The Nehor wrote:I agree with their analysis of the ERA. The slippery slope is the rapid loss of power by state and local governments as the Federal Government seizes more and more control and as judges overstep their authority at all levels of the government.
I remember folks griping in Utah about how those activist judges were so out of line on the Brown v. Board of Education decision, decades after it happened. Should the Church have mounted a campaign to overturn this back in 1954?
I think the decision in that case was also in many ways wrong and not based on the Constitution. However, it did overturn decisions made by the court that were even more out of line so my feelings about it are mixed. Ideally, it should never have been needed if Plessy v. Ferguson hadn't turned out the way it had.
To me it seemed that Earl Warren was a champion in taking the bull by the horns and doing what was right, at a time when the legislative system was unwilling to do what was needed. Does the Court not have a duty to serve justice when it is not forthcoming from the rest of the government?
moksha wrote:To me it seemed that Earl Warren was a champion in taking the bull by the horns and doing what was right, at a time when the legislative system was unwilling to do what was needed. Does the Court not have a duty to serve justice when it is not forthcoming from the rest of the government?
.
How far are you willing to let them go in their pursuit of justice? If they can override anyone who watches them? I think the Court has the duty to serve justice according to the laws of the land. When the branch interpreting the laws also thinks they have power to ignore laws they think are unjust (but are constitutionally valid) then there is no check to their power.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
moksha wrote:To me it seemed that Earl Warren was a champion in taking the bull by the horns and doing what was right, at a time when the legislative system was unwilling to do what was needed. Does the Court not have a duty to serve justice when it is not forthcoming from the rest of the government?
.
How far are you willing to let them go in their pursuit of justice? If they can override anyone who watches them? I think the Court has the duty to serve justice according to the laws of the land. When the branch interpreting the laws also thinks they have power to ignore laws they think are unjust (but are constitutionally valid) then there is no check to their power.
Yes, but what happens when the laws of the land are structured in such as way as to only provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to some? Does the Court have no method of redressing the lack of justice in not according human rights to include all?
moksha wrote:Yes, but what happens when the laws of the land are structured in such as way as to only provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to some? Does the Court have no method of redressing the lack of justice in not according human rights to include all?
Is the Declaration of Independence law now? The law in question would be Amendment 14 which is unfortunately the most badly written amendment we have.
I'm a strict constructionist. If a law violates the Constitution, strike it down. If not, leave it alone. When judges stop considering themselves the servants of the Constitution and instead become moralists....that way lies madness.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote: Is the Declaration of Independence law now?
It's not part of our canon?
When judges stop considering themselves the servants of the Constitution and instead become moralists....that way lies madness.
Too many mad moralists without adding Judges too?
I don't think the Declaration of Independence is law in the sense that you can walk into a courtroom and argue your case by it. The Constitution is.
Mad Moralists would be a great name for a band.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:I don't think the Declaration of Independence is law in the sense that you can walk into a courtroom and argue your case by it.
But the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is etched into our national conciousness as an overarching ideal, is it not? I think that seeing a class or specific group of people deprived of this ideal, that is accorded others, must weigh on the jurists minds.
The Nehor wrote:I don't think the Declaration of Independence is law in the sense that you can walk into a courtroom and argue your case by it.
But the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is etched into our national conciousness as an overarching ideal, is it not? I think that seeing a class or specific group of people deprived of this ideal, that is accorded others, must weigh on the jurists minds.
Yes, but should we judge laws on those merits? This is not a matter of applying the law fairly which is the main function of the judicial system. It's a matter of striking down law that conflicts with higher law. I want the higher law to be specific, to the point, and not interpreted broadly and definitely not beyond what is written.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Nehor, have you noticed that this is a pretty heady discussion, but when it doesn't in some way involve putting down Mormons it doesn't attract most posters?
This is not a matter of applying the law fairly which is the main function of the judicial system.
I thought it was saying that the law had been allowed to provide such a glitch, that it could not be applied fairly and so the application of the law itself must be struck down.