@Hangdog42 No the Constitution is not perfectly clear and as I said in a previous post concessions were made to win adoption. My belief is that they intended for questions to be settled at the ballot box not by the Courts. Don't like something - vote, don't like the results - vote again. Right or wrong, practical or not, I don't know but that's what I think they intended.



"You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." - Thomas Jefferson, September 28, 1820, to William Jarvis(1)

(1) Thomas Jefferson, September 28, 1820, in a letter to William Jarvis. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Letters, Wilson Whitman, ed., (Eau Claire, WI: E.M. Hale & Co., 1900), p. 338. Gary DeMar, God and Government-A Biblical and Historical Study (Atlanta, GA: American Vision Press, 1982), p. 166.

Thomas Jefferson advised Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823:

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."(29)

(29) Jefferson, Thomas. June 12, 1823, in a letter to Justice William Johnson. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, p. 373. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed., (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 1475.

The Founders did intend for the Judiciary to be separate, they just never, in my opinion, intended for it to be as powerful as it is today:

"Baron Montesquieu, the most quoted writer by the Framers of the Constitution, foresaw the dangers of uncontrolled judicial power. In his Spirit of the Laws, 1748, he wrote:

"Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power.

Montesquieu explained:

"If it were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislator. If it were joined to executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same...body of principal men...exercised these three powers."(30)

(30) Montesquieu, Baron Charles Louis Joseph de Secondat. 1748. Baron Charles Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, 1748, Anne Cohler, trans. (reprinted Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 157.


Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America (1835), warned:

"The President, who exercises a limited power, may err without causing great mischief in the State. Congress may decide amiss without destroying the Union, because the electoral body in which Congress originates may cause it to retract its decision by changing its members. But if the Supreme Court is ever composed of imprudent men or bad citizens, the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war."(31)

(31) Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835), Book One.


I found all of these quotes here:

http://www.familyrightsassociation.c..._oligarchy.htm

Again, for the umpteenth time: What power does the court have that it hasn't had since Day 1?

R-E-A-D Marbury vs. Madison. 1804.

For a bonus: Reflect on the fact that if we didn't like having the Supreme Court decide the constitutionality of laws, Congress, or the States, could propose a Constitutional amendment specifying which branch of government had the power to determine the constitutionality of laws, and for over 200 years, have not done so.

Your silence as to what has changed in the judiciary will be deafening. Why? BECAUSE NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

How is that not the case today? ALL questions can be settled at the ballot box. Don't like a Supreme Court decision? Start a movement to reverse it through law or amendment. This is a power that has been available since Day 1 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is in no way the final authority on any issue brought through the courts. There has always been ways to reverse their decisions. If those powers aren't used, that is more a reflection of the will of the people than any deficiency in the Court.

Please explain how it is any more powerful today than it was when the Founders wrote and adopted the Constitution.

I have read Marbury vs. Madison. Are you saying that the Supreme Court had the power to declare laws unconstitutional pre 1804? If so please provide specific links.

I finally found this:

"Original Intent & Judicial Review
The Constitution does not expressly provide for judicial review. What should be made of this fact? Does it suggest that the framers did not intend to give the courts such a power? Not necessarily, although that is one explanation for its absence. It is also possible that the framers thought the power of judicial review was sufficiently clear from the structure of government that it need not be expressly stated. A third possibility is that the framers didn't think that the issue would ever come up, because Congress would never pass legislation outside of its enumerated powers.

Only 11 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, according to Madison's notes, expressed an opinion on the desirability of judicial review. Of those that did so, nine generally supported the idea and two opposed. One delegate, James Wilson, argued that the courts should have the even broader power to strike down any unjust federal or state legislation. It may also be worth noting that over half of the thirteen original states gave their own judges some power of judicial review."

here: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...udicialrev.htm

I prefer to believe the first supposition.

Nothing like throwing out the facts to preserve the fantasy.

Be that as it may, you are head and shoulders above a lot of others, Mjolmir, you at least feel deeply enough about the matter to do real research.

Thanks. One thing I think we can all agree on is that no system is perfect and even though you, and I, and others obviously disagree on several things we can respect the others right to a differing opinion.

This group allegedly to protest at the Edwards funeral tomorrow.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live...litics&sid=101

"Westboro Baptist Church said yesterday that it will stage a protest at Edwards' service Saturday at Edenton Street United Methodist Church in Raleigh."

Hi,

I followed the news presentation and found the same. Hope someone in the family will contact the Patriot Guard Riders. Unlike those oddballs, Patriot Guard Riders will only participate when invited.

Patriot Guard Riders might or might not participate in that. The purpose is to block protests of funerals of troops killed at war, not wives of cheating politician husbands.

I have ridden with them, specifically for that purpose.

Hi,

Your right!

For some reason I associated Elizabeth Edwards with the military. I remembered something about her being involved with the military. A little more digging;
I'm sure that the Patriot Guard Riders or the like would gladly participate. Elizabeth Edwards was a loving person not just a caring, strong and Intelligent woman. Sure she did not adorn a military uniform but devoted her time in many ways to aid others. I don't agree with her for some of her platforms.

She deserves a respectful funeral procession. She served the people in more ways then we will ever know. Just because her husband is a CAD doesn't mean she should be treated with disrespect by anyone or let alone a supposed Church.

I really think Westboro Baptist Church people will be blocked by some group of concerned citizens. I'll put money on it that there will be somebody of groups that will shield the family. It's happened in our area with private citizens that blocked Westboro Baptist Church group of oddballs. They just got to the site before Westboro Baptist Church people with American Flags and sung songs whenever the Westboro Baptist Church started to protest.
Eventually Westboro Baptist Church left.

I haven't been able to ride my motorcycle, bicycle or even horses for a while. Back on, I hope this spring.

I totally agree with your description of John Edwards. But not all politician are of this sort.
Sorry about my mix up.

Hi,

@jiml8

I just turned on the dvr to view Fox news (America Live). Those girls are really hammering both John Edwards & Westboro Baptist Church people.

Very interesting.

Well, just realize that we don't have funerals for the dead, we have funerals for the living. I have nothing negative to say about Mrs. Edwards, and I'm sorry she died - particularly that way, but I also have nothing positive to say about John Edwards.

Those people of the Westboro Baptist Church are poisonous and insane. But they also have the right of free speech.

Now, I am willing to permit them their right of free speech...except under the circumstance where they choose to protest the death of a soldier who was doing his or her duty and died as a result of enemy action. I cannot imagine a worse thing for a parent than to lose a child. That the child dies honorably is a good thing, but the child has still died.

Were one of my children to be killed in war, and come home that way to be buried, and were the Westboro nuts to show up to protest, I would kill them all. On the spot. I wouldn't care about the law. No thoughts of right or wrong, no concern about what would happen to me afterward; I just wouldn't care. I would pull my gun and start shooting and I wouldn't stop until they were all dead or I was.

That is how I would feel about it if they showed up to dishonor my child. That is why I ride with the Patriot Guard when those nuts come to this area to do that specific thing.

But only that specific thing. I won't interfere with their right to say what they want beyond that. So, I personally wouldn't ride for Mrs. Edwards. But that is just me.

Hi,

I do look at this situation the same as you do. Some of the reasoning for Elizabeth staying as long as she did with John, we'll never know unless she wrote something to be released later. He is a CAD;
As for his political stance, I paid no attention to him thus didn't research or read that much about his positions or personal litany/list of accomplishments. What I do know of his workings, they (Elizabeth & John) were positioning for higher office.

Yes, they have the right to free speech. But not at the price of saddened, grieving family members. To slander someone is not free speech. The bible does teach: a good verse to live by. Yes, as fellow Americans we can support along with respect for the fallen and help their families.
jiml8, we have had our differences in the past and I don't know you personally. So to evaluate this position from the stand point of a grieving bereaved father since I am a father would be very difficult. It would be difficult to say what or how I would react to parties of this sort at the lose of my child. Seriously, I would pray for strength to do the right thing. I would first want the church to be enlightened and to show them the right path to justice.
I don't ride now but when I am able then my purpose would be to shield and aid the mourning family.
I would ride for her! She did a lot of work and achievement for unfortunate people throughout the states & world. My children are female and I know the glass ceiling they must break. My girls along with my wife have excelled because of their knowledge, experience and intelligence not gender.

Westboro Baptist Church is wrong to do harm to the families of the fallen.

first ammendment:

article 6 of the constiturion
no it doesn't explicitly state separation of church and state but it effectively defines a separation not to mention there are many other documents that define a separation

for further reading about separation of church/state in the united states read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat..._United_States

back on topic i would have to agree with the law, there are many other laws requiring protesters to stay back so many feet from abortion clinics for instance so why not funerals? nobody said they couldn't protest, just where and when they can't