What would you change?

[MED]

This is a value statement, which may or may not be shared.

I won't talk about the merit of any program, but I will talk about my original post. It is wrong to create an entitlement program through political will. An amendment process was placed in the constitution for a reason, and it is difficult to build consensus. If something is so important, then it should follow that process. Creating a program through a bully pulpit through political will is WRONG! If you believe in limitless government, then you are OK with trading your freedoms based on what others deem necessary. I believe in the original intent of the constitution where there were limits and boundaries.

...remember, 'for the greater good' is relative depending on those who enforce it.

Furthermore, if FDR established the new Deal programs by following the amending process rather than being a dictator; I would not have a problem with it. The integrity of the constitution would have remained intact.

[nynco]

Furthermore, if FDR established the new Deal programs by following the amending process rather than being a dictator; I would not have a problem with it. The integrity of the constitution would have remained intact.

Well encase you missed it FDR got those past with the help of congress. Not really a dictator huh. Now if he did it through presidential signing statements like Bush did with many of his abuses I would agree with you about being a dictator.

[MED]

Well encase you missed it FDR got those past with the help of congress. Not really a dictator huh. Now if he did it through presidential signing statements like Bush did with many of his abuses I would agree with you about being a dictator.

Congress was in his pocket during those years. The check and balance was the Supreme Court. When the court ruled the programs unconstitutional, he had the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 introduced in Congress. This legislation forced the court to rule in his favor. Roberts changed his vote on New Deal legislation to protect the court. ...sounds like a dictator to me.

The constitution protected the country from what FDR was doing, and he destroyed those protections. If he followed the process, his programs would have become proposed amendments for ratification. FDR did not follow processes or rules. What he said was law. ...sounds like a dictator to me.

I do not have any faith in the Congress or the White House to protect my freedoms. Only through limits and boundaries, will my freedoms be protected.

[nynco]

Sounds like a check and balance by two branches of gov against the abuses of one.

[nynco]

You do know that the Constitution never stipulated how many people were to be on the supreme court? You do also know that the amount of people on the Supreme Court has changed many times in history right? The other branches of gov are charge with policing each other by the US Constitution. Further the US Supreme Court since Marbury Vs Madison could be rightfull argued is in breach of its Constitutional mandate. No where in the US Constitution does it state that the court has the power to strike down US law passed by the congress and the president? The court took it upon itself to do that. Which is a violation off their constitutionally limited powers too. Please read the powers of the Supreme Court Article 3 US Constitution.

BAM

[MED]

You do know that the Constitution never stipulated how many people were to be on the supreme court? You do also know that the amount of people on the Supreme Court has changed many times in history right? The other branches of gov are charge with policing each other by the US Constitution. Further the US Supreme Court since Marbury Vs Madison could be rightfull argued is in breach of its Constitutional mandate. No where in the US Constitution does it state that the court has the power to strike down US law passed by the congress and the president? The court took it upon itself to do that. Which is a violation off their constitutionally limited powers too. Please read the powers of the Supreme Court Article 3 US Constitution.

BAM

So you believe that Marbury Vs Madison, Judicial Review, is in violation of the powers of the Appellate and Supreme Court? There is no doubt their role was unclear to say the least. The court struggled with their charge for several decades after the Constitution was ratified. This would make for an interesting rabbit hole. As much as I dislike many of the decisions, the result of your belief would be chaos. The United States would be hammered by fluctuations in political mood magnifying the us vs. you problem that is plaguing the country today. Based on the history of the country, Congress and the White House cannot be trusted to follow the constitution. Yes, Congress may change the seat count of the court and yes, power plays happened before FDR (does that make it right?). So, do you believe it is OK to change the rules to force your agenda? FDR's power play resulted in a pretty profound impact on this country. If you believe that is OK, then your judgment is being clouded based on your approval of the outcome...so the ends justify the means, right? ...do you not believe in boundaries?


Since you don't believe in judicial review, what is your alternative?


You better think of this: Without judicial review, there would be nothing to prevent Congress and the White House from enacting any law they deem necessary. So, perhaps these elected officials thought Jim Crow Laws were a good thing. Since you are on a firearms forum, I assume you like firearms and you are not a Troll. Perhaps Congress and the White House decided that the 2nd amendment was just about militias and banned firearms unless participating in official state militia functions. I guess this is OK because you know Congress and the White House can do no wrong, right?


Again, what is your alternative? Perhaps you can write down this alternative as one of your proposed changes to the constitution.

[TFOGGER]

Half the country would your head on a pike as they burned their bras again.

You have a problem with braless young women?

[nynco]

First I have no problem with bra-less women. Let me be clear......... boobs are great

Second.... I think the Constitution needs to be amended to clarify the roll of the court. Without that clarity, the court has taken too much power unto themselves. Do I think judicial review is bad. No... but I think that they have abused that far too much lately. I think what the founders intended was for the court to make rulings that were not binding. Meaning they ruled and said it was wrong. The people then need to fix the laws by electing people who would follow the constitution and change those laws that are in violation.

Now do I think this is the best idea? I really don't know. There are risks and I am afraid of those too. But I think the court is currently writing law. The biggest threat to our nation today is the corrupt ruling of Citizens United. No where anywhere in the constitution does it give constitutional rights to artificial entities (corporations and such) Not to mention Thomas taking bribes from people he was ruling on.

[Ronin13]

You have a problem with braless young women?

I do... when they hang down to the waistline!

[MED]

...
I think what the founders intended was for the court to make rulings that were not binding. Meaning they ruled and said it was wrong. The people then need to fix the laws by electing people who would follow the constitution and change those laws that are in violation.

Good Luck! There hasn't been such individuals since the days of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.