[li]XIIIth Amendment (abolition of slavery), overturning one aspect of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856);[/li]
[li]XIVth Amendment (citizenship of all individuals born within the jurisdiction of the United States), overturning another aspect of Dred Scott;[/li]
[li]XVth Amendment (right of citizens not to be denied based on race or prvious condition of servitude) overturning yet another aspect of Dred Scott[/li]
[li]XVIth Amendment (authorising federal income tax), overturning Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895);[/li]
[li]XIXth Amendment (women’s suffrage), overturning Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874);[/li]
[li]XXIVth Amendment (abolition of the poll tax qualification in federal elections), overturning Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937);[/li]
[li]XXVIth Amendment (lowering minimum voting age to 18), overturning one aspect of Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).[/li][/ul]
The Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding prohibitions on certain types of advertising prior to an election is an excellent example of how acitivist judges are destroying the Constitution. The ban is essentially a violation of the First Amendment - and keeps citizens from being able to criticize the goverment (ie, incumbents).
Ironically, a recent appeals court case upholds an artist’s right to use nude Barbie dolls in his photos. Nude Barbies = protected speech. Criticizing an incumbent prior to an election = forbidden speech.
It does not keep “citizens from being able to criticize the goverment (ie, incumbents)”.
Rather it deals with the rights of “artificial persons,” (no, not androids) to fund political campaigns.
There is no such thing as an articial person existing without the support and participation of real persons. Think about it. The real impact of this decision is to protect incumbents.
As a practical matter somebody has been screaming that the Supreme Court has been undermining the country’s foundations ever since the Court said that New Your could not grant a monopoly to Mr. Fulton (I think) to run a ferry service on the Hudson River. Pointing with alarm and perceiving with dismay every time the Supremes make a decision is in the finest tradition of American politics. Surely some of us remember the “Impeach Earl Warren” bill boards that popped up after the Warren Court’s criminal procedure decisions (especially after Miranda which a fair number of people took as the silliest of decisions and part of a plot to turn the country over to burglars and rapists) and the general hair tearing and teeth gnashing that followed the *Brown v. Board of Education * decision and the prolonged political maneuvering that resulted in the Southern Strategy that turned the Solid South from Yellow Dawg Democrat to a Republican bastion.
What is surprising is that people who do most of the shouting that the Federal Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, is ruining the country are the same people who claim that this president should have the judicial appointments he wants, no questions asked. This was not a courtesy those people were willing to grant other Presidents. This, it seems to me, is more than enough proof that the judicial process is essentially a political process when it comes to cases of political significance or cases which can be turned into political fodder. In the war of talking and screaming heads that dominates political discussion any decision that the particular windbag doesn’t like is the machination of a liberal activist/conservative reactionary judge that dishonestly evicerates the principals of this Great Republic and dishonors the thousands of Union soldiers who suffered and died so that this Great Nation could survive.
It’s all balderdash and politics. It is the product of a mindset that holds all great issues to be contests between absolute good and absolute evil in a world where every thing is either black or white and there is no topic on which reasonable minds can differ. The Supreme Court is not destroying the Constitution. In the long run the Supreme Court will no do anything with or to the Constitution that the political process will not accept (observe F.D. Roosevelt’s fight with the Supremes over the new deal legislation). That each generation’s view of the Constitution will change is inevitable as each generation comes up with new problems that had never been dreamed of by the Founders or the Amenders or the preceeding generation. In the meantime, as others have noted, the demigouges can keep the great unwashed stirred up and distracted by perceiving with dismay and pointing with alarm.
Dewey, I hadn’t realized you were doing temp work–I’m sorry to hear that. Good luck on your Texas interview. Minty, I’m pleased to learn that you are getting out of the library and into the courtroom. It’s about time you find out what this noble profession is all about. In the meantime, we can hope that you will have enough free time to continue to grace us all with your contributions. How about them Hawks?
These real persons have a voice and are “able to criticize the goverment (ie, incumbents)”.
It seems that contenders are just as protected.
It isn’t as bad as all that, although going from working on billion-dollar mergers to routine in-house matters for a fraction of my former salary is by no means pleasant. Such is the fate of many M&A lawyers operating in the utility industry (thanks, Enron! thanks, 9/11 terrorists! because of you guys, no one wants to invest in the utility sector!).
On the other hand, my current spot is oddly reassuring. I got it because a former colleague (who had taken a senior in-house posiiton at my current employer for quality of life reasons, and who I had done a lot of work for at my old firm) called me out of the blue because they had some some legal work that needed doing. She did that because she liked the work I had done for her in the past. And my current opportunity arose because my current boss was pleased with the work I had done for him, and went to bat for me with one of the company’s outside counsel.
Both cases involve people putting their reputations on the line for me – particularly my former colleague, whose reputation among decisionmakers at the company would have suffered if I had done poor work. I don’t believe either would have done what they did if my work had been merely satisfactory. So in an odd way, this whole experience has served to restore my confidence in my skills, and to reinforce that my departure from my old firm was a function of the economy and not me. In that way, it’s a blessing.
Still, 2003 pretty much sucked for me. I’m hoping 2004 will be better.
Sorry for the hijack, folks. Carry on.
I also think that it’s important to note that strict constructionism of the sort that Dewey espouses must not be identified with the hijacking of the term to support the views of neoconservatives, and in particular the Ann Coulters of the world. Hugo L. Black, for example, traditionally considerd a classic liberal, was one of the strictest of strict constructionists – and I’ve seen Dewey argue in the Blackian tradition more than once in threads on constitutional law. While I disagree with Dewey on some aspects of his arguments, the difference is to me a matter of degree – Dewey is prepared to infer a few “rights” such as freedom of association from the literal text; I believe inference can go further than he does – I have to point out that he has consistently and non-ideologically argued a consistent system of interpretation that puts him sometimes far to the left and sometimes far to the right in a political spectrum but always based on a principled adherence to a school of constitutional interpretation that has much to be said for it. To me that is deserving of great praise.
I’ve heard this argument a lot up here in Canada, since the marriage that allowed gay marriage in Ontario. You hear people complaining about “activist judges” who are supposedly “writing the law.”
Well, no, they’re not. They’re enforcing the law. The constitution is written by elected officals and amended by elected officials. It is a step above standard law to ensure that minorities – political, religious, or otherwise – are protected from intimidation that would make it impossible for them to find a voice. The difficult amending procedures guarantee that a slight majority representing one part of the country only can’t impose a straitjacket on some unfortunate minority. There has to be widespread agreement of the necessity.
Democracy may be “majority rules,” but if minority groups are too afraid of being arrested, losing their homes or jobs if they speak out, and everyone who might be sympathetic to that viewpoint is terrified of becoming “guilty by association,” then the most conservative opinion will always be enforced because almost no one will be brave enough to make the counter-argument. Constitutional protections for freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, artistic expression, and (in Canada’s constitution) freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc, ensure the free flow of ideas and debate by preventing unfair political tactics.
Hamish, your post is a somewhat muddled hodgepodge of ideas. Is it your contention that a court finding a right to marry in the constitution is consistent with the what the majority wanted when it first wrote the constitution?
You also seem to be conflating political rights – the right to speech, to vote, etc – with the right to marry. Are you seriously contending that denying gays the right to marry, in addition to denying them the standard panoply of privileges accorded to married couples, also somehow denies them a voice in the political process? Good heavans, how?
Oddly, these days, it’s strict constructionists who wish to provided the greatest degree of unfettered political speech to the people. Witness campaign finance reform, which conservative jurists and legal scholars by and large see as a violation of the first amendment, and which their liberal counterparts find to be entirely constitutionally acceptable.
Dewey, I don’t want to put words into Hamish’s mouth, but I think that is exactly what he is saying. The Charter’s guarantee of equality means that gay people don’t have to hide their sexuality, don’t have to worry that if they draw attention to themselves by speaking out politically that they might lose their jobs, their pensions, or face criminal prosecutions because of their sexual orientation. To put it the other way around, if there wasn’t a guarantee of equality, the fear of government sponsored discrimination could have a chilling effect on political activity by gays. Prior to the decriminalisation of anal sex in Canada, a gay couple might well want to fly low under the radar screen and not draw public attention to themselves, for fear of a criminal charge.
Oh, and the Canadian courts didn’t find a “right to marry” in the recent cases. Rather, they found that the laws of Canada had a legal status called marriage, which carried with it a variety of legal rights and obligations. Further, the marriage laws denied gays and lesbians access to that status, and the consequent rights and obligations. That denial was a breach of equality rights of gays and lesbians.