|
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
Chelly03PZEV
TF Administrator
| Joined: | Wed May 26th, 2004 |
| Location: | Always On The Ocean, Maine USA |
| Posts: | 3590 |
| Year/Model: | 2003 2.3 PZEV ... | | Occupation: | Broadband Technical Support Rep | | Interests: | Focus & Cars in General - Dogs (animals) - many ... | | Male/Female: | Female |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Wed Jul 14th, 2004 09:53 pm |
|
It seems as if the system should work and be accountable to the people who vote but it appears to have a malfunction somewhere.
I think we can all agree on that, but it takes a lot of people to demand change and many people don't like change. so, we're here stuck in a circle of questions with no answers...just rhetoric.
Are you aware that the only other countries that have had as many assasination attempts made by their own people on their presidents or leaders of equivalent position in the same period of time are third world and pretty nasty places. I found that rather surprising and distateful I'm sorry you find it distasteful, but you have to remember how and why the United States was founded. It was for freedom of expression, rights to worship as we chose and to defeat taxation without representation. We also are the largest super power in the world and we were able to create that "upper hand" from the beginning when we won our freedom to live here against the tyranical leadership and unfair taxation of Britain. We're hated for so many reasons and I'm frustrated and amazed at some VERY rampant and strong beliefs in the general population of Americans by other countries. I was married to a Brit who had all sorts of preconcieved misrepresented notions that we are ALL gun toting, SUV driving, hypocrytical, violent, wasteful hatemongers and all we want to do is blow up the rest of the world. That is so far from the truth. His whole family had this horrible idea as to what this country was about. So many other countries don't realize that the Governmental majority does not always reflect what the population desires. In fact, my ex husband was one of the most selfish, wasteful, unfriendly people I've ever met...why did I marry him? because he put on a great front. He came to this country and did nothing but insult me, my family, my country and he's still here! He loves living here because he can do what he wants, when he wants as often as he wants. He though all of the US was like New York, just like many Americans think All of the UK is London. Nope, it's not! He wouldn't save or conserve on anything. He loved to waste and throw things away that could have easily been re-used or salvaged in one way or another. HE had to have brand name everything...top of the line, quality at all costs, but yell at me when I wanted to do something to my car.
There is misrepresentation by our government to the rest of the world and it upsets me because I have many friends in European countries that have learned that it's not all they see in the movies and news. Spin can be a bitch!
Our democratic system has been bent, and twisted to suit the needs of whichever political party was/is in office at the time...look at this crap with banning abortions! Look, we, as a people, fought to make it legal and that was agreed upon and written into law...why the hell is it ok to go back and re-write the books just because the current administration thinks it's an abomination against god?!!! What if I don't believe in their god? I have to do what they tell me to do because their god tells them that is right? NOOooo - that's what thousands and millions of our soldiers have been dying for...our rights...not our rights as long as the governing party says it's ok.
oh, politics really brings out the worst in me and I get so frustrated with how horrible it's getting...every single day its more and more BS to deal with.
I'd like to shoot the next Ambulance chasing lawyer who puts an add on the Television I pay to watch...Talk about frivolity and a waste of mine and tax payers money! American's can't afford healthcare because of so many things, but that is another rant.
____________________
Get in, Sit down, Shut up and HANG ON!
|
|
|
RPIJG
TF Moderator
| Joined: | Tue May 25th, 2004 |
| Location: | Pownal, Land Of The Cows, Maine USA |
| Posts: | 1751 |
| Year/Model: | 2002 SE ... | | Occupation: | Scientist | | Interests: | My Car | | Male/Female: | Male |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15th, 2004 03:00 pm |
|
| The bending and twisting occured because the balance of power has been altered. Originally it was designed so that the Executive branch (president) appointed members to the supreme court only when there was a vacancy and those appointments had to be confirmed by the Legislative branch (Senate and House of Reps.). However, several terms ago, the number of justices was simultaneously increased and then filled with extremly conservative justices. They were then confirmed by a strongly conservative legislative branch. This has bearing because the Supreme Court has begun to sway the power of the country alot more than it's orginal intent. Case in point the Supreme Court actually installed President Bush into office rather than the actual election process. The court is deeply conservative at this point in time, and unfortunately for the US, the Supreme Court thought (and has right to interpret the constitution) that it was legally able to do what it did. The legislative branch currently is pretty bipartisan despite being a majority republican, several republicans in the legislative branch are moderate and thus prone to voting democratic on some bills. However, the President is strongly conservative and has the ability to veto any bill passed through congress, and the congress then needs a 2/3rds majority which is difficult to come by. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has the final say in whether the law is constitutional or not, however, the Court has lost it's objectivity and has increasingly been voting more and more by opinionated intent than through objectivity. So as you can see the balance of power is tipped because of a simple act that on it's own seemed ambiguous but has had repercussions for the last 20 years or so.
____________________
2002 Focus SE
grantj2@alum.rpi.edu
|
|
|
Codger
TF Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Jun 2nd, 2004 |
| Location: | Canada |
| Posts: | 1064 |
| Year/Model: | | | Occupation: | | | Interests: | | | Male/Female: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15th, 2004 04:32 pm |
|
RPIJG wrote:
The bending and twisting occured because the balance of power has been altered. Originally it was designed so that the Executive branch (president) appointed members to the supreme court only when there was a vacancy and those appointments had to be confirmed by the Legislative branch (Senate and House of Reps.). However, several terms ago, the number of justices was simultaneously increased and then filled with extremly conservative justices. They were then confirmed by a strongly conservative legislative branch. This has bearing because the Supreme Court has begun to sway the power of the country alot more than it's orginal intent. Case in point the Supreme Court actually installed President Bush into office rather than the actual election process. The court is deeply conservative at this point in time, and unfortunately for the US, the Supreme Court thought (and has right to interpret the constitution) that it was legally able to do what it did. The legislative branch currently is pretty bipartisan despite being a majority republican, several republicans in the legislative branch are moderate and thus prone to voting democratic on some bills. However, the President is strongly conservative and has the ability to veto any bill passed through congress, and the congress then needs a 2/3rds majority which is difficult to come by. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has the final say in whether the law is constitutional or not, however, the Court has lost it's objectivity and has increasingly been voting more and more by opinionated intent than through objectivity. So as you can see the balance of power is tipped because of a simple act that on it's own seemed ambiguous but has had repercussions for the last 20 years or so.
Thanks. That explains quite a bit. Couple of points I'd like clarified....
So, if the President vetos a bill the congress can in fact pass the bill anyway if they can muster 2/3 majority.
Can congress remove a supreme court judge using the same process or do you have to wait for the judges to resign, die or retire? Would saying that the current supreme court has been perverting the process, be fair? If they are not upholding the law and the intent of the laws as passed previously then they are creating law which is contrary to the specified function of a court. They are then legislating rather than adjudicating.Last edited on Thu Jul 15th, 2004 04:33 pm by Codger
____________________
A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams...John Barrymore
|
|
|
Chelly03PZEV
TF Administrator
| Joined: | Wed May 26th, 2004 |
| Location: | Always On The Ocean, Maine USA |
| Posts: | 3590 |
| Year/Model: | 2003 2.3 PZEV ... | | Occupation: | Broadband Technical Support Rep | | Interests: | Focus & Cars in General - Dogs (animals) - many ... | | Male/Female: | Female |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15th, 2004 04:47 pm |
|
As far as the comment re: the courts legislating vs. adjucating - in some aspects, you can say that it seems that way in so many instances lately.
In one way I'm not clear as to what powers they hold in situations such as the change and amendment Bush is pushing for re: abortion. This was fought out in court decades ago and there was a judgement. Then you have people like Bush who wants to make it against federal laws (legislation) to have what they like to call a "partial birth abortion". Don't be fooled, he'd love to ban it all outright and send women back to butchers in back rooms with coathangers. However, how does one deem something unconstitutional? Wouldn't someone have to make that decision? Would that fall into the legislative side? Would it have to be brought to a courtroom to define the law (adjucation)? We then have the issue of the blurring of our Constitution where Church and State are supposed to be seperate. Well, in the 50's, the legislature went ahead and voted in the use of "Under God" into our pledge of allegance. Our money (federally produced) has "Under God" all over it. Where is the separation there? I don't see it. I personally believe in our country's premise of freedom, but don't feel a belief should be forced on my by a federal action.
____________________
Get in, Sit down, Shut up and HANG ON!
|
|
|
RPIJG
TF Moderator
| Joined: | Tue May 25th, 2004 |
| Location: | Pownal, Land Of The Cows, Maine USA |
| Posts: | 1751 |
| Year/Model: | 2002 SE ... | | Occupation: | Scientist | | Interests: | My Car | | Male/Female: | Male |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15th, 2004 05:31 pm |
|
Codger wrote: RPIJG wrote:
The bending and twisting occured because the balance of power has been altered. Originally it was designed so that the Executive branch (president) appointed members to the supreme court only when there was a vacancy and those appointments had to be confirmed by the Legislative branch (Senate and House of Reps.). However, several terms ago, the number of justices was simultaneously increased and then filled with extremly conservative justices. They were then confirmed by a strongly conservative legislative branch. This has bearing because the Supreme Court has begun to sway the power of the country alot more than it's orginal intent. Case in point the Supreme Court actually installed President Bush into office rather than the actual election process. The court is deeply conservative at this point in time, and unfortunately for the US, the Supreme Court thought (and has right to interpret the constitution) that it was legally able to do what it did. The legislative branch currently is pretty bipartisan despite being a majority republican, several republicans in the legislative branch are moderate and thus prone to voting democratic on some bills. However, the President is strongly conservative and has the ability to veto any bill passed through congress, and the congress then needs a 2/3rds majority which is difficult to come by. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has the final say in whether the law is constitutional or not, however, the Court has lost it's objectivity and has increasingly been voting more and more by opinionated intent than through objectivity. So as you can see the balance of power is tipped because of a simple act that on it's own seemed ambiguous but has had repercussions for the last 20 years or so.
Thanks. That explains quite a bit. Couple of points I'd like clarified....
So, if the President vetos a bill the congress can in fact pass the bill anyway if they can muster 2/3 majority.
Can congress remove a supreme court judge using the same process or do you have to wait for the judges to resign, die or retire? Would saying that the current supreme court has been perverting the process, be fair? If they are not upholding the law and the intent of the laws as passed previously then they are creating law which is contrary to the specified function of a court. They are then legislating rather than adjudicating.
ok now one at a time 
Yes if the President vetoes a bill, the congress(senate and house) can pass it with a 2/3rds majority.
From what I understand, the only way for a justice to leave his position is by resignation or death. To say the current court is perverting I don't know, but certainly more prone to non-objective interpretation of intent. As for legislating rather than adjudicating, it isn't so much as legislating (though its end result is) as changing the official stance of the court.
Chelly Wrote:
In one way I'm not clear as to what powers they hold in situations such as the change and amendment Bush is pushing for re: abortion. This was fought out in court decades ago and there was a judgement. Then you have people like Bush who wants to make it against federal laws (legislation) to have what they like to call a "partial birth abortion". Don't be fooled, he'd love to ban it all outright and send women back to butchers in back rooms with coathangers. However, how does one deem something unconstitutional? Wouldn't someone have to make that decision? Would that fall into the legislative side? Would it have to be brought to a courtroom to define the law (adjucation)? We then have the issue of the blurring of our Constitution where Church and State are supposed to be seperate. Well, in the 50's, the legislature went ahead and voted in the use of "Under God" into our pledge of allegance. Our money (federally produced) has "Under God" all over it. Where is the separation there? I don't see it. I personally believe in our country's premise of freedom, but don't feel a belief should be forced on my by a federal action. The supreme court has the power to decide if something is constitutional or unconstitutional and the final body of appeal on interpretation law on the constitution. Every bill that affects the public well being is considered for its constitutionality. (ie appropriations typically aren't discussed). So once a law has been passed by the Congress and the President (or just the Congress if that may be) the Supreme Court then has the ability to be put into law if it is found constitutional, and that decision is based upon the ruling of the 9 justices. As for the blurring that you mention...the so called seperation of church and state is not clearly defined in the constitution, it is a convenient way to describe the basic intent of one of the clauses in the constitution, the phrase was first introduced by the supreme court and has stuck, though the constitution makes no reference to it. It simply states that the government should not be of a religion on its own and that freedom of religion is an inalienable right given by the constitution.
____________________
2002 Focus SE
grantj2@alum.rpi.edu
|
|
|
Chelly03PZEV
TF Administrator
| Joined: | Wed May 26th, 2004 |
| Location: | Always On The Ocean, Maine USA |
| Posts: | 3590 |
| Year/Model: | 2003 2.3 PZEV ... | | Occupation: | Broadband Technical Support Rep | | Interests: | Focus & Cars in General - Dogs (animals) - many ... | | Male/Female: | Female |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16th, 2004 01:16 pm |
|
Codger wrote: In the U.S. there seems to be a lock on things by the 2 parties.
Yep, and it's time for a change, but the alternate parties don't always offer up much improvement. Some ideas, not that they are all bad, tend to be a bit too radical. This country has turned so conservative over the past 20 years that you are right, it will take a long time to make change.
Joe - It's interesting how you mention in one post, and you're right and it's interesting to see the hypocracy in the government, you mentioned how the Supreme Court Justices in the courts over the past 20 years have been very conservative. Then adding that they're way of adjudicating has become less based on objectivity. The next comment mentions how they are to "interperate" the consitutionality of a law. That is where we're hitting our heads against a brick wall...we have justices who are skewing the interpretation of the constitution by opinionated intent (to quote you) which puts us back into a situation where what the actual justices (who are supposed to interperate the consituation) as quite possibly blurring it to their advantage (conservative advantage).
Thankfully, as you mentioned, that congress has become much more bi-partisan, which is good IMO, but we need more than that. We need alternative representation, we need more than just the jackasses and overstuffed elephants.
____________________
Get in, Sit down, Shut up and HANG ON!
|
|
|
Codger
TF Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Jun 2nd, 2004 |
| Location: | Canada |
| Posts: | 1064 |
| Year/Model: | | | Occupation: | | | Interests: | | | Male/Female: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16th, 2004 06:35 pm |
|
RPIJG wrote:
Yup, I don't want this to offend anyone or to make a generalization, but the conservative mindset is focused more on faith-based opinions and non-tangible ideas. Liberals are a bit more objective. One of the reasons that the most powerful government scientific office has recently been practically beheaded by installing a religious zealot as the director (The NIH). Government funded science is suffering severe consequences, and the US is going to suffer I think because of that. I know, I'm in the science field, scientists are not happy with GWB.
Don't worry about being offensive. As long as you back up an opinion with a reasonable case that is all that is necessary.
TF is here for discussion. I learn about the Focus but also many other topics.
Outside the U.S. it's not unusual to hear Bush referred to as the Ayatollah from Texas. Wrapping the cloak of God around a government's actions has been done throughout history and it does make people nervous. The absolute shock at Bush's use of the term "Crusade" was palpable. In many cultures, history is not a nebulous reference to something that happened in an almost forgotten past. History is current, stories are told about an event without reference to a specific date. Just as there are those in the Southern USA who can still be passionate about events and injustices during the U.S. Civil War, there are many in the middle east who know the names of their relatives who died during the Crusades.
I have acquaintances who are involved in the Super Computer industry. When Japan's Earth Simulator blew the doors off any U.S. installation by a huge margin there were some very surprised and concerned people. The Japanese installation is still the best system in the world by a significant factor. I'm just pointing this out as one example where dominance in science by the U.S. has been lost.
Praying may help but God isn't going to do the work for you. At least, that is my experience.
____________________
A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams...John Barrymore
|
|
|
RPIJG
TF Moderator
| Joined: | Tue May 25th, 2004 |
| Location: | Pownal, Land Of The Cows, Maine USA |
| Posts: | 1751 |
| Year/Model: | 2002 SE ... | | Occupation: | Scientist | | Interests: | My Car | | Male/Female: | Male |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16th, 2004 06:40 pm |
|
Codger wrote: RPIJG wrote:
Yup, I don't want this to offend anyone or to make a generalization, but the conservative mindset is focused more on faith-based opinions and non-tangible ideas. Liberals are a bit more objective. One of the reasons that the most powerful government scientific office has recently been practically beheaded by installing a religious zealot as the director (The NIH). Government funded science is suffering severe consequences, and the US is going to suffer I think because of that. I know, I'm in the science field, scientists are not happy with GWB.
Don't worry about being offensive. As long as you back up an opinion with a reasonable case that is all that is necessary.
TF is here for discussion. I learn about the Focus but also many other topics.
Outside the U.S. it's not unusual to hear Bush referred to as the Ayatollah from Texas. Wrapping the cloak of God around a government's actions has been done throughout history and it does make people nervous. The absolute shock at Bush's use of the term "Crusade" was palpable. In many cultures, history is not a nebulous reference to something that happened in an almost forgotten past. History is current, stories are told about an event without reference to a specific date. Just as there are those in the Southern USA who can still be passionate about events and injustices during the U.S. Civil War, there are many in the middle east who know the names of their relatives who died during the Crusades.
I have acquaintances who are involved in the Super Computer industry. When Japan's Earth Simulator blew the doors off any U.S. installation by a huge margin there were some very surprised and concerned people. The Japanese installation is still the best system in the world by a significant factor. I'm just pointing this out as one example where dominance in science by the U.S. has been lost.
Praying may help but God isn't going to do the work for you. At least, that is my experience.
Very well put Codger, this has truly been a great discussion.
____________________
2002 Focus SE
grantj2@alum.rpi.edu
|
|
|
|
