Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!ittatc!bunker!rha From: rha@bunker.UUCP (Robert H. Averack) Newsgroups: talk.abortion,net.legal Subject: Re: Interesting legal issues Message-ID: <1209@bunker.UUCP> Date: Tue, 30-Sep-86 09:10:26 EDT Article-I.D.: bunker.1209 Posted: Tue Sep 30 09:10:26 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 2-Oct-86 20:45:24 EDT References: <752@oswego.UUCP> Reply-To: rha@bunker.UUCP (Robert H. Averack) Distribution: net Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct Lines: 51 Xref: linus talk.abortion:49 net.legal:4901 In article <752@oswego.UUCP> gacs3651@oswego.UUCP (Robert Knighton) writes: > > Now I am intrigued by this information. It is true that the consti- >tution gave legislative powers only to congress, and (*in my opinion*) the >judiciary does _not_ have the power to legislate. They only have the power, >yes the grave responsibility, to uphold the integrity of the constitution. >This is supposed to make any change in the constitutional rights of citizens >very hard to do. Requiring the full process of ammendment. In these three >cases we have nine men effectively ammending the constitution by precedent, >and that is not constitutional. [But who is going to tell them? :-)] > > Now if these decisions ARE invalid as the law of the land, then we >need to act and make sure that they are either upheld or withdrawn from >public law. As far as I can tell (and I'm no attorney) precedent is useful >in civil or criminal cases, but not in questions of constitutionality. I am >a citizen of this country and proud of it. I just can't sit here and let >the balance of power be upset by the supreme court. They are supposed to be >above politics because of their life terms. They are also sworn to uphold the >constitution _as_it_stands_, not as they see it. Bob, for brevity, I yanked out the specific cases, but for clarity, you referred to School Desegregation, Abortion and School Prayer. Now, wouldn't you agree that the Judiciary is operating exactly as it has for 200-years? In other words, our Judiciary has ALWAYS been charged with the responsibility of upholding the Constitution via its own verbiage, prior precedent and their own judgement. Why does it seem that the system only breaks down for you when it involves issues you're concerned with? As far as the Supreme Court being *above politics*, BOLDERDASH! Come on, Bob, be serious. Surely you remember FDR's attempt to expand the court to 11 so he could more easily pass his programs. Surely you are aware of the furor surrounding our newest Chief A-hole, uh, I mean Justice (maybe I should have said Fuhrer instead of furor :-) . If you disagree with the current stand on the three issues stated above, then argue those issues. But please, don't single them out as *invalid* due to use of Judicial Precedence. -- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (Bob Averack @ Bunker Ramo/Olivetti) {decvax!, ittatc!, philabs!} ! ! ! ! ## "Okay, you workstations, start USENET: bunker!rha ! ! #OO# singing....." UUCP: bunker!/usr/spool ! ! ###### /uucppublic/rha ! ! ##\/## "This LAN is your LAN, OFFLINE: 35 Nutmeg Dr. ! ! ###### this LAN is my LAN..." Trumbull, CT 06611 ! ! L L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !