Both of the judges involved simply refrained from making an immediate ruling until hearing from both sides in the case. This is not breaking or nullifying any law and is well within the power of any judge.
Comments DE?
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
Our governmental structure is set so that each branch of government has another body of checks and balances that prevent it from over-stepping its authority as well as undermining the rights of any American. The Legislature has the right to pass bills, but the bills don't go into affect until the President signs them into law. If the President refuses to sign or vetoes the bill, it goes back to the Legislative Branch where the veto can be overturned, the bill can die, or the bill can be rewritten in a manner that the President will agree to sign...
The Judicial Branch has the authority to overturn any bill created by the Legislative branch and signed into law by the President. At that point, the over-turned law dies. The Legislative branch could start the whole process again with a reworked legislation. But like it or not, the Judicial Branch has the ultimate authority over the laws of the land which has worked just fine throughout the history of the US...
All US State governments are set up much the same way as the Federal Government, complete with checks and balances that are designed to protect citizens from over-reaching Governments and Leaders...
CHECKS AND BALANCES - JUDICIAL REVIEW...
where's the check & balance? To this date, there isn't one, and that's what the problem is. The judiciary is out of control. Why? They've decided that the Constitution and the law evolve, so that they mean anything that the judge wants them to mean. The system has broken down.
Your subject line relates nothing at all to the body of your post. Judges are not "we the people". In fact, that expression belongs entirely to the Congress.
Because that would mean you had to admit you were wrong. Diversion is not an answer.
I don't think the Constitution empowers judges to either make up or ignore the law. Judges are doing what they've been doing since the beginning of our country? You don't know much about American history do you?
what you consider to be the checks and balances against federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
Who do you consider the most important governmental body? The Executive, The Congress, or The Supreme Court?
Who formed the Goverment and created two brances of it?
Who has the final say on any Presidential veto?
Which branch of the government can impeach a federal judge?
Answer the above correctly and you will come to understand which branch of government is supposed to have the most power.
Which is the only government body that can propose amendments that restrict the other two?
Or Congress can propose, pass, and put forth for ratification by the legislatures of the states a constitutional admendment to override the Supreme Court.
Hi, Roger.
When I took history courses that focused on the Constitution, this point was addressed. The book said that all three branches were co-equal, and specifically said that Congress's right to propose an Amendment did not make it dominant because of the requirement for ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. BTW, a trivia question -- there is only one aspect of the Constitution that is NOT subject to amendment. Do you know what it is?
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
"...specifically said that Congress's right to propose an Amendment did not make it dominant because of the requirement for ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures."
True, Congress, but it does give the final power/authority to legislative bodies, representing the people, not to the legal opinions or executive orders. So while the federal goverment may have been intended to be balenced, the final power was given to legislative bodies, and to the will of a majority of states decisions. Not the federal courts.
"Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
However, some will argue that the requirement that senators be elected by public elections, not as determined by each state, required by the 17th amendment was and is unjustified interference in the right of state government to represent itself as originally intended. Originally the two senators from each state were chosen as determined by that state to represent that state's interest in the federal legislative process and not allow state with more population to dominate the federal legislature completely.
Now it can be argued that protection has been eroded, since the popular election of Senators may reflect the efforts of the national party organization to choose their representative to support the party rather than the duly elected government of the state choosing an individual to protect the interest of the state.
At least they're not appointed by the courts. Yet anyway, although some of the past decades court orders regarding districting may approach the same.
The bicameral legislature we call Congress was to have a people's side called the House, and a state government representative side called the Senate. That has been corrupted.
You should read Federalist papers <a href="http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_51.html">51</a> and <a href="http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_78.html">78</a> if you wish to know what the founders of the Constitution intended. Notice particularly from 78 that it is the judge's job to interpret the meaning and intent of the law and to reconcile any differences between laws.
You said it well. The law is what the judge says it is. We don't need legislatures any more, and we don't have the rule of law any more. We have the rule of unelected and unrepresentative judges. That's the real basis for a revolution.
And computers? Right again. Computers would not find emanations of penumbras in the Constitution.
I hope Arnie sends state law officials down there and arrest both the clerk and the mayor who has backed him. Let them be arraigned in a court and have to post bail. While Arnie's at it, maybe he can seek impeachment charges against that judge for dereliction of duty.
You really should read and try to understand the Constitution of the US. Unless you want to end the built in Checks and Balances that were included from the very beginning, you should re-evaluate your objections of what the judges are doing. They are doing exactly what our Constitution says they should do. In other words, even if you don't like it, most are doing their job...
have unless you're a lawyer. You're not speaking to the point. See my post above on checks & balances.
O.K., Blake, let's use that logic in another situation. Like most states, mine says that you can't have a bar or liquor store within "X feet" of a school.
So if I didn't like that law and opened up a bar across from a school as I felt that it was my "right" and a local judge agreed and refused to enforce the exiting law and stop me, should I be allowed to operate that bar until that judge were impeached? Blake, it is a long, complicated process to impeach a judge. Should any judge be free to ignore any existing law he chose and let its violation continue until he was impeached?