bvm Loc: Glendale, Arizona

Most of them can't get their heads out of their own derrières !

Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.

Anybody but Hillary.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

No, it would not take them out of the court, they would make their ruling that would only have to be ratified if it changed the status quo, I am uncertain if you read the posts that I made on another thread, but my argument stems from two facts that most people don't realize or never think of. The framers were very careful to put checks and balances into our system, for instance, the legislature controls funding and budgets, writes our legislation and has oversight of the executive branch, the executive carries out the application of the legislation and also has veto power over congress, one can impede the other if one branch thinks that the other is veering off course or vise versa, the court system was set up to try those of breaking our laws and to preside over civil disputes, there was a check placed on lower courts via the appeals process as a case moved its way through the higher courts with the supreme court having the final say on a lower court's ruling, but nowhere in our constitution did the framers authorize the Supreme Court to change the meaning of our constitution or to give it meaning that was not originally expressed in the simple language of our constitution, this power was actually assumed by the court in Malbury v Madison, that was the first case where the court deciphered on its own terms the intent of our constitution. The actual mechanism in the constitution for such change in meaning, intent, or for new clauses is the amendment process which requires ratification of the state legislatures. In modern America we have abandoned the amendment process in favor of the Court as I have already pointed out because this role was never intended for the court, no check on its power was placed in our constitution as there is in the other two branches, if the president does not like a law he vetoes it, if congress does not like what a president is doing they either withdraw funding or they write laws to curtail what the executive is doing, and then with both branches the people have the power to vote politicians, members of congress and president out of office. With the court there is no check and balance, there is no redress, there is no ability to vote them out of office for the American people, their word is final and there is no further redress for the executive, the congress, or the American people as these are life time appointments. I am suggesting that changes to our constitution were intended to be ratified by the states and since the court has without constitutional authority taken this role on to itself, then at least their rulings that change the status quo, the accepted meaning of our constitution, then those rulings should be ratified by the states to become valid. I am just asking that the same consideration be placed on the court that is required for the only process authorized by our constitution to change to our constitution.

ArtzDarkroom Loc: Near Disneyland-Orange County, California

Let's take the "Gay Marriage" ruling as an example. When the SCOTUS in June? ruled the way they did, gay marriages were legal immediately. In California couples were married within hours of the ruling. You are suggesting that State governments will need to say it is okay. I guess at least 26 states must concur, before it become the law of the land. That would definitely have delayed those marriages, but is that okay?

Is it your contention that a ruling which because of its interpretation of the Constitution should be approved across the nation by all the states as if it were an Amendment? If so, I would not support that. The members of SCOTUS are life appointees, approved by Congress in order to be free of the vagaries of politics. I will admit that the recent passing of a judge, whose seat is still open, brings to question whether or not the Judges are free from outside influence peddling. I would like that to be fixed.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Yes, that is what I am saying, so where in the constitution does the court find its authority to change the meaning of our constitution? If you can answer that question I would be interested in reading it because I have read the constitution more than once and have not found that authority. The framers made change to our constitution difficult but certainly not impossible, they did so I think so that brief political periods and whims could not change the country's charter and founding ideals in a fleeting manner, they also required a super majority of the states to affirm any change to the constitution because the document is just that important that change required more than a simple majority for passage. The court, if you study history you will see that I am correct in this, took an opportunity in Malbury V Madison to usurp that power for itself, the framers never granted the court such power, and if change required a super majority of the states to ratify, how can it be that 9 individuals have been allowed the authority to do so by themselves, with no recourse for the states or the citizens of our country to object or overrule the courts political and social meddling, not to mention the disruption of power distribution within our governments. I am suggesting that as rulings are presented at the end of a session that the states must take up the rulings in their legislatures for ratification, that they be given a specific time period to do so, let's say 12 months. As it currently stands we have 9 lifetime appointed judges, who never have to face the people in election who can pretty much determine that the constitution means whatever they decide it means and this has been demonstrated in several rulings.... I am saying that this was never intended, and if we are not going to correct it by using the amendment process then we should at least have court rulings ratified.... Just think maybe Citizen's United would have never stood the scrutiny of the states. Gays had to wait years to be married, a few more months would not have been so tough, look at all the distrust of our federal government and the distrust of the political bias of the Justices by the public, a ratification process would go a long way to restore faith in the integrity of the court.

ArtzDarkroom Loc: Near Disneyland-Orange County, California

"I'm no..."Constitutional Lawyer and I am certainly not competent enough to argue with you over this issue. Let's say you are 100% correct. Why do you suppose it isn't working your way? More importantly, it seems to me that you can say it is wrong and shouldn't be this way and I think that would be like, Spitting into the Wind.
You will not be able to change things starting from where you think they SHOULD be. One makes change by understanding how things ARE and figures out a way to begin the incremental changes to reach the goal. One must resign themselves to the possibility that it will not be completed in their lifetime. Is that the kind of commitment you have?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

It is an academic argument, once power is given to the federal government or one of its bureaucracies it is forever lost to the states and the people. If you were to read the constitution it is as president Obama once said, document of negative charters, it limits the power of the federal government, yet today one would be hard pressed to find areas of our economy or our society that do not fall under some sort of federal control, it was the court that has enabled this usurpation of power to the point that the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", has virtually no meaning. The court did this and much more without asking for the approval of the States or the people as it did so, the constitution demands such approval for significant change such as this.

Art, mine is one of 10s of millions of voices that our government has no interest in hearing.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Blurryeyed wrote "Art, mine is one of 10s of millions of voices that our government has no interest in hearing."


I'm not sure I have ever read truer words on this site!

ArtzDarkroom Loc: Near Disneyland-Orange County, California

"10's of millions..." out of 330 million is not quite enough to get your position enforced if a SuperMajority is needed. I guess that makes you a Minority. Welcome to the club compadre. lol

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Kinda a naive statement......how many blacks do you think are in the U.S.? How many LBGTs?

10s of millions can have a loud voice if they're unified.

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

You might want to factor this in. Unless that is, you are too intent of ridding the country of that evil NRA! Then you could go after Franklin Graham for heresy! Have fun Art!

http://www.infowars.com/islamic-speaker-admits-killing-gays-is-a-belief-held-by-moderate-muslims/

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

Felonious FACIST TRAITOROUS LYING CRIMINAL FAT ASS Hag vs Facist Blowhard

Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.

The rep's may dump Trump. But who else do they have to put up that the people will support?? So far I hear of no other front runner that's willing to take him on. He has a lot of support from both sides. Anybody with any common sense surly don't want Hillary running the country.

ArtzDarkroom Loc: Near Disneyland-Orange County, California

There you go. You have found the solution.

ArtzDarkroom Loc: Near Disneyland-Orange County, California

There were 16 other candidates on the GOP slate before. One of them? If the GOP picks somebody, they will have the support, financial support of the Party. That should be helpful. Are you saying NOBODY from the GOP can beat him?