...think about this?

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/qu...H.R.3920:/ (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920:/)

Topic: A BILL

To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court


All the supporters are republican:

Terry Everett (R-AL)
Robert Aderholt (R-AL)
Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Wally Herger (R-CA)
John Doolittle (R-CA)
Richard Pombo (R-CA)
Joel Hefley (R-CO)
Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Jack Kingston (R-GA)
Michael Collins (R-GA)
Donald Manzullo (R-IL)
Mark Souder (R-IN)
Mike Pence (R-IN)
Ron Lewis (R-KY)
Nick Smith (R-MI)
Walter Jones (R-NC)
Howard Coble (R-NC)
Cass Ballenger (R-NC)
Joseph Pitts (R-PA)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Duncan (R-TN)
Sam Johnson (R-TX)
John Carter (R-TX)
Pete Sessions (R-TX)
Edward Schrock (R-VA)
Virgil Goode (R-VA)


I know this is about Roe vs. Wade, but goddamn, doesn't Separation of Powers ring a bell to any of these people?

Discuss...

Checks and balances anyone?

Ok, first thing, this law can always be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional if it's ever passed.

So, getting that out of the way...

All three branches of government were originally given equal responsibility of interpreting the Constitution by the framers. If I'm not mistaken, all members of each branch swear/affirm the same oath, to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Over 200 years ago, the power of judicial review was established by the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury vs. Madison (http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Marbury/). Given the current state of activist judges, Congress wants to take that power back for themselves.. or at least make it equal again.

"The framers did not give authority to one branch over the other. Certainly each branch has its separate functions, but debating, defending, and upholding the tenets of the Constitution involve the decision and duties of each branch." - From the intro to the bill.

Being equal, this law would only allow Congress to strike down single rulings from the Supreme Court. It could never erase the many many precedents already set in place by previous Supreme Court rulings. So basically, Congress could strike down Roe vs. Wade, but it couldn't erase the precedents used to uphold it, which allow the courts to see another Roe vs Wade if they wanted to.

Anyway, it'll never be used except in the rare circumstance beause of the 2/3rds majority required. How often do vetoes get overruled?

And how often do judges get impeached? Congress has that power already as well. IMO Congress needs to fix the messes they create (Campaign Finance Reform etc) before trying to fix another branch's.

But I'd be interested in watching the debates play out. Would be educational for the public I think.

Anyway, it'll never be used except in the rare circumstance beause of the 2/3rds majority required. How often do vetoes get overruled?
Only completely ignorant morons use this as a justification for a stupid law. Its so great it should not be used? You seriously cant be more than 15 years old.

O thats right, you love George Bush and his "Patriot Act" because its so REPUBLICAN. RAWR!!! Actually its not republican at all. Its federal government abuse of power. We need a real republican president who will return power to the states not add more to his cache.

Its federal government abuse of power.


Prove it is. I've never seen any valid proof of this. Each and every time people such as you have come forward screaming about the Patriot Act, and I challenge you to show me in the legislation it gives powers to do anything of the sort you drop the matter.

Put up or shut up.

As for the law, it's redundant.

Only completely ignorant morons use this as a justification for a stupid law. Its so great it should not be used? You seriously cant be more than 15 years old.

A law professor at Vanderbilt University came to the same conclusion in an online discussion I studied before I posted. It's not that it would be a stupid law, but one only used in the rarest of occasions to balance out other overreaching abuses from the judicial branch.

I took his discussion further and mentioned the impeachment of judges and how that rarely ever occurs, anyway.

So Bowler, remove that thumb from ass, stop getting your jollies from it, and contribute to a discussion for a change, k?

this part will keep them from reversing Roe V Wade


(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act;

A law professor at Vanderbilt University came to the same conclusion in an online discussion I studied before I posted. It's not that it would be a stupid law, but one only used in the rarest of occasions to balance out other overreaching abuses from the judicial branch.
Im glad you are able to form your own opinion and not steal it.

2 Ignorant people dont make a fact out of something. If you think the patriot act is wonderful what happens when a Bill Clinton gets into office and decides to use it for ill purpose. YOU CANT STOP HIM AND THAT MAKES IT A BAD LAW. Jesus do you people really not care about your freedoms at all?

Saying it hasnt been done yet is like saying "Well I just jumped off the empire state building and its been a whole 30 seconds and I havent died yet must be safe"

Are you all really republicans? What the hell has become of the republican party?

It all went downhill after Lincoln :rollin

Are you all really republicans? What the hell has become of the republican party?

We leave the tin hat brigades to folks like you.

All I hear from you is a bitching. Give us something more than paranoia and we can discuss it.

'We leave the tin hat brigades to folks like you. '

- :rollin
Says the guy who spends his time rocking to and fro in a padded cell mumbling "there were womd, there were womd, there were al-qaede ties, there were al-qaede ties. The arabs.. they're coming to get us!!!"

You'd have a tin hat too, if they allowed sharpe objects in the cell.

/chuckle

And then there's Halo, who when presented with evidence showing Iraqi government officials meeting with Al Queda and sarin by the liter says "LALALALANOTIESNOWOMDSARINISNTWOMD!"


If you think the patriot act is wonderful what happens when a Bill Clinton gets into office and decides to use it for ill purpose. YOU CANT STOP HIM AND THAT MAKES IT A BAD LAW


How can he use it for ill purpose? What parts COULD he use for ill purpose? Read the act and show us those parts.

'And then there's Halo, who when presented with evidence showing Iraqi government officials meeting with Al Queda...'

- Do what now? Iraq government officials supporting Al-Qaede? When did someone show me this? Can you link me it please?

'and sarin by the liter says "LALALALANOTIESNOWOMDSARINISNTWOMD!'

- /sigh Yes.. the terrifying 155mm shell, ready to tear countries apart, mass destruction endlessly.
The word's WMD have loss more meaning to you folks than the word terrorist. Gotta give Bush a hand I guess, he can sure use patriotic frenzy to his advantage. Even if he probably couldn't spell any of that.

Any American edition of an English dictionary to be released soon will have "Terrorist: Arab, Muslim, towel on head. Opinionated. Stands for values. Must kill. Anti-American."

Do what now? Iraq government officials supporting Al-Qaede? When did someone show me this?


Oh for fuck's sake Halo, it was linked to your sorry ass so many times it isn't even funny. If you were to look back and actually follow some of the links that were provided to you, you would likely find it in 1 out of every 3 threads on the topic of Iraq.

As for "the terrifying 155mm shell", if it were properly released in a populated area the casualties would be in the thousands, if not more. To get an idea, look back to the Tokyo incident where it was released improperly in roughly the same total amount and resulted in over 5500 people affected.