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

General discussion

Which part of illegal does this judge not understand?

Feb 19, 2004 2:05PM PST
'Judge says gay marriages break the law', but he 'declined to order an immediate halt to the weddings.'. Does anyone sense an emmanation of a penumbra coming up here? Why is he waiting to see what the arguements are? Is this where we're headed? Anarchy when we don't like the law? If so, why was the southern judge (Moore?) unseated for the 10 commandments? I guess there are two standards of justice here. One for PC, and the other for NOT PC.

Since when is 'civil disobedience' engaged in by the government? Can we now expect the way to be opened for community standards to rule in the south?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:
Feb 23, 2004 10:52AM PST
...to a judge who IS willing to break the "intent of the law" in order to nullify that law?

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?
- Collapse -
Checks and Balances...
Feb 22, 2004 9:40AM PST

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...

- Collapse -
and when the judge simply makes up or ignores the law,
Feb 22, 2004 10:39AM PST

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.

- Collapse -
We The People...
Feb 22, 2004 11:17AM PST
and when the judge simply makes up or ignores the law, 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? - Kiddpeat

The Judicial isn't out of control. It's doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing and has been doing since the beginning of our country. Just because you don't agree with the Judicial doesn't make them wrong and you right. The Judicial is protecting Americans from their Government just as it was designed to do...

If the Legislature feels that a Judge is out of control, it has the right to try to Impeach the Judges in question. That is part of the Checks and Balances for the Judiciary. The whole system works well most of the time and helps to prevent any branch of our government from violating the rights of "We The People"...

Maybe it's time to suspend the Constitution and write one that better suits your views? I doubt that most Americans would support that idea...
- Collapse -
You saying, "We The People"? That's a laugh.
Feb 22, 2004 1:57PM PST

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.

- Collapse -
At Their Mercy...
Feb 22, 2004 2:31PM PST
Judges are not "we the people". In fact, that expression belongs entirely to the Congress. - James Denison

"We The People" relates to the American people, not the Judicial, Legislative, or Executive Branches of government. The people aren't at the mercy of any of the 3 branches of the Federal Government. It is the other way around...
- Collapse -
Let me make it simple.
Feb 22, 2004 2:50PM PST

Who used the expression, "WE THE PEOPLE"?

- Collapse -
The Correct Question...
Feb 22, 2004 3:42PM PST
Who used the expression, "WE THE PEOPLE"? - James Denison

Actually, the correct question is who was "We The People" meant to represent? It had nothing to do with any of the 3 branches of our Federal Government. GW is an employee of the people, not the other way around...
- Collapse -
I didn't think you would answer the question.
Feb 22, 2004 3:56PM PST

Because that would mean you had to admit you were wrong. Diversion is not an answer.

- Collapse -
Implying Something That Isn't True...
Feb 22, 2004 4:09PM PST
I didn't think you would answer the question. - James Denison

I answered your question. It's not my fault you don't like the answer. Your question was implying something that isn't true. So it's not my problem that I couldn't offer you the answer you had hoped for...
- Collapse -
Back to School.
Feb 23, 2004 12:11AM PST
- Collapse -
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but
Feb 22, 2004 2:14PM PST

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?

- Collapse -
Dismantling The Checks and Balances...
Feb 22, 2004 2:36PM PST
I don't think the Constitution empowers judges to either make up or ignore the law - Kiddpeat

You have the right to your opinion, but thankfully, the Constitution doesn't agree with it. Once you destroy the Checks and Balances of the Judicial Branch, it won't be long before all of them are dismantled...
- Collapse -
Perhaps you could enumerate
Feb 22, 2004 2:56PM PST

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.

- Collapse -
No Dominant Branch...
Feb 22, 2004 4:04PM PST
Answer the above correctly and you will come to understand which branch of government is supposed to have the most power. - James Denison

Actually there is no dominant branch in our government. The Legislative branch can pass bills, but the bills don't become law until after they are signed by the Executive Branch. Even if the Executive Branch approves and signs a bill, making it law, the Judicial Branch can find the law un-Constitutional, making it null and void. The law is dead. Then the Legislative Branch could either have to pass another bill that passes Constitutional muster or just move on to working on other bills...

The Executive Branch can veto a bill. Then it returns to the Legislative Branch to either be reworked, they can let it die, or they can try to override the Executive veto. Even if the Legislature overrides the Executive veto, the Judicial Branch can come back and deem the new law un-Constitutional and the new law again becomes null and void. It is dead and cannot be revived without going through the whole process again...

Each Branch is responsible for the Checks and Balances of the other 2 Branches, so none are more powerful or important than any other Branch of Federal government...
- Collapse -
Making it easier for you.
Feb 23, 2004 12:50AM PST

Which is the only government body that can propose amendments that restrict the other two?

- Collapse -
Re:Making it easier for you.
Feb 23, 2004 10:35AM PST
Which is the only government body that can propose amendments that restrict the other two?

2/3's of both houses of Congress or 2/3's of the legislatures of the states can propose them but they cannot pass them and amend them to the Constitution. To amend the constitution requires the propoesed amendment be ratified by 3/4 of the legislatures of the states.

This said, none of the 3 branches of the federal government can amend the constitution on it's own, it must be supported by the states.
- Collapse -
Re:No Dominant Branch...
Feb 23, 2004 4:49AM PST

Or Congress can propose, pass, and put forth for ratification by the legislatures of the states a constitutional admendment to override the Supreme Court.

- Collapse -
Re: No Dominant Branch...
Feb 23, 2004 12:34PM PST

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!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: No Dominant Branch...
Feb 24, 2004 5:44AM PST

"...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.

- Collapse -
Very well put. I agree.
Feb 24, 2004 1:53PM PST

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.

- Collapse -
Re:and when the judge simply makes up or ignores the law,
Feb 22, 2004 11:39AM PST
- Collapse -
but not to make it up on his own, or ignore it. (NT)
Feb 22, 2004 2:16PM PST

.

- Collapse -
and that's the real problem.
Feb 21, 2004 10:56AM PST

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.

- Collapse -
Re:and that's the real problem.
Feb 21, 2004 11:31AM PST

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.

- Collapse -
The Constitution of the US...
Feb 22, 2004 9:47AM PST

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...

- Collapse -
Let's drop the condescension Blake. I've read it as much as you
Feb 22, 2004 10:41AM PST

have unless you're a lawyer. You're not speaking to the point. See my post above on checks & balances.

- Collapse -
Reading And Understanding...
Feb 22, 2004 11:27AM PST
Let's drop the condescension Blake. I've read it as much as you have unless you're a lawyer. - Kiddpeat

If you read and understood the Constitution of the US, you wouldn't be so angry about what the Judges in our country do. The Judges are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing, protecting "We The People" from our government and from those who would impose their will on those who don't share their views...

If you don't like what the Judges are doing, you should write your Congress Person and ask that all the judges you disagree with be Impeached. That too is part of the Checks and Balances of our great nation...

I won't admonish you because your religious views don't match mine. I won't even begin to suggest that my God will strike you down to burn eternally in Hell simply because you don't abide by the views that I support and believe. You think I'm being condescending? Maybe you should take a peak in the mirror some time... LOL
- Collapse -
O.K. Blake...
Feb 22, 2004 11:52AM PST

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?

- Collapse -
Re:O.K. Blake...
Feb 22, 2004 12:11PM PST

In your hypothetical situation can we assume that the local authority has issued you a certificate of occupancy for the building across from the school and a liquor license for that address prior to you opening this bar across from the school?