Checks and Balances, what?
 

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 3920
To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.

Commentary pending while I sit down and wait for my brain to stop exploding.

Court d'etat
 

well, the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to modify the constitution in the first place. So why couldn't that power be reigned in?

the problem is that something becomes "constitutional" after a 3/4s vote by the people on it. And when they vote, they are voting on a specific thing. Then Courts come along, say "yeah, this here 4th amendment, when they voted on it they meant that the government couldn't bash down people's doors arbitrarily and harass political dissidents. But we're going to pretend they meant it to apply to Abortion."

So, MOST court activism does NOT have the moral weight of the constitution behind it. the 4th amendment says NOTHING about abortion. It wasn't even an issue in anybody's mind when the amendment was ratified. It wasn't till 180 years later that a couple of justices decided to manufacture out of thin air the claim that the constitutional process decided that Abortion is a "Constitutional Right".

Don't get me wrong, Judicial Review is important. Legislatures can't and don't think of every single situation that a law could apply to, and they can't outline all the specific instances where it would apply or would not apply. Sometimes the court really has to look at the law, look at the situation that the law is applying to, and figure out what the legislature really meant... as well as sort out any inconsistencies between laws, or between laws and the constitution.

but this proposed legislation only allows for the correction of a court by a super majority. IMO, ALL laws should be passed by a super majority, but i have no problem with this. The only thing that would really make me happier (maybe) is if it was a 3/4s vote required.

because, seriously, if 75% of the American people (or their representatives) don't want their government to do something, why the hell should 5 men decree otherwise? If a situation was on the edge, if it would be a 51/49 vote.. then ok, the court gets to swing the country one way so that we aren't constantly teetering on the edge. but if 75% of the people want to go one way, and 5 men want to go another, we're supposed to side with 5 men on how our DEMOCRACY is to be run?

And no, the majority is not always right. No, I DON’T get my morality from a show of hands, But no way in HELL can you say the Supreme Court is morally correct all the time. Supreme courts overturn Supreme Courts all the time! You’re going to tell me that TODAY’S supreme court is somehow endowed with a divine sense of justice and right while so many supreme courts in the past have been over turned on things as grave as SLAVERY? Oh no, the Supreme Court is NOT the arbiter of justice. 5 men should NOT be able to control a country of 300 million with out any say from them.

The United states is not a democracy, it hasn't been since the constitution was ratified. We are a democratic republic, there is a big difference.

is that intended to refute my post?

because, nto to be anal myself, but "democracy" is a fine term for describing our government. consider dictionary.com's first entry for the word:
"Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."

From Webster's dictionary.
Republic
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.

also Our own Pledge of Allegiance.

pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

back to my original question: is this intended to refute my point? or is this just another case of someone attacking semantics? (semantics which are perfectly valid, mind you.)

Republic is a form of Democracy. Pure un-fettered democracy (as JAD is thinking) is mob-rule, which is VERY rarely a good thing. Generally mob-rule results in innocent people being lynched. Besides, when you have as many people as we do it's just not possible to have everyone vote on every law... as a result we chose representatives and ended up with a democratic (the adjective form of democracy) republic.

Anyway... I'm not sure what my opinion is yet, and I'm too tired (due to being woken up this morning kind of early, relative to my normal one), to really form one.

On the one hand, getting rid of checks and balances = bad. On the other DZ makes a pretty good point.

This pertains to the fact that as a republic, our gevernment is not up for the common man to determine the laws. In a democracy it is one man one vote. meaning what 75% of the people want, thet get. In a rpublic it is not that simple since only about 2% of the populace can actually hold power. what that 2% of the powerful want they get. howver their power is held in check by the fact they have to answer to the other 98% of the people.

yes, i understand the differneces between republican democracies and pure democracies. Thank you for the elementry civics lesson.

how does this apply to wether or not we should be allowed to contend the fiats handed down by judges who aren't elected, can't be voted out, and who's decrees are suppsoed to be accepted as supreme law?

They can only interpret the law. If you don't want them to interpret the law unfavoribly, you should have the government write better laws.