March 25, 2013, 01:33 PM
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Originally Posted by Boomer58cal
My only plans are peaceful...
Then I might suggest that you will want to work a bit harder to understand how the legal and political system actually work. I understand your opinions, and no doubt those opinions guide you in your political activities. But --
- The meaning an application of the Constitution are still matters for the federal courts.
- Most of the time people object to the way the system is working it seems to be primarily because they aren't getting what they want. But we live in a pluralistic Republic, and not everyone agrees that things ought to be the way you want them to be.
- Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests.
- There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the pubic Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.
- Most of the time when folks call a decision of a court a bad decision, it isn't really because it didn't comport with the law and precedent. Most people tend to think a court decision is a bad decision because it did not achieve the result they wanted.
- And sometimes when the law as applied by a court doesn't achieve a satisfactory result, a legislature can change the law -- checks and balances at work.
- Recently there was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.
- The Founding Fathers left us an amazing legacy -- The Constitution of the United States of America. And from the Constitution, we can infer that they intended us to have, among other things:
- A system of checks and balances achieved through a separation of powers among the Congress (legislative), the President (executive) and the Courts (judicial);
- Of these three branches of government, the legislative was most directly subject to the influence of the body politic, and the judicial was the least subject to the direct influence of the body politic;
- Judicial power vested in a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress might establish, and this judicial power would extend to all cases arising under, among other things, the Constitution and the laws of the United States;
- A Constitution that could be changed, albeit with difficulty.
- Do I think that Congress has always enacted wise laws, and that decisions of the courts have always been wise and just, and that our public policy is always wise? Of course I don't. I personally favor more freedom and less government (both federal and state) intrusion. But does everyone who has a voice in how things work and who gets elected to office agree with me? Of course not? Our Founders also left us a system that allows us to try to hash out those differences.
- But the reality is that nobody is going to be completely happy all the time about the way things are.
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper